PRACTICAL

HOLINESS
AA SECOND
SECOND LOOK
LOOK
 V O L U M E 4

PRACTICAL
HOLINESS
AA SECOND
SECOND LOOK
LOOK
A study of the victorious Christian life:
pursuing holiness inwardly and outwardly,
avoiding legalism, protecting Christian
liberty, and applying scriptural principles
to everyday situations.

DAVID K. BERNARD
PRACTICAL HOLINESS:
A SECOND LOOK
Series in Pentecostal Theology,
Volume IV
©1985 David K. Bernard
Printing history: 1988, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997

Cover Design by Paul Povolni

All Scripture quotations in this book are from the King James Version of the
Bible unless otherwise identified. Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are from
the Holy Bible, New International Version. Copyright (c) 1973, 1978, Interna-
tional Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers. Scrip-
tural quotations marked (NKJV) are from The Holy Bible, New King James
Version copyright ©1984 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission of
Thomas Nelson Publishers.

All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

an electronic system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission
of David K. Bernard. Brief quotations may be used in literary reviews.
.
Printed in United States of America.

Printed by

Bernard, David K., 1956-

Practical holiness: a second look / by David K. Bernard.—
Hazelwood, Mo.: Word Aflame Press, c1985.
334 p.; 21 cm. — (Series in Pentecostal theology; v. 4)
Bibliography; p. 329-334.
ISBN 0-912315-91-1 (pbk.)
1. Holiness. 2. Christian life—Pentecostal authors. I. Title.
II. Series: Bernard, David K., 1956- Series in Pentecostal theology; v. 4
BT767.B47 1985 248.4'899—dc 19 86-119761
AACR 2 MARC
Library of Congress
 To Pastor and Mrs. Thomas L. Craft,
the First Pentecostal Church of Jackson,
Mississippi, and the faculty, staff, and student body of
Jackson College of Ministries for creating the spiritual
environment that made this book possible.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

AUTHOR’S PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1. THE CHRISTIAN AND SIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

The sinful nature. Power over the sinful nature. We
must not sin. If we sin, we must repent. Assurance of
salvation. What is sin? Sin and grace.

2. GENERAL HOLINESS PRINCIPLES . . . . . . . . . 31

Definition of holiness. Following holiness requires
personal effort. A daily walk. A continual growth
process. Two kinds of holiness standards. Spiritual
fruit. Self-discipline. Overcoming sin: a practical
approach. Excerpts from Holiness by J. C. Ryle.
Practical applications today. Retaliation. Greed and
materialism. Prejudice. Conclusion.

3. THE DANGERS OF LEGALISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Legalism defined. Legalism condemned. Self-right-
eous reliance on works for salvation. Failure to
develop inward holiness. Failure to develop a mature
understanding of principles. Living by minimum
requirements and loopholes. Hypocrisy and incon-
sistency. Man-made rules. Misapplication of prin-
ciples. Difficulty in maintaining the system.
Judgmental and condemnatory attitude. The legalism

7
 of the Pharisees. Improper alternatives to legalism.
The importance of moral law. God’s nature: holiness
and love. Receiving the Holy Spirit. Faith. Love.
Conclusion.

4. CHRISTIAN LIBERTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Freedom from sin. Freedom from the law. Freedom
in non-moral matters. We must always obey God’s
Word. Guidelines for proper use of Christian liberty.
Tolerance but not compromise. Legalism, liberty, and
church standards. Legalism, liberty, and teaching.
Contemporary non-moral issues. Conclusion.

5. PRACTICAL HOLINESS
IN CHURCH HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
The early church fathers. The middle ages. Luther
and the Protestant Reformation. The Anabaptists.
John Calvin and the Reformed. The Puritans. The
Anglicans. The Quakers. The Pietists. The Baptists.
John Wesley and the Methodists. The Holiness move-
ment. The Pentecostals. 20th century changes. Non-
Christian religions. Conclusion.

6. TELEVISION AND MOVIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Biblical foundation. Additional findings. Taming the
TV Habit. Book Burning. Movies. Teaching in early
church history. Teaching in later church history.
Home video. Conclusion.

8
 7. SCRIPTURAL TEACHING
ON ADORNMENT AND DRESS . . . . . . . . . . 155
Biblical foundation. The spiritual significance of
dress. Dress and Christian values. Detrimental
effects of unholy dress. Biblical examples: immodes-
ty. Biblical examples: makeup. Biblical examples:
jewelry. Application: sex distinction in dress.
Application: Modesty of dress. Application: adorn-
ment. Rings. Objections to Deuteronomy 22:5.
Objections in favor of makeup. Objections in favor of
jewelry.

8. HISTORICAL TEACHING
ON ADORNMENT AND DRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Clement of Alexandria. Tertullian. Other teaching in
early church history. Teaching in later church history.
John Wesley. The 20th century. Conclusion.

9. HAIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Biblical foundation. I Corinthians 11: long hair as a
covering. I Corinthians 11: a literal veil? A universal
teaching. The teaching of nature. The teaching of
other scriptural passages. Men’s hair and the
Nazarite vow. Miscellaneous objections. Teaching in
church history.

10. STEWARDSHIP OF THE BODY . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Biblical foundation. Alcohol. Tobacco. Marijuana.
Prescription drugs. Caffeine. Objections to total
abstinence. Teaching in early church history.
Teaching in later church history. Conclusion.

9
11. THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Biblical foundation. The problem today. The Chris-
tian husband. The Christian wife. The sexual rela-
tionship within marriage. Birth control. Divorce: Old
Testament teaching. Divorce: the teaching of Jesus.
The “exception” clause. The restrictive nature of the
it exception” clause. Divorce: the teaching of Paul.
Remarriage. Conclusion regarding divorce and
remarriage. Teaching in church history. Divorce
today.

12. THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE . . . . . . . . . 275

Biblical foundation. Killing in warfare and self
defense. Israel’s wars. Defense of country. Defense of
self and family. Bearing arms. Capital punishment.
Abortion and the Scriptures. Medical evidence on the
unborn child. Abortion methods. Are some abortions
justifiable? Teaching in church history: war. Teaching
in church history: abortion. Conclusion.

13. ASTROLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

Definition. Scriptural teaching against astrology.
False science. There is no “godly” astrology. Teaching
in church history. Conclusion.

14. WORLDLY AMUSEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

Scriptural concepts. Worldly appearance. Worldly
atmosphere. Inherently worldly amusements.
Practical application. Gambling. Rice’s Amusements
for Christians. Teaching in church history.
Conclusion.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
SUBJECT INDEX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
SCRIPTURE INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
10
 Author’s Preface
I am convinced that there is both a great need and a
great hunger today for teaching on practical holiness. As
of this writing, over 17,600 copies of In Search of
Holiness have been printed. It has been well received by
new converts, charismatics, independent congregations,
and people outside the traditional Holiness-Pentecostal
movement. This indicates that in many places there is a
genuine desire for scriptural holiness. I believe that we
can see in our day a revival of holiness to accompany the
revival of the Holy Spirit.
Why another book on holiness? Certainly, no one book
can exhaust this rich subject; in many ways the first book
was simply an introduction. Specifically, the present book
has been designed with several additional purposes in
mind: (1) To investigate the theology of holiness further,
considering such topics as the sinful nature, legalism, and
Christian liberty. (2) To provide historical perspectives on
practical holiness issues. (3) To delve deeper into a num-
ber of topics, such as adornment and dress, hair, marriage
and divorce, abortion, and astrology. (4) To present addi-
tional research in some areas, such as television, alcohol,
tobacco, and drugs. (5) To answer numerous objections
raised to practical holiness teaching.
Although in many ways this book is a sequel to In
Search of Holiness, it can be read by itself. To facilitate
this, Chapter 2 includes a brief summary of basic prin-
ciples discussed in the first book. Whenever a chapter
depends significantly on material covered in the previous
book, that material is summarized and presented at the
beginning of the chapter.

11
 All biblical quotations are taken from the King James
Version, unless otherwise indicated. The following ab-
breviations are used: KJV for King James Version, NKJV
for New King James Version, and NIV for New Interna-
tional Version.
I am especially thankful to my wife Connie for her
patience and faithful support throughout the writing
process.
I trust that the reader will study this book with an
open mind, an open heart, and an open Bible. It is not my
intention to be legalistic, critical, condemnatory, or divi-
sive in any way. Rather, my desire is simply to contribute
to the enunciation of a consistent, biblical theology of
holiness. I am striving to implement these principles in
my life, and trust that I can assist others also in “perfect-
ing holiness in the fear of God.”

David K. Bernard

Jackson, Mississippi

12
 1
THE CHRISTIAN
AND SIN
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of
God” (Romans 3:23).
“My little children, these things write I unto you, that
ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with
the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (I John 2:1).
The Bible calls followers of Christ to a life of holiness.
In order to obey this biblical command, however, we must
first understand the relationship between the human
nature and sin. This chapter investigates sin’s power with
respect to the human race and particularly with respect to
the born-again Christian. This will form a basis for our
subsequent discussion of the principles of holiness.

The Sinful Nature

The Bible emphatically declares that every human

being has sinned. In chapters 1, 2, and 3 of Romans, Paul

13
demonstrated that all mankind is guilty before God. He
concluded, “We have . . . proved both Jews and Gentiles,
that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none
righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth,
there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone
out of the way, they are together become unprofitable:
there is none that doeth good, no, not one. . . . For all
have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”
(Romans 3:9-12, 23). The Apostle John stated, “If we say
that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word
is not in us” (I John 1:10). Even the Old Testament
affirms, “There is no man that sinneth not” (I Kings 8:46;
II Chronicles 6:36).
Sinful acts arise from the nature of sin that all human
beings inherit as a result of the sin of Adam, the first rep-
resentative of the human race. This sinful nature is also
known as the flesh or the carnal man. “Behold, I was
shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me”
(Psalm 51:5). “The heart is deceitful above all things, and
desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9).
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for
that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12).
The penalty for sin is death, but just as we were led
into sin and death by one man, Adam, so we can receive
forgiveness and life through one man, Christ. “For as by
one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by
the obedience of one shall many be made righteous”
(Romans 5:19). “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ
shall all be made alive” (I Corinthians 15:22).
Even after the new birth, we still possess the sin prin-
ciple or the sin nature. “This I say then, Walk in the Spirit,

14
and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh
lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh:
and these are contrary the one to the other” (Galatians
5:16-17). “Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The
spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?” (James 4:5). “If
we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the
truth is not in us” (I John 1:8).
The sinful nature consists of a compulsion to commit
sinful acts. It is more than a capacity to sin, such as Adam
had in his state of innocence, for if we let the sinful nature
lead us it will always cause us to sin (Galatians 5:17).
In Romans 7, Paul taught that neither the law of God
nor the law of the mind brings power over the law of sin.
That is, neither God’s moral law nor the good intentions
of the human mind impart power to overcome the princi-
ple of sin that impels humans to sin. “We know that the
law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.
I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do
not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want
to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer
I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that
nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For
I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it
out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil
I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do
what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but
it is sin living in me that does it.
“So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil
is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in
God’s law; but I see another law at work in the members of
my body, waging war against the law of my mind and
making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my

15
members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me
from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through
Jesus Christ our Lord!
“So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law,
but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin” (Romans
7:21-25, NIV).
Many debate as to whether this chapter applies to the
unregenerate or to the regenerate. Possibly, it refers to
Paul before his conversion. Alternatively, it is Paul’s
description of his carnal nature only—what his flesh is
like if left to itself. In any case, the passage describes the
failure of a good, sincere person who tries to live for God
without relying on the power of the Spirit. As such, it
applies to anyone, either regenerate or unregenerate,
who tries to live a holy life by his own human power and
by mere obedience to law. Thus, it describes a constant
threat to the Christian: if he relies on the flesh, he will
always fail and revert to sin.
Romans 7 does not represent the norm for Christian
living; we find that in Romans 6 and 8. In 7:24 Paul asked
who could deliver from the bondage of the sinful nature. In
7:25 he interjected a thanksgiving to God as he reflected
on the answer, then concluded the chapter by summarizing
the power of the sinful nature. In Romans 8 he gave the
answer to the dilemma posed in chapter 7: through the law
of the Spirit we can overcome the law of sin.
F. F. Bruce explained it well in The Tyndale New Testa-
ment Commentaries: “The inability persists only so long
as ‘I myself’—that is, I in my own strength—fight the bat-
tle, . . .‘I myself’ (autos ego) is emphatic: it is ‘I by myself
who experience this defeat and frustration, but ‘I’ as a
Christian, am not left to ‘myself’: ‘the law of the Spirit of

16
life in Christ Jesus’ has come to dwell within me, and His
presence and power make an almighty difference.”1
Similarly, when Paul stated “ye cannot do the things that
ye would” in Galatians 5:17, he meant this is true only as
long as we follow the flesh. According to verses 16, 18,
and 22, if we follow the Spirit we can indeed override the
lusts and works of the flesh.

Power Over the Sinful Nature

Although the principle of sin remains in the born-again

believer, he can overcome it through the power of the
Spirit. Romans 6 states in emphatic terms that the Chris-
tian should not sin. Romans 7 warns that the Christian
cannot obey this command by depending on the law, his
mind, or his flesh (sinful nature). Chapter 8 explains that
the Christian can fulfil this command only by walking
after the Spirit instead of the flesh.
The law of the Spirit does not destroy the law of sin
but overcomes it. Let us draw an analogy from the in-
fluence of gravity upon a flying bird. As long as the bird
flaps its wings, the law of aerodynamics enables it to
supercede the law of gravity and it stays aloft. Gravity has
not been destroyed, however. If the bird folds its wings,
gravity reasserts itself and the bird plunges back to the
ground. Likewise, the born-again Christian can live above
sin because the law of the Spirit in him supercedes the
law of sin in him. However, if he does not walk after the
Spirit, the law of sin, which has not yet been destroyed,
will reassert itself and drag him back into sin.
Certainly, Christians receive power over the sinful

17
nature, for Jesus came to save from sin (Matthew 1:21).
If we are not delivered from bondage to sin at conversion,
how are we saved in the past and present tenses as the
Bible states?
As born-again believers we now have freedom from
sin—the power to choose not to sin. “Whosoever
committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant
abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth
ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be
free indeed” (John 8:34-36). “Our old man is crucified
with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that
henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead
is freed from sin. . . . Likewise reckon ye also yourselves
to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through
Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your
mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unright-
eousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God . . . For
sin shall not have dominion over you . . . But God be
thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have
obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was
delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became
the servants of righteousness. . . . But now being made
free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your
fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life’ (Romans
6:6-7, 11-14, 17-18, 22).
Romans 6 reveals a threefold approach to overcoming
sin: (1) Know who we are and what has happened to us.
Know that when we were born again we died to sin. Know,
therefore that sin has no power over us. (2) Reckon this
to be so. Act as if we died to sin and sin has no power over
us. (3) Yield to God. Replace sinful habits with an active

18
performance of God’s will as revealed by His Word and
His Spirit. Let us analyze these concepts further.
At the new birth, the old man actually died, that is, we
died to sin. In this passage, the old man does not mean
the sinful human nature itself but the unregenerate
lifestyle or the dominion of sin. God did not eradicate the
sinful nature at conversion, but He destroyed the domin-
ion or reign of sin over us. If we as Christians now sin, it
is because we choose to sin, not because we are forced to
do so. If we sin we voluntarily submit to a principle with
no legal or actual power over us. We must recognize the
truth of our liberation and act upon it. We must count
ourselves as indeed dead to sin but alive to God. As Jerry
Bridges of the Navigators explained, “Now that we are in
fact dead to sin—to its rule and reign—we are to count on
that as being true. We are to keep before us this fact that
we are no longer slaves. We can now stand up to sin and
say no to it. Before we had no choice; now we have one.
When we sin as Christians, we do not sin as slaves, but as
individuals with the freedom of choice. We sin because we
choose to sin.”2
The Holy Spirit gives us power to live righteously and
to be living witnesses that God has indeed saved us from
sin. “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost
is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me”
(Acts 1:8). “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus
hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For
what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the
flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the
righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Romans 8:2-4).

19
“Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the
flesh” (Galatians 5:16). “For God did not call us to be
impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects
this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives
you his Holy Spirit” (I Thessalonians 4:7-8, NIV). By
allowing the Spirit of God to work in us we can put away
evil works, do God’s will, and bear righteous fruit
(Galatians 5:16-25; Ephesians 4:21-24; Philippians 2:13).
Bruce has commented: “Christian holiness is not a
matter of painstaking conformity to the individual pre-
cepts of an external law-code; it is rather a question of
the Holy Spirit’s producing His fruit in the life, repro-
ducing those graces which were seen in perfection in the
life of Christ. The law prescribed a life of holiness, but it
was powerless to produce such a life, because of the
inadequacy of the human material that it had to work
upon. But what the law was powerless to do has been
done by God. . . . All that the law required by way of
conformity to the will of God is now realized in the lives
of those who are controlled by the Holy Spirit and are
released from their servitude to the old order. God’s com-
mands have now become God’s enablings.”3
The born-again Christian will not continue to live in
sin, and in fact his newly given nature cannot sin.
“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his
seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is
born of God” (I John 3:9). The Christian still has the
capacity to sin, as John noted in chapters I and 2 of his
epistle, but the born-again nature restrains him from
habitually committing sin. As long as he lets the Spirit
lead him he will not sin.

20
 We Must Not Sin

Since the Christian has power over sin he should not

sin. “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that
grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are
dead to sin, live any longer therein? . . . What then? shall
we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace?
God forbid” (Romans 6:1-2, 15). “My little children, these
things write I unto you, that ye sin not” (I John 2:1). The
Spirit gives us the ability to live an obedient life, but it is
our responsibility to make use of this power. Bridges
noted, “To confuse the potential for resisting (which God
provided) with the responsibility for resisting (which is
ours) is to court disaster in our pursuit of holiness.”4
In fact, if the Christian continues to live in sin or
allows unrepented sin to remain in his life, he will not
inherit salvation in the life to come. By his sinful, faithless
lifestyle he will lose the salvation he received by his pre-
vious repentance and faith. The following points amply
demonstrate this truth.
•The true test of whether or not we know God, have the
love of God, and abide in God is whether or not we keep
God’s commandments and live a Christ-like life (I John
2:3-6).
•Those who are led by the Spirit are (remain) the
sons of God (Romans 8:14). The child of God who rebels
against God’s authority is not “unborn” but God will dis-
own and disinherit him.
•True religion means to keep oneself unspotted from
the world (James 1:27), and God will have a spotless
church (Ephesians 5:27).
•We must overcome temptation, sin, and the things of

21
this world in order to receive an eternal reward (Revela-
tion 2:1-29; 3:1-22; 21:7).
•We must cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of flesh
and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God (II Cor-
inthians 7:1).
•We must follow holiness in order to see the Lord
(Hebrews 12:14; I Peter 1:15-16).
•Jesus Christ lived an innocent, sinless life as an
example for us to emulate (I Peter 2:21-24). We have
Christ in us to reproduce His life in us (Galatians 2:20;
Colossians 1:27).
•We have confidence towards God only if our hearts
do not condemn us (I John 3:21). We have confidence if
we keep His commandments and do His will (I John
3:22). If we have unrepented sin in our lives our hearts
are full of condemnation and guilt.
•A Christian with specific unrepented sin in his life
cannot inherit the kingdom of God and eternal life (I Cor-
inthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21; I John 3:15;
Revelation 21:8).
•A born-again person must continue to walk by faith,
which includes obeying the Word of God, in order to
receive salvation in the end. “For therein is the righteous-
ness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written,
The just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:17). “For if ye live
after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do
mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live” (Romans
8:13). “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of
God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, good-
ness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also
shalt be cut off’ (Romans 11:22). “Take heed unto thyself,
and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this

22
thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee”
(I Timothy 4:16). “For we are made partakers of Christ, if
we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the
end” (Hebrews 3:14). “Let us labour therefore to enter
into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of
unbelief” (Hebrews 4:11). (See also Matthew 10:22; I Cor-
inthians 9:27; 15:2; Philippians 2:12; I Thessalonians 5:8;
II Peter 1:10).
•A child of God will lose his salvation if he allows
unrepented sin and unbelief to remain in his life when the
Lord comes for him. “Having damnation, because they
have cast off their first faith” (I Timothy 5:12). “Now the
just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul
shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who
draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the
saving of the soul” (Hebrews 10:38-39). “Brethren, if any
of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let
him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the
error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall
hide a multitude of sins” (James 5:19-20). “For if after
they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the
knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are
again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is
worse with them than the beginning. For it had been bet-
ter for them not to have known the way of righteousness,
than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy com-
mandment delivered unto them” (II Peter 2:20-21). (See
also Galatians 5:4; Hebrews 6:4-6; 12:15; II Peter 2:1;
Revelation 3:5; 22:19.) Prominent examples of unrepent-
ant backsliders in Scripture are Saul (I Samuel 16:14;
18:12; 28:16), Judas (Acts 1:15-20, 25; Psalm 69:25,
28), Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11), and Demas

23
(Philemon 24; II Timothy 4:10).
•Although nothing can separate us from God (John
10:28-29; Romans 8:35-39), we ourselves can choose to
leave Him just as we chose to come to Him. We determine
whether or not we will abide (remain) in Him (John
15:1-10).
•When a Christian sins he has allowed the sinful
nature and the devil to provide leadership. God does not
tempt anyone to sin, and sin is not of God (James 1:13).
Someone who sins is the servant of sin and the devil
(John 8:34; Romans 6:16; I John 3:8). This can be either
a temporary or a permanent situation.
•Simply stated, the Christian has two choices: he can
walk after the flesh, which leads to sin and death, or he
can walk after the Spirit, which leads to righteousness
and eternal life (Romans 8:5-14; Galatians 5:16-25).
When Paul admonished believers not to continue in sin,
he reminded them, “For the wages of sin is death; but the
gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”
(Romans 6:23).

If We Sin, We Must Repent

Even though a Christian should not sin, if he does sin

he can obtain forgiveness by repentance. The one thing
worse than sin is a refusal to confess sin. God can save a
sinner, but He will not save one who refuses to confess
sin. “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father,
Jesus Christ the righteous” (I John 2:1). “If we confess
our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and
to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (I John 1:9).

24
 Prior righteousness will not cover that sin. “When the
righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and com-
mitteth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abomina-
tions that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his
righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned:
in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that
he hath sinned, in them shall he die” (Ezekiel 18:24).
Nor does the grace of God automatically cover that sin
in the absence of genuine repentance (Romans 6:1-2,
15-16, 23). The Lord specifically requires repentance of
Christians who commit sin: “Remember therefore from
whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works;
or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy
candlestick out of his place, except thou repent” (Revela-
tion 2:5). (See also Revelation 2:16; 2:21-22; 3:3-5; 3:19.)
If a person sincerely lives for God, commission of sin
will be at most a temporary lapse and an aberration.
When a consecrated Christian temporarily falls into sin,
usually he has immediately a repentant heart and will
receive instant forgiveness. Of course, repentance
includes godly sorrow and regret for what has been done
as well as a present desire and intention not to commit
that sin again (Proverbs 28:13; II Corinthians 7:10).
When a Christian does sin, the Bible indicates that, in
general, God gives opportunity and time for repentance
(Romans 2:4; II Peter 3:9; Revelation 2:21).
The Bible also teaches that backsliders can be restored
(James 5:19-20; II Peter 3:9; Revelation 2:15). Passages
such as Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-31 do not contradict
this truth, but teach the following: (1) If we reject the
atoning death of Christ, there is no other way of salvation.
(2) A backslider can harden his heart so much, go so far

25
into delusion, or deny the work of the Spirit to the point
that God can no longer deal with him, and he cannot be
saved while in that condition.

Assurance of Salvation

We need not live in fear of condemnation for sin com-

mitted unknowingly. No sin is committed totally by acci-
dent. James 4:17 says that a knowing failure to do good
is sin. This implies that in some cases we are not account-
able for things left undone in ignorance; however, ignor-
ance is no excuse when God’s Word addresses an issue.
We should pray for God to reveal the hidden things in our
lives that are not pleasing to Him, and He will do so
(Psalm 19:12-13; 139:23-24). If we will remain sensitive
to the Spirit of God, He will teach us and convict us of sin
(John 16:8, 13).
We can have assurance of salvation. We can know
with certainty that we are saved (Romans 8:14-16). We
can also know with certainty that we will inherit eternal
life if we continue to have faith in Christ and love for God
(Romans 5:8-11; 8:28-39). As long as we abide in Christ,
nothing can separate us from Him or cause us to lose sal-
vation (John 15:1-10; Romans 8:35-39).

What is Sin?

Sin is both a nature and an act. As already described

in this chapter, the sinful nature is an inherited compul-
sion to sin that only the Spirit of God can overcome. The

26
Bible defines sinful acts in at least three ways:
(1) “Sin is the transgression of the law” (I John 3:4).
All disobedience of God’s commandments is sin, whether
by commission or omission.
(2) “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Romans
14:23). Anything incompatible with faith in God is sin. If
we believe something is wrong or have doubts about it,
but do it anyway, then we have gone against what we
believe to be the will of God. In other words, we manifest
a willingness to rebel against God. This attitude is sinful.
Even if the act is not wrong for someone else, it becomes
wrong for us because it violates our conscience and con-
tradicts the faith principle.
(3) “To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not,
to him it is sin” (James 4:17). This apparently refers to a
choice between morality and immorality, or a choice
between obeying and disobeying one of God’s commands.
Not every failure to do a good deed or the best thing in a
given situation is sin (I Corinthians 7:26-28).
Temptation is not sin, for Christ was tempted but did
not sin (Matthew 4:1-11). It will produce sin only if we
entertain it and yield to it, either mentally or physically
(James 1:12-16).
Not every mistake, fault, or personality flaw is a moral
sin, even though we sometimes label them as “sins.” We
should seek to improve in these areas, ask God to help
and forgive us, and ask others to forgive; but these things
are not always immoral or sinful. For example, Paul asked
forgiveness from the Corinthians if his refusal to take
support from them was not proper (II Corinthians 12:13).
Other examples could be rudeness, oversleeping, habitu-
al lateness, and insensitivity at a particular time.

27
 Sin and Grace

Grace provides forgiveness for all repented sin. It

does not provide forgiveness for unrepented sin. In other
words, grace makes forgiveness available for sins com-
mitted after the new birth, but only upon repentance.
After the new birth, grace gives us both the desire and
the power to do God’s will and live a holy life (Philippians
2:13). It is not a means by which God overlooks sin in the
life of a “helpless” Christian; it does not let us continue in
sin (Romans 6:1-2, 15-16). In fact, grace teaches us to
deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly,
righteously, and godly in this present world (Titus
2:11-12).
God’s gracious salvation is a cure for all the evils of
sin. Grace deals with both the sinful act and the sinful
nature. It does not merely cover up sin, but enables the
repented man first to avoid sin’s penalty and then to start
a whole new life free from sin’s dominion. The same
grace that reaches back to forgive past sin also reaches
forward to prevent and overcome future sin.
In conclusion, here are two basic guidelines for Chris-
tian living: (1) We must not sin; (2) If we do sin, we must
confess it to God and continue serving Him from that
point. God’s gracious salvation provides both forgiveness
of sin and power to live a holy life.

28
 FOOTNOTES

1
F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, Vol. VI of The
Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, R. V. G. Masker (ed.) (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), pp. 153, 156.
2
Jerry Bridges, The Pursuit of Holiness (Colorado Springs:
Nav-Press, 1978), p. 60.
3
Bruce, p. 160. Emphasis ours.
4
Bridges, p. 60. Emphasis in original.

29
 2
GENERAL HOLINESS
PRINCIPLES
“Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without
which no man shall see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14).
The new birth is the initial experience of salvation,
but the work of salvation does not end there. God calls
the Christian to a continued life of holiness. It is impera-
tive for the born-again believer to experience the con-
tinuing work of sanctification, which comes by daily
submission to the leadership and control of the Holy
Spirit. Just as we must be born again to see the kingdom
of God (John 3:3-5), so must we follow holiness or sanc-
tification in order to see the Lord. (See Hebrews 12:14.)
“Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be
holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews
12:14, NIV). “Follow peace with all men, and the sanc-
tification, without which no man shall see the Lord”
(Hebrews 12:14, American Standard Version). The new
birth will have no eternal value unless the born-again

31
person continues to walk by faith and live after the new
nature of the Spirit, allowing God to complete the work of
salvation that began at the new birth.
This chapter presents in condensed form the basic
principles of holiness. It also summarizes some of the
main points of In Search of Holiness in order to lay a
foundation for the remainder of this book.

Definition of Holiness

God is holy; holiness is an essential attribute of His

nature. With respect to Him, it means absolute purity and
moral perfection. With respect to man, holiness means
conformity to the character of God. We must be holy
because God is holy (I Peter 1:15-16). It means thinking
as God thinks, loving what He loves, hating what He
hates, and acting as Christ would act.
Specifically, holiness consists of two components: (1)
separation from sin and worldliness and (2) dedication
to God and His will. “Wherefore come out from among
them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not
the unclean thing: and I will receive you, And will be a
Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters,
saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises,
dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness
of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of
God” (II Corinthians 6:17-7:1). “I beseech you therefore,
brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your
bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which
is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this
world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your

32
mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and accept-
able, and perfect will of God” (Romans 12:1-2). The truth
of Christ is “that ye put off, concerning your former con-
duct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the
deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind,
and that you put on the new man which was created ac-
cording to God, in righteousness and true holiness”
(Ephesians 4:22-24, NKJV).
Holiness means we cannot love this ungodly world
system, identify with it, become attached to the things in
it, or participate in its sinful pleasures and activities.
“Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity
with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the
world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4). “Love not the
world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man
love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all
that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of
the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is
of the world” (I John 2:15-16). One important aspect of
pure and undefiled religion is for a person to keep himself
unspotted from the world (James 1:27).
Holiness involves both the inner man and the outer
man (I Corinthians 6:19-20; I Thessalonians 5:23). We
must perfect holiness by cleansing ourselves of filthiness
both of the flesh and of the spirit (II Corinthians 7:1). For
example, lustful thoughts are as sinful as an act of adul-
tery (Matthew 5:27-28), and hatred is just as sinful as
murder (I John 3:15). Holiness, then, includes attitudes,
thoughts, and spiritual stewardship on the one hand and
actions, appearance, and physical stewardship on the
other. One without the other is insufficient. Inward holi-
ness will produce outward holiness, but the outward

33
appearance of holiness is worthless without inward holi-
ness. For example, a modest spirit will produce modest
dress, but modest dress is of little value if it conceals a
lustful heart.
Holiness or sanctification is not a means of earning
salvation but a result of salvation. As such, it comes by
grace through faith. Holiness cannot be manufactured by
works of the flesh but must come as we submit to the
leadership and control of the Holy Spirit. We are holy in
a twofold sense. On the one hand, we receive an imme-
diate sanctification (separation from sin) through the
death of Christ when we are baptized in Jesus’ name and
filled with the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 6:11; Hebrews
10:10). God counts us holy by imputing Christ’s right-
eousness to us. On the other hand, we must follow after
and seek holiness (Hebrews 12:14). We must strive after
holiness and receive the progressive work of sanc-
tification. We are already sanctified, but we are also called
to be saints (sanctified, holy ones) (I Corinthians 1:2).

Following Holiness Requires Personal Effort

Holiness does not come automatically as we rest pas-

sively. Some teach that any attempt to live holy is “of the
flesh,” but they fail to understand that genuine faith
always includes obedience and always produces good
works. We must open our lives to the working of God’s
Spirit. We must actively implement the spiritual principles
He places in us. We must resist the devil, subdue the sin-
ful nature, discipline the flesh, and kill the deeds of the
body.

34
 Thus, the Bible teaches, “Reckon ye also yourselves to
be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus
Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mor-
tal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unright-
eousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God”
(Romans 6:11-13). “Submit yourselves therefore to God.
Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to
God, and he will draw nigh to you” (James 4:7-8). “Make
every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace
with him” (II Peter 3:14, NIV). Paul said, “I run . . . I
fight . . . I discipline my body and bring it into subjection”
(I Corinthians, 9:26-27, NKJV). The Bible exhorts, “Let us
cleanse ourselves . . . Let us labour . . . Let us lay aside
every weight and . . . sin . . . let us run with patience”
(II Corinthians 7:1; Hebrews 4:11; 12:1).
Philippians 2:12-13 sums it up well. “Work out your
own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which
worketh in you both to will and to do of his good plea-
sure.” It is our responsibility to reverently and watchfully
implement holiness in our lives, and this takes great per-
sonal effort and exertion. At the same time, God is
actually the One working in us, and He provides both the
desire and the power to live righteously. God’s grace
works in us, but we must work it out.
Bridges gave an analogy of farming to illustrate this
principle. The farmer is utterly dependent on God for rain
and sunshine. Yet, unless he diligently fulfills his own
obligations to plow, plant, fertilize, and cultivate, he will
not reap a harvest. “The farmer cannot do what God must
do, and God will not do what the farmer should do . . .
The pursuit of holiness is a joint venture between God and

35
the Christian. No one can attain any degree of holiness
without God working in his life, but just as surely no one
will attain it without effort on his own part. God has made
it possible for us to walk in holiness. But He has given to
us the responsibility of doing the walking; He does not do
that for us . . . We pray for victory when we know we
should be acting in obedience.”1
We wait for God to liberate us from struggles and
temptations, when God expects us to use the power we
already have in the Spirit and force the flesh to obey His
Word. It is like the man who received a compliment on his
garden: “You and God have really made this piece of land
beautiful and productive!” The gardener replied, “You
should have seen it when God had it by Himself.”

A Daily Walk

If we live one day at a time holiness becomes a possi-

bility rather than an impossibility. We have the power of
the Spirit and the promise that God will not allow us to be
tempted beyond our capacity to bear it (I Corinthians
10:13). Therefore, unlike an unsaved person, we can say,
“Regardless of the circumstances that will face me, I can
live today without sinning.” If we do sin that day, we can
obtain forgiveness and begin the day anew. Jesus encour-
aged this type of thinking, for He told those whom He
delivered, “Go, and sin no more” (John 5:14; 8:11). He
also gave absolute perfection as the goal for which to
strive: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father
which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48).

36
 A Continual Growth Process

Even though no one is absolutely perfect or holy as

God is, we can all be perfect (mature) and holy in a rela-
tive sense (II Corinthians 7:1; Philippians 3:15;
Colossians 1:28; 4:12). God will consider us holy if we
live a repented life, have faith in Christ, live according to
the knowledge of His Word, and strive to become pro-
gressively more Christ-like (Ephesians 4:13). He expects
us to grow continually in grace and knowledge (Mark
4:26-29; II Peter 3:18), and to bear more and more spiri-
tual fruit (John 15:1-8). If we do not become progres-
sively more holy and Christ-like in thought, attitude,
conduct, and lifestyle, something is wrong.
God evaluates us individually on the basis of where we
have come from, what He has given us, and what our abil-
ity is (Matthew 13:23; 25:14-30). Two Christians can
both be perfect in God’s sight even though they have
attained different levels of perfection in an absolute
sense, just as two children at two different stages of
growth can both be perfectly normal and healthy. We
must not judge one another or compare one with anoth-
er, but must be patient and tolerant of different levels of
perfection, endeavoring to maintain the unity of the Spirit
in the bond of peace (Matthew 7:1-5; II Corinthians
10:12; Ephesians 4:1-3).
None of us has yet attained the fulness of perfection.
Paul wrote, “Not that I have already attained, or am
already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of
that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.
Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but
one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind

37
and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I
press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of
God in Christ Jesus. Therefore let us, as many as are
mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think
otherwise, God will reveal even this to you. Nevertheless,
to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by
the same rule, let us be of the same mind” (Philippians
3:12-16, NKJV).
We must be tolerant of different levels of maturity
with respect to practical holiness even while we are care-
ful to maintain the level which we have attained. We must
let God be the judge of others. In particular, we should
take great care not to condemn, intimidate, or offend vis-
itors and new converts. Due to diversity of backgrounds,
some people require more time than others to develop
certain holiness convictions. It is better for a new convert
to develop solid scriptural convictions over a period of
time than for him to conform immediately to every detail
without understanding why.

Two Kinds of Holiness Standards

We can divide holiness convictions into two cate-

gories.
(1) Clear teachings of Scripture that are immediately
apparent to all. There should be no differences of opinion
relative to these basic commands. The new convert
should begin to obey them immediately. In fact, the pas-
tor should refuse to baptize someone who does not man-
ifest a willingness to conform immediately. Examples of
these teachings are the prohibitions of fornication, lying,

38
and drunkenness.
(2) Practical application of scriptural principles to
modern situations, which are usually understood and im-
plemented gradually as the new convert grows in grace
and knowledge. There can be some legitimate differences
of opinion among Christians as to the details of specific
applications. Examples include various aspects of godly
adornment and dress.
We should not expect new converts to understand the
application of scriptural principles completely and to con-
form immediately, especially if they do not have a strong
biblical background. Rather, we should lead them
patiently into further truth, depending on the working of
the Holy Spirit, scriptural teaching, and Christian exam-
ple. God has already justified them on the basis of their
faith, but now they must submit to the progressive work
of sanctification. It is not recommended that new con-
verts be used in leadership positions until they under-
stand and conform to the teachings of the local assembly.

Spiritual Fruit

The essence of true holiness is to produce spiritual

fruit (John 15:1-17; II Peter 1:3-9). In particular, we can
describe holiness in a positive manner as developing and
bearing the ninefold fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace,
longsuffering (patience), gentleness (kindness), good-
ness, faith (faithfulness), meekness (gentleness), and
temperance (self-control) (Galatians 5:22-23). When we
allow the Spirit to produce this fruit in us, we will display
holiness in our lifestyle.

39
 Self-Discipline

In particular, temperance is an important principle to

implement in every aspect of daily living (I Corinthians
9:24-27). This means self-discipline, self-control, and
moderation in all things. Richard Taylor’s book, The
Disciplined Life, contains much good material on this
topic. In his introduction Taylor wrote, “Christians in a
land of bulging supermarkets must discipline their appe-
tites lest they fatten their bodies and stupefy their souls
by habitual gourmandizing. They must beware the subtle,
insidious tendency to judge the importance of them-
selves and others by the flashiness of their cars and the
cut of their clothes. They must cease from careless
spending and showy extravagance, not on the grounds of
being unable to afford it, but on the grounds of principle.
The alarming tide of moral casualties of recent years in
both pulpit and pew is without question the result of that
inner softness born of undisciplined, self-indulgent liv-
ing.”2

Overcoming Sin: A Practical Approach

In the final analysis, holiness means to obey God’s

Word and to resist temptation to sin. As a practical mat-
ter, how is it possible to overcome sin on a daily basis?
First, we must pray. Prayer will draw us closer to
God. Through prayer we commune with Christ and pro-
gressively absorb more of His mind and attitude. Paul
prayed on many occasions that believers would develop
spiritual strength and holiness of life (Ephesians 3:16;

40
I Thessalonians 5:23). If prayers of another can avail to
develop holiness in us, how much more can our own
prayers do so!
In particular, it is important to pray in the Spirit. This
means to reach a dimension of prayer in which the mind
concentrates totally upon God and the human spirit unites
with the Holy Spirit. This includes, but is not limited to,
speaking in tongues (I Corinthians 14:14-15). When we
pray in the Spirit, the Spirit Himself helps our weaknesses
and intercedes through us to pray for what we truly need
even though we do not know exactly how to pray (Romans
8:26).
Spiritual prayer is a powerful weapon of warfare
against temptation (Ephesians 6:18). Jude admonished,
“But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most
holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, keep yourselves in
the love of God” (Jude 20-21). Of course, it is not always
possible to pray extensively at the moment of temptation.
For this reason, it is important to have a consistent,
strong prayer life at all times.
Second, we must engraft or implant the Word of God
in our hearts so that we will obey His Word as a matter
of course. “Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow
of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted
word, which is able to save your souls” (James 1:21,
NKJV). We must absorb the Word until it becomes a very
part of us. “God’s Word must be so strongly fixed in our
minds that it becomes the dominant influence in our
thoughts, our attitudes, and our actions.”3 We can do this
by hearing, reading, memorizing, and meditating upon
the Word of God. “Blessed is the man that walketh not in
the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of

41
sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his
delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he
meditate day and night” (Psalm 1:1-2). “Thy word have I
hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. . . . I
will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy
word. . . . Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light
unto my path” (Psalm 119:11, 16, 105). When temptation
comes, we can recall the Word and speak it in our hearts.
At the moment sin presents itself we must immediately
begin to meditate on the Word before there is time for
anything else. Jesus overcame temptation by quoting the
Word (Matthew 4:1-11).
Third, we must personalize the truth of God’s Word.
We must realize both our personal ability and our per-
sonal responsibility to obey God and resist sin. We must
recognize that we died to sin. In the time of temptation,
we must recall the principles of Romans 6: know, reckon,
yield. We should remind ourselves, “I do not have to do
this. I am a free person. I have the power of the Spirit
available to me. I can resist this temptation to sin.”
Fourth, we must not give the sinful nature any oppor-
tunities. Instead, we must consciously avoid tempting or
dangerous situations. We must not feed our fleshly desires
by thinking, reading, watching, or indulging in things that
would inflame those lusts. We must discipline the flesh
and daily kill its desires. Basically, this means to cut off
sinful thoughts and desires as they begin to develop. We
must learn to think on good things (Philippians 4:8) and
to make every thought obedient to Christ (II Corinthians
10:5). We must also learn to control all bodily appetites,
for if we overindulge in physical appetites it will be more
difficult to deny ourselves in other areas. Fasting is one

42
good way to impose discipline on the physical body, not to
punish it but to control it.
“Do not offer the parts of your body to sin” (Romans
6:13, NIV). “Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to
the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live
according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you
put to death the deeds of the body, you will live” (Romans
8:12-13, NKJV). “But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and
make no provision for the flesh, to fulfil its lusts”
(Romans 13:14, NKJV). “And they that are Christ’s have
crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts . . . But
God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto
me, and I unto the world” (Galatians 5:24; 6:14).
Finally, we must train ourselves to develop proper
habits of Christian living instead of sinful habits.
Developing good habits requires several things: repeti-
tion, commitment to consistency, diligence, refusal to
make any exceptions, and refusal to get discouraged
because of failure. We must learn to yield to God just as
we formerly yielded to sin (Romans 6:13, 19). When we
recognize and experience a scriptural prompting to do
God’s will, we must visualize and meditate upon the
action desired decide to do it, and then yield our bodily
members to perform it.

Excerpts from “Holiness” by J. C. Ryle

In summarizing the principles of holiness, we quote

from a book entitled Holiness, written by an Anglican
Bishop of Liverpool in the late 19th century, J. C. Ryle.

43
This valuable and timely book has been reprinted in the
20th century with the endorsement of D. Martyn
Lloyd-Jones.
“I have had a deep conviction for many years that
practical holiness and entire self-consecration to God are
not sufficiently attended to by modern Christians . . . The
subject of personal godliness has fallen sadly into the
background. The standard of living has become painfully
low in many quarters. . . . It is my firm impression that we
want a thorough revival about Scriptural holiness . . .
“Surely the Scriptures teach us that in following holi-
ness the true Christian needs personal exertion and work
as well as faith. . . .
“Surely the New Testament teaches us that we want
something more than generalities about holy living, which
often prick no conscience and give no offence. The details
and particular ingredients of which holiness is composed
in daily life, ought to be fully set forth and pressed on
believers by all who profess to handle the subject. True
holiness does not consist merely of believing and feeling,
but of doing and bearing, and a practical exhibition of
active and passive grace. Our tongues, our tempers, our
natural passions and inclinations—our conduct as parents
and children, masters and servants, husbands and wives,
rulers and subjects—our dress, our employment of time,
our behavior in business, our demeanour in sickness and
health, in riches and in poverty—all, all these are matters
which are fully treated by inspired writers. They are not
content with a general statement of what we should
believe and feel, and how we are to have the roots of holi-
ness planted in our hearts. They dig down lower. They go
into particulars. They specify minutely what a holy man

44
ought to do and be in his own family, and by his own fire-
side, if he abides in Christ. . . .
“I am convinced that the first step towards attaining a
higher standard of holiness is to realize more fully the
amazing sinfulness of sin. . . .
“Let us never be ashamed of making much of sanc-
tification, and contending for a high standard of holi-
ness. While some are satisfied with a miserably low
degree of attainment, and others are not ashamed to live
on without any holiness at all . . . let us stand fast in the
old paths, follow after eminent holiness ourselves, and
recommend it boldly to others. This is the only way to be
really happy.”4
Ryle defined “true practical holiness” as follows:
“(a) Holiness is the habit of being of one mind with
God, according as we find His mind described in
Scripture. . . .
“(b) A holy man will endeavour to shun every known
sin, and to keep every known commandment. . . .
“(c) A holy man will strive to be like our Lord Jesus
Christ. . . .
“(d) A holy man will follow after meekness, longsuf-
fering, gentleness, patience, kind tempers, government of
his tongue. He will bear much, forbear much, overlook
much, and be slow to talk of standing on his rights. . . .
“(e) A holy man will follow after temperance and self-
denial. He will labour to mortify the desires of his body—
to crucify his flesh with his affections and lusts—to curb
his passions—to restrain his carnal inclinations, lest at
any time they break loose. . . .
“(f) A holy man will follow after charity and brotherly
kindness. . . .

45
 “(g) A holy man will follow after a spirit of mercy and
benevolence towards others. . . .
“(h) A holy man will follow after purity of heart. . . .
“(i) A holy man will follow after the fear of God . . . the
fear of a child, who wishes to live and move as if he was
always before his father’s face, because he loves him. . . .
“(j) A holy man will follow after humility. . . .
“(k) A holy man will follow after faithfulness in all the
duties and relations in life. . . .
“(l) Last, but not least, a holy man will follow after
spiritual mindedness. . . .
“I do not say for a moment that holiness shuts out the
presence of indwelling sin [the sin nature]. . . . But it is
the excellence of a holy man that he is not at peace with
indwelling sin, as others are. . . . The work of sanctifica-
tion within him is like the wall of Jerusalem—the building
goes forward ‘even in troublous times’ . . . Neither do I
say that holiness comes to ripeness and perfection all at
once, or that these graces I have touched on must be
found in full bloom and vigour before you can call a man
holy. . . . Sanctification is always a progressive work.”5
He gave the following reasons for practical holiness:
“(a) For one thing, we must be holy, because the voice
of God in Scripture plainly commands it. . . .
“(b) We must be holy, because this is one grand end
and purpose for which Christ came into the world. . . .
“(c) We must be holy, because this is the only sound
evidence that we have a saving faith in our Lord Jesus
Christ. . . .
“(d) We must be holy, because this is the only proof
that we love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. . . .
“(e) We must be holy, because this is the only sound

46
evidence that we are true children of God. . . .
“(f) We must be holy, because this is the most likely
way to do good to others. . . .
“(g) We must be holy, because our present comfort
depends much upon it. . . .
“(h) Lastly, we must be holy, because without holiness
on earth we shall never be prepared to enjoy heaven. . . .
“I do not ask whether you attend your church regu-
larly—whether you have been baptized, and received the
Lord’s Supper—whether you have the name of Christian—
I ask something more than all this: Are you holy, or are you
not? . . . Are you yourself holy this very day, or are you
not? . . . And why do I ask so straitly, and press the ques-
tion so strongly? I do it because the Scripture says,
‘Without holiness no man shall see the Lord.’ . . . Do you
think you feel the importance of holiness as much as you
should? . . .
“Tell me not of your justification, unless you have also
some marks of sanctification. Boast not of Christ’s work for
you, unless you can show us the Spirit’s work in you . . .
I sometimes fear if Christ were on earth now, there are not
a few who would think His preaching legal; and if Paul
were writing his Epistles, there are those who would think
he had better not write the latter part of most of them as
he did . . . Would you be holy? Would you become a new
creature? Then you must begin with Christ. . . . Do you
want to attain holiness? . . . Then go to Christ. . . . Would
you continue holy? Then abide in Christ.”6
“If you would ever be saved, you must make the
choice that Moses made—you must choose God before
the world. . . . There is a common, worldly kind of
Christianity in this day, which many have, and think they

47
have enough—a cheap Christianity which offends nobody,
and is worth nothing. I am not speaking of religion of this
kind. . . . Now are you making any sacrifices? Does your
religion cost you anything? . . . Do you know anything of
the afflictions of the Gospel? Is your faith and practice
ever a subject of scorn and reproach? Are you thought a
fool by anyone because of your soul? . . . Are you ven-
turing all on Christ? Search and see. . . . Nothing will
ever enable you to choose God before the world, except
faith . . . . The true secret of doing great things for God
is to have great faith.”7

Practical Applications Today

Here are some important areas of life today in which

we have tried to apply the principles of holiness:
(1) Attitudes (Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 4:31-32).
We must put away all evil attitudes including hatred,
wrath, envy, jealousy, covetousness, bitterness, malice,
pride, prejudice, vengeance, and all discord (contention,
strife, selfish ambition, dissension, clamor, brawling,
murmuring, complaining, rebellion, a critical spirit). The
fruit of the Spirit—such as love, kindness, patience, and
self-control—must manifest itself in our attitudes. We
must learn to forgive, to be obedient to authority, to be
thankful, not to let anything offend us, and not to be a
busybody in the lives of others.
(2) Thoughts (Proverbs 23:7; Matthew 15:18-20;
II Corinthians 10:5; Philippians 4:8). We are what we
think and we become what we allow our minds to dwell
upon. Evil thoughts defile us. We are enjoined to think on

48
true, honest (noble), just (right), pure, lovely, reputable,
virtuous (excellent), and praiseworthy things, while cast-
ing out thoughts that stem from evil lusts and attitudes.
We are to take captive every thought to make it obedient
to Christ.
(3) The use of the tongue (James 1:26; 3:1-12, 4:11;
5:12). We should avoid talebearing, backbiting, slander,
sowing discord (causing dissension), swearing by an oath,
taking the Lord’s name in vain, cursing, reviling, lying,
bearing false witness, idle words, and filthy communica-
tions (suggestive, indecent, or obscene speech).
(4) The use of the eye (Psalm 101:3; 119:37; Matthew
6:22-23). We must guard our eyes as the gate of the soul
and the primary source of input for the mind. We should
choose reading material with care so that we do not sat-
urate our minds with vulgarity, sensuality, and sin. Be-
cause of the violence, illicit sex, sinfulness, and vanity
that dominate television and movies, we should not watch
either.
(5) Adornment and dress (Deuteronomy 22:5; I Timo-
thy 2:9; I Peter 3:1-6). The Bible establishes the principles
of sex distinction in dress, modesty of dress, moderation
in the cost of dress, avoidance of ornamentation, and sep-
aration from worldliness. Applying this to modern cul-
ture, we must avoid dresses on men and pants on women,
colored cosmetics and hair dye, ornamentative jewelry,
clothing that immodestly exposes the body, and very
expensive or extravagant attire.
(6) Hair (I Corinthians 11:13-15). The Bible teaches
that men should have short hair but that women should
have long, uncut hair.
(7) Stewardship of the body (I Corinthians 3:16-17;

49
6:12, 19-20). Since the body is the temple of the Holy
Ghost, we avoid anything that would harm or defile the
body, including anything that would cause intoxication or
addiction. In view of the biblically described evils of alco-
holic beverages, we must abstain from them. In view of
the overwhelming evidence that tobacco is defiling and
harmful, we must not use it.
(8) Sexual relationships (I Corinthians 6:9-10; Colos-
sians 3:5). The Bible condemns all sexual relationships
outside of marriage between one man and one woman,
and opposes lustful thoughts and actions.
(9) Respect for human life (Exodus 20:13; Matthew
5:44; Acts 15:29). In view of the sanctity of human life,
we must not participate in violence or taking of human
life; this includes warfare, abortion, and suicide.
(10) Honesty (Mark 10:19). We reject all forms of dis-
honesty and corruption. This includes lying, stealing,
defrauding, refusal to pay debts, extortion, bribery, and
all types of cheating.
(11) Fellowship (Matthew 18:15-18; I Corinthians
5:9-6:8; 15:33; II Corinthians 6:14). Although we should
and must associate with unbelievers, we must not identify
ourselves too closely with sinful activities or lifestyles. We
should have no fellowship with those who call themselves
Christians but continually indulge in sinful activities. We
are not to become yoked with unbelievers (such as by
marriage). In the church, we must resolve all disputes
according to the procedure given by Christ, not by suing
one another in civil court.
(12) Other areas of worldliness (I Thessalonians
5:22; I John 2:15). Because of the sinfulness of the world
today and because of the biblical warning against loving

50
the world, we must carefully and maturely regulate our
music, sports, games, and amusements. We must avoid
excessively worldly atmospheres and appearances. We
reject as inherently worldly some activities such as gam-
bling, dancing, witchcraft, astrology, and superstition.
In Search of Holiness has addressed most of the
above subjects in detail. This present book also discusses
many of them in order to present additional scriptural
support, new evidence from research, answers to objec-
tions, and historical perspectives.
Several biblical passages list a number of unholy
actions and attitudes. God hates “a proud look, a lying
tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, an heart that
deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in run-
ning to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he
that soweth discord among brethren” (Proverbs 6:16-19).
Things that defile a person include “evil thoughts, mur-
ders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blas-
phemies” (Matthew 15:19). Those who have a reprobate
(debased, depraved) mind are “filled with all unright-
eousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness,
maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit,
evil-mindedness; they are whisperers [gossipers], back-
biters [slanderers], haters of God, violent [or insolent],
proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to
parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiv-
ing, unmerciful” (Romans 1:29-31, NKJV with alter-
natives from NIV). The works of the flesh are “adultery,
fornication, uncleanness, licentiousness [debauchery],
idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, out-
bursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies
[factions], envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries [orgies]

51
and the like” (Galatians 5:19-21, NKJV with alternatives
from NIV). In the last days evil men will be “lovers of
themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphe-
mers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unlov-
ing, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal,
despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of
pleasure rather than lovers of God (II Timothy 3:24,
NKJV).
Chapter 2 of In Search of Holiness deals with holiness
as it relates to attitudes, specifically discussing many of
those just listed. Below are a few additional comments on
this vital subject.

Retaliation

The Bible expressly teaches against all forms of

retaliation and vengeance (Matthew 5:38-48; Romans
12:17-21; I Peter 3:9). “Do not repay anyone evil for
evil. . . . Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room
for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I
will repay,’ says the Lord” (Romans 12:17, 19, NIV).

Greed and Materialism

Envy, jealousy, covetousness and greed are closely

related evils. Covetousness and greed are basically syn-
onymous terms, meaning an inordinate, unrestrained
desire for wealth or possessions. This attitude is strongly
condemned in both Testaments. “Thou shalt not covet”
(Exodus 20:17). “Take heed, and beware of covetousness:

52
for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the
things which he possesseth” (Luke 12:15). Covetousness
is idolatry (Colossians 3:5).
Envy and jealousy consist of a grudging of another’s
possessions or accomplishments together with a coveting
of them. Jealousy often connotes an extreme desire to
obtain or keep what we believe should be exclusively
ours, while envy connotes an extreme desire to obtain
what belongs to others.
The Bible’s rejection of these attitudes stands as an
indictment of the materialism of our age. Materialism—
preoccupation with material possessions—causes us to
become soft, lazy, and discontented with what we have. In
turn, this makes us reluctant to live sacrificially for
Christ’s sake and highly susceptible to envy and jealousy.
The Bible’s teaching on this subject is very relevant to
our society, for by the standards of the rest of the world
and of history we in North America are wealthy. “For we
brought nothing, into this world, and it is certain we can
carry nothing out. And having food and clothing, with
these we shall be content. But those who desire to be rich
fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish
and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and
perdition. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of
evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their
greediness, and pierced themselves through with many
sorrows. But you, O man of God, flee these things and
pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience,
gentleness. . . . Command those who are rich in this pre-
sent age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain rich-
es but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to
enjoy. Let them do good, that they be rich in good works,

53
ready to give, willing to share, storing up for themselves
a good foundation for the time to come, that they may lay
hold on eternal life” (I Timothy 6:7-11; 17-19, NKJV).

Prejudice

The Bible teaches that every human being is of equal

worth in the sight of God. God is no respecter of persons
(Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11). In Christ, there is no unequal
treatment based on race, social class, or gender (Galatians
3:28). Paul admonished Timothy to perform his pastoral
duties without prejudice, partiality, or favoritism (I Timothy
5:21). If we discriminate against one group and show par-
tiality to another, then we violate God’s Word. It is wrong to
be prejudiced against someone because of race, social
standing, lack of education, or poverty. “If ye have respect
to persons, ye commit sin” (James 2:9). God “will surely
reprove you if you secretly show partiality” (Job 13:10,
NKJV).

Conclusion

God’s moral law for us can be summed up in these

words: Love God with all your being and love your neigh-
bor as yourself (Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-31;
Romans 13:8-10). In essence, holiness means to imitate
Christ, to do what He would do. It means to be Christ-like.
The power to live a holy life is a gift from God, but it
is our responsibility to implement holiness on a daily
basis. We seek holiness out of love for God, not out of

54
fear or legalism. Holiness is an integral part of the salva-
tion of the whole man from all the power and effects of
sin. It is a joyful privilege, a part of abundant life, a bless-
ing from the grace of God, and a glorious life of freedom
and power. For someone who is filled with the Holy Spirit
and truly loves God, holiness becomes the normal—
indeed the only—way to live. The life of holiness fulfills
God’s original intention and design for humanity.

FOOTNOTES

1
Bridges, p. 14, emphasis ours.
2
Richard Taylor, The Disciplined Life (Minneapolis: Bethany
Fellowship, 1962), pp. 12-13.
3
Bridges, p. 88.
4
J. C. Ryle, Holiness (Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell Co.,
n.d.), pp. vii-x, 14, 32, emphasis in original.
5
Ibid., pp. 34-39.
6
Ibid., pp. 40-50.
7
Ibid., pp. 143-47.

55
 3
THE DANGERS OF
LEGALISM
“A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by
the faith of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 2:16).
Whenever someone begins to teach practical holi-
ness, he is often accused of legalism. And, indeed, some
of those who emphasize holiness do drift into legalism,
doing more harm than good. In this chapter we address
several key questions: What is legalism? What is wrong
with legalism? What are the biblical alternatives to legal-
ism? Is it possible to teach practical holiness and still
avoid legalism? If so, how?

Legalism Defined

In general, legalism means strict or excessive

conformity to a legal code or set of rules. In a Christian
context, legalism has two negative connotations: (1)
attempting to base salvation on the performance of good

57
works or on the strict observance of rules and regulations
and (2) imposing rules on self and others that are not
based on clear biblical teachings or principles. We are
guilty of legalism if we imply that a person attains salva-
tion by his works or if we preach rules without principles.

Legalism Condemned

Jesus opposed the Jewish legalism of His day, par-

ticularly that of the Pharisees. These Jewish legalists
believed that salvation rested in strict conformity to the
Law of Moses and the oral traditions they had built
around it. Jesus rebuked this self-righteous attitude, the
hypocrisy that accompanied it, and the man-made tradi-
tions that actually subverted the Word of God.
Paul pointed out that conformity to external law never
meant anything unless the heart was right (Romans
2:17-29). Furthermore, the Law of Moses could not and
was never intended to impart salvation based on works
(Romans 3:19-20; 8:3; Galatians 3:21-22). Rather, it
served to teach man several important truths: the defini-
tion of sin, the sinfulness of sin, man’s own sinfulness, his
lack of power to overcome sin, and his need of salvation
(Romans 3:20; 5:20; 7:7-14). The law was a schoolmas-
ter to bring us to Christ so that we would have faith in
Him (Galatians 3:21-25). Throughout history, salvation
has always been by faith, not by works. Abraham (before
the law) and David (under the law) were saved by faith in
God, not by good works or conformity to law (Romans 4).
The New Testament church contended for this doc-
trine of justification by faith against some Jewish Chris-

58
tians who still maintained legalistic concepts. These
Judaizers taught that Gentile converts had to be circum-
cised and had to obey the Jewish law. The church con-
vened its first general council to discuss this issue (Acts
15). At the conference, Peter said that Gentile Christians
should not have to obey the law, for God had already
given them the Holy Ghost based on their faith alone.
James pronounced the decision agreed upon by the
church: Gentiles did not have to obey the Law of Moses,
except to abstain from food offered to idols, blood, things
strangled, and fornication.
Paul strongly opposed legalism in general and the
Judaizers, in particular. He taught that we are justified by
faith, not by observance of the Law of Moses (Romans
3:20-28). We are saved by grace through faith, not by
good works (Ephesians 2:8-9). The gospel of Christ has
liberated us from the need to observe the ordinances of
the Jewish law (Romans 7:6; Galatians 2:16-21). In fact,
if we persist in seeking righteousness by works of the law,
we frustrate the grace of God and make Christ’s death
vain (Galatians 2:21).
Specifically, Christ’s death abolished the Jewish cere-
monial law with its unclean foods and drinks, special fes-
tival days, and sabbaths. We do not have to follow
ritualistic rules that forbid us even to touch certain unclean
foods or other items. This kind of legalism may superfi-
cially seem to be wise and holy, but it has no power to
restrain the lusts of the sinful nature. “Therefore let no one
judge you in food, or in drink, or regarding a festival or a
new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to
come, but the substance is of Christ. . . . Therefore, if you
died with Christ from the basic principles of the world,

59
why, as though living in the world, do you subject your-
selves to regulations ‘Do not touch, do not taste, do not
handle,’ which all concern things which perish with the
using—according to the commandments and doctrines of
men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom
in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the
body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the
flesh” (Colossians 2:16-17, 20-23, NKJV).
In short, legalism is an insufficient motivation to live
for God. It will not bring salvation, nor will it produce
true holiness. Let us investigate in detail the many inade-
quacies and dangers of legalism.

Self-Righteous Reliance on Works for Salvation

Legalism actually teaches salvation by man’s works

instead of God’s grace. The legalist will attempt to rely on
his own human efforts instead of the power of the Holy
Ghost. This can lead to pride, self-righteousness, and
self-deception if the legalist thinks he is actually saving
himself. On the other hand, it can lead to frustration, lack
of assurance of salvation, fear, despair, and backsliding if
the legalist realizes his inability to manufacture his own
righteousness and to live by strict adherence to rules.
The Bible does stress the importance of good works
as the inevitable result of saving grace and saving faith
(Ephesians 2:10; Titus 2:11-12; 3:8; James 2:14-26). We
must understand, however, that faith produces works, not
vice versa. We do not get good to get God; we get God to
get good. We do not work toward salvation; we work from
salvation. We do not live holy in order to earn salvation;

60
we live holy because we have salvation. We manifest con-
tinuing faith in God by a life of submission to Him and
obedience to His Word.
A failure to manifest holiness, good works, and obed-
ience indicates either a lack of genuine faith from the
beginning or a loss of genuine faith. It indicates either
failure to receive salvation initially or subsequent rejec-
tion of God’s continuing work of salvation. If someone
continues in this condition, he will not be saved when
Christ comes for him, but in no way does this imply that
he can or must earn salvation by works. The root problem
is not failure to produce works, but failure to maintain
total faith in God and His Word.
Holiness comes by grace through faith as we submit
to the sanctifying work of the Spirit in our lives. If we fail
to submit, we reject God’s grace and salvation. However,
legalism actually sidesteps grace, faith, and the Spirit. It
tries to produce holiness by human efforts alone and to
purchase salvation by that man-made “holiness.”

Failure to Develop Inward Holiness

As the preceding discussion indicates, legalism can-

not produce inward holiness. No amount of legislating,
keeping, or enforcing law will impart true holiness, for
that can only come by the Holy Spirit. Legalism places
utmost importance upon an outward show of holiness,
while neglecting and ignoring the development of inward
holiness (which, of course, will cause holiness to be
exhibited outwardly). In the sight of man, the legalist may
seem holy, but in the sight of God he is lacking. Even

61
though the legalist may be very strict in holiness teach-
ing, he actually fails to develop holiness in his own life
and in the lives of those who follow him.

Failure to Develop a Mature Understanding

of Principles

In particular, the legalist does not develop a mature

conscience that can guide him to principled decisions in
areas where his rules are silent. He walks the thin line
between the world and the church. Sooner or later he will
step into a gray area and perhaps go from there into sin.
He often ignores new dangers that fall outside the scope
of his rules. For example, perhaps he has grown up with
a rule, “Thou shalt not attend movies,” but he does not
really understand the spiritual evils of the movies. When
new technology introduces home movie systems, he may
sense nothing wrong with showing the same movies at
home. He may have a rule, “Thou shalt not own a televi-
sion,” but see nothing wrong with watching ungodly TV
shows in public places or in a motel room. The non-legal-
ist will be quick to spot the danger because it violates his
principles. He will abstain, not merely because someone
forbade it, but because it is detrimental to and incompat-
ible with his spiritual life.
The legalistic leader constantly finds himself trying to
invent and enforce new rules to cover new situations,
because his followers do not know how to apply princi-
ples. This effort will always fail because it is impossible to
invent enough rules to cover every possible circumstance.
Here are some extreme examples to illustrate how a

62
legalist can actually miss the true teaching of God’s Word
even while supposedly following it literally. Jesus taught
that if someone strikes me on the right cheek I should
turn the other cheek. The legalist may say, “Ah, but Christ
did not restrict my actions after that. After turning the
other cheek, then I can get revenge.” The legalist
technically follows the letter of Christ’s teaching as if it
were a rule book, but he misses the whole spirit of the
passage, which teaches us not to react violently to insult
and not to seek vengeance. In one place, Christ said we
should forgive a brother seven times in one day, and in
another place said we should forgive someone seventy
times seven. The legalist may say, “I will forgive seven
times in one day but not eight, or I will forgive 490 times
but not 491.” He misses the true teaching of complete,
perfect, unlimited forgiveness.

Living by Minimum Requirements and Loopholes

Ironically, then, legalism frequently causes people to

observe only the minimum of what they feel is absolutely
required. Often they do this out of a desire to impress oth-
ers. Their attitude is, “What are the minimum require-
ments of this church, of this pastor, and of salvation
itself?” They have little desire to seek positive holiness,
but define holiness in terms of the negative. They have lit-
tle principles or conscience to guide them, and feel little
restraint on indulging in non-Christian behavior if they
can get away with it. They look for loopholes in their rules
so they can justify whatever they want to do. They may jus-
tify participation in a questionable practice because no

63
one has ever preached specifically against it or established
a rule that definitely covered it.
In short, legalists treat Christianity as if it were a col-
lection of rules like the U.S. Tax Code. They feel no
obligation other than what the rules specifically require.
As long as they live by the letter of the law, they are free
to exploit every doubtful situation or “loophole” without
regard to God’s will.

Hypocrisy and Inconsistency

Legalism leads to hypocrisy. Since no set of rules can

ever cover all situations, the legalist usually ends up
doing as he pleases. If he cannot satisfy the desires of the
flesh in one way, he usually manages to do so in another
way. For example, some would never wear a necklace or
an earring because of rules against them, but they will
satisfy their desire for ornamentation by wearing
extremely flashy rings and watches. Some will shun all
jewelry but flaunt extravagant, outrageously expensive
clothing. Others do not wear lipstick, but think nothing of
wearing mascara or blush. They base their conduct only
on specific rules of limited application. They are not truly
concerned with upholding under all circumstances the
biblical teachings against ornamentation, vanity, immod-
esty, and costly array.
Likewise, the legalist may strongly condemn drinking
but be oblivious to his own gluttony. He may avoid dirty
movies but delight in dirty jokes. He may abhor idolatry
but be a slave to materialism.

64
 Man-Made Rules

Legalism takes man-made rules and treats them as if

they were the Word of God. It imposes rules that cannot
be justified from the Bible. It goes much farther than the
biblical text will warrant.
The Christian must limit himself to the Bible in estab-
lishing guidelines for conduct. All teachings must be
taken either from a specific biblical injunction or from a
valid application of biblical principles. For example, the
Bible specifically describes drunkenness as sin, so we can
and we must preach against drunkenness. In addition, the
underlying biblical principle is that all intoxication is
wrong; therefore we can preach against marijuana even
though the Bible does not mention that drug by name.
However, legalism goes beyond either biblical statements
or principles, and establishes rules that originate in the
mind of man.

Misapplication of Principles

Legalists often take guidelines that once made some

sense under certain circumstances and blindly misapply
them to different circumstances. Without understanding
the scriptural principle behind a certain guideline, they
transplant it to a situation where it is unnecessary and
inappropriate,
This causes confusion when someone tries to under-
stand the system rationally or scripturally. For example,
many holiness people do not attend roller skating rinks in
their community because of the worldly atmosphere, the

65
type of people that attend them, and the type of ungodly
activities associated with them. The legalist enshrines this
as a rule: “Thou shalt not roller skate or thou shalt not
attend roller skating rinks.” The non-legalist recognizes
this as a practical application of important scriptural
principles: “Abstain from the appearance of evil, love not
the world nor the things of the world, avoid worldly plea-
sures, and avoid fellowship with unrighteousness.”
However, we should not look legalistically at the label
“skating” but should evaluate whether skating is worldly
or not in a given situation. We should understand the rea-
son for the guideline. Someone could roller skate down
the sidewalk without violating the above principles.
Perhaps a church could provide skating in a wholesome
atmosphere without worldly music by renting a facility.

Difficulty in Maintaining the System

It is extremely difficult to maintain a legalistic system.

First, it is simply impossible for someone to abide by all
the rules. The legalist will always fail. Either he will
become a hypocrite, condemning others but excusing
himself, or he will live under continual guilt and fear.
Furthermore, those who follow a legalistic leader will
eventually begin to doubt the validity of the system
because of its harsh and arbitrary rules. As children grow
up in the system they begin to question the rules. When
new converts enter the system they often accept every-
thing uncritically, but sooner or later they, too, begin to
analyze the rules.
If a church is founded on true scriptural principles it

66
will withstand scrutiny of its teachings. The legalist,
however, usually gives no justification for his man-made
rules except tradition and authority. “This is what our
church believes, and you must obey the church. This is
what the pastor teaches, and you must obey the pastor.”
This kind of teaching will not be successful in develop-
ing true holiness.
Particularly in our questioning age, it simply does not
work. People today are more sophisticated and educated
than ever before. There is a greater willingness to chal-
lenge tradition and authority. Autocratic methods that
people sometimes accepted in the past are less and less
effective today. Furthermore, as the church enters an era
of great revival, it must be prepared for the influx of thou-
sands of new converts. If it relies on tradition and legal-
ism, the new converts will either overwhelm it or fall
away. If it teaches biblical principles of holiness, the new
converts will embrace them as their own beliefs.

Judgmental and Condemnatory Attitude

Finally, legalism fosters a judgmental, condemnatory

attitude towards others. Legalists tend to pigeonhole
everyone and then make their disapproval obvious to
those found wanting. Legalistic church members often
develop a harsh, intolerant, defensive attitude towards
those who do not conform exactly to their rules, even
towards visitors and new converts.
Even if someone is living in violation of God’s Word,
the Bible forbids the individual Christian to judge or con-
demn him. Jesus said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged”

67
(Matthew 7:1). We must simply present the Word of God
without setting ourselves up as judges over someone else.
Christ did not come to condemn the people of the world,
for they are already condemned by their sin, but He came
to offer salvation (John 3:17; 8:11). Likewise, the
church’s business is to offer salvation to all. We must let
the Word and the Spirit bring conviction, and let God be
the final judge.
Once, a long-haired man visited a certain church. He
received so many stares and disapproving expressions
that he felt very uncomfortable. Because of that experi-
ence, he vowed never to return again. This is a sad exam-
ple of legalistic condemnation. The church does not have
to approve of everything about a visitor, but it should
accept the visitor for what he is and love him uncondi-
tionally. After all, that is how Christ treated sinners while
on earth and how He treats everyone today.
In one church a new convert heard a minister pro-
claim, “It is a sin for a man to have hair on his ears.” The
new convert, whose hair covered his ears, decided that
this church was a cult and resolved never to return again.
Of course, the Bible does teach men to have short hair. A
reasonable application of that principle in our day would
result in cutting the hair above the ear and collar. Fur-
thermore, the new convert should not have allowed any-
thing to offend him. However, it seems to be legalistic
overkill to state that a man will go to hell if his hair
touches his ear. We simply cannot find Scripture to sup-
port this statement. In any event, it serves no useful pur-
pose to present this view in a harsh way to someone who
does not have the spiritual maturity to evaluate it prop-
erly. It is the responsibility of the mature saint not to

68
place a stumbling block in the path of others.

The Legalism of the Pharisees

The Jewish religious leaders of Christ’s day, particular-

ly the scribes and Pharisees, exhibited all these errors of
legalism. Their self-righteous reliance on works for salva-
tion as well as their judgmental attitude is demonstrated
by one of Christ’s parables. “Two men went up to the tem-
ple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I
thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners,
unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice
a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax col-
lector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his
eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God be mer-
ciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his
house justified rather than the other; for everyone who
exalts himself will be abased, and he who humbles himself
will be exalted” (Luke 18:10-14, NKJV).
Jesus rebuked them for failure to develop inward holi-
ness and for hypocritical, inconsistent conduct. “Woe
unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay
tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the
weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith:
these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other
undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swal-
low a camel. . . . Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which
indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of
dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also

69
outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are
full of hypocrisy and iniquity” (Matthew 23:23-24, 27-28).
We can see their failure to develop a mature under-
standing of principles by their attitude towards the
Sabbath. They were so zealous to keep the Sabbath that
they condemned Jesus for healing the sick on the Sabbath
(Mark 3:1-6). They failed to realize that God created the
Sabbath for man rather than vice versa (Mark 2:27). He
meant for it to bring man rest and refreshing. Therefore,
it was essentially right to save and heal on the Sabbath.
This example also shows how the Pharisees took valid
teachings from God’s Word and applied them inappropri-
ately or stretched them far beyond the original teaching.
In this case, they actually used one of the Ten Command-
ments to criticize Jesus for healing people on the Sabbath!
Despite their show of holiness, the scribes and Phari-
sees observed only a minimum of moral law. Their main
purpose was to be seen of men, not to please God. “But
all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make
broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their
garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and
the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the
markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. . . . Woe
unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour
widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer:
therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation” (Mat-
thew 23:5-7, 14).
They frequently evaded the spirit of Scripture by creat-
ing loopholes in their law. For example, they invented a
doctrine to excuse them from certain vows. If one swore
by the Temple or the altar he could disregard his vow, but
if he swore by the gold of the Temple or gifts on the altar

70
then it was truly binding (Matthew 23:16-22). They also
invented a doctrine to avoid the responsibility to care for
aged parents, which is implied by the command to honor
father and mother. If a son declared that the money
needed to support his parents was vowed as a gift to the
Temple, he did not have to provide for his parents (Mark
7:10-12). Jesus indicted this legalistic twisting of God’s
Word. “Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that
ye may keep your own tradition. . . . Making the word of
God of none effect through your tradition” (Mark 7:9, 13).
The Pharisees had many man-made traditions that
were not of God. For instance, they held to the tradition
of the elders with regard to ceremonial washings and
found fault with Christ’s disciples for not observing these
rituals (Mark 7:1-7). The Lord responded that man is not
spiritually defiled by things entering the body from with-
out, but by filthy things which proceed from a man’s
heart (Mark 7:14-23).
The legalism of the Pharisees was such an intolerable
system that no one could meet its demands. Peter des-
cribed the legalistic Judaism of his day as a yoke that
even the Jews could not bear (Acts 15:10). Jesus said the
Pharisees “bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne,
and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves
will not move them with one of their fingers . . . But woe
unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut
up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go
in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to
go in . . . ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte,
and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child
of hell than yourselves” (Matthew 23:4, 13, 15).
We see their condemnatory attitude in the parable of

71
the self-righteous Pharisee who compared himself favor-
ably with the repentant tax collector. The Pharisees bit-
terly condemned Jesus for associating with tax collectors
and known sinners (Luke 7:30-39). They were not truly
concerned with the needs of a lost world, but only with
maintaining their legalistic system and their power within
the system.

Improper Alternatives to Legalism

Many people who see the dangers of legalism reject it,

but in the process they sometimes discard practical holi-
ness altogether. Frequently what happens is this: one gen-
eration discovers a life-changing relationship with God
and embraces scriptural holiness. They rearrange their
entire lifestyle around the concepts of separation from
the world and dedication to God, and they pass this
new-found lifestyle to the next generation. Somewhere in
the process of transmission to future generations, legalis-
tic tendencies creep in. What began as joyous submission
to the will of God becomes a codified set of rules and
regulations, which are justified on the basis of tradition
and ritual.
Finally, one generation rebels against this cold, dry
system and begins to question its values. Sometimes they
fail to realize that many good and precious truths have
been handed to them, albeit in the wrong way; they have
been taught many right things for the wrong reasons.
When they rightfully reject legalism, they also discard
true holiness principles and valid practical applications.
They throw the baby out with the bath water.

72
 In such a case, the preceding generation is to blame
for making the truth vulnerable by their nonbiblical
approach in teaching it. On the other hand, the new
generation is to blame for not studying these issues
prayerfully and for not developing a genuine love for
truth at all costs. They see legalistic tendencies they right-
fully reject, but they use the occasion as an excuse to dis-
regard any holiness standards and to indulge in the
desires of the flesh. The root problem on both sides is a
failure to commit quality time in serious, prayerful study
of the Word of God.
Some suppose that we must abandon holiness teach-
ing in order to have revival. However, we should never
sacrifice quality in favor of quantity. In fact, the more we
emphasize and implement the Word of God the more we
will have true, apostolic revival. A church does not have
to be legalistic to emphasize holiness. Nor does a church
have to go to the opposite extreme of worldliness in order
to grow. A conservative, holiness church can have revival.
Indeed, most of our great revival churches strongly advo-
cate holiness of life on a practical level.
In short, many suppose that the proper alternative to
legalism is antinomianism (no law), license (freedom with-
out responsibility), or libertinism (no moral restraints).
They insist they can have inward holiness without any
guidelines as to outward appearance and conduct. How-
ever, this attitude totally contradicts God’s Word. True
holiness is not freedom to act and look like the world, but
freedom from conformity to the world. Intellectual free-
dom is not freedom from truth, but freedom to know and
submit to truth. There can be no real freedom outside
truth. “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make

73
you free” (John 8:32). Genuine spiritual freedom is not
freedom to commit sin, but freedom from the bondage to
sin.

The Importance of Moral Law

We must repudiate legalism as inadequate to bring

about true holiness, but we must not repudiate God’s
moral law or the necessity of obedience to God’s Word.
God has always had law; He has always had specific com-
mands that men must obey. Even in the age of innocence
in the Garden of Eden He gave Adam and Eve a specific
prohibition. God’s moral nature never changes, and
therefore neither does His moral law.
He has progressively revealed more of His moral law
from Old Testament to New Testament times, but He has
never abrogated moral law. Jesus Himself told us that law
or commandments would continue to exist in the New
Testament church. “If ye love me, keep my command-
ments. . . . If a man love me, he will keep my words” (John
14:15, 23). He commissioned His disciples to teach all
converts “to observe all things whatsoever I have com-
manded you” (Matthew 28:20).
Jesus did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it
(Matthew 5:17). The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible
has rightly observed, “The time-honored distinction be-
tween the OT as a book of law and the NT as a book of
divine grace is without grounds or justification. Divine
grace and mercy are the presupposition of law in the OT;
and the grace and love of God displayed in the NT events
issue in the legal obligations of the New Covenant. . . .

74
Paul’s polemics against the law in Galatians and Romans
are directed against an understanding of law which is by
no means characteristic of the OT as a whole.”1 Rousas
Rushdoony wrote, “There is no contradiction between law
and grace. The question in James’s Epistle is faith and
works, not faith and law. Judaism had made law the medi-
ator between God and man, and between God and the
world. It was this view of law, not the law itself, which
Jesus attacked. As Himself the Mediator, Jesus rejected
the law as a mediator in order to re-establish the law in its
God-appointed role as law, the way of holiness. He estab-
lished the law by dispensing forgiveness as the lawgiver
in full support of the law as the convicting word which
makes men sinners. The law was rejected only as a medi-
ator and as the source of justification. Jesus fully recog-
nized the law, and obeyed the law. It was only the absurd
interpretations of the law He rejected.”2
When Jesus opposed the Jewish legalism of His day, He
indicated that true holiness would be even more demand-
ing spiritually. “Except your righteousness shall exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no
case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20). He
recognized that in most cases the Pharisees taught correct
doctrine. He did not reject their teachings as much as he
rejected their attitude and their inconsistent conduct. He
told the people, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in
Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe,
that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for
they say, and do not” (Matthew 23:2-3).
The Pharisees were such sticklers for the law that
they paid tithes even on small herbs, which grew in gar-
dens. Jesus rebuked them for their attention to detail

75
while disregarding more important things spiritually.
Some today would say such attention to petty detail does
not matter, but it only matters that motives and intentions
be pure. However, Jesus did not rebuke the scrupulous
tithe paying, but in fact commended it. He endorsed obe-
dience to God’s Word in both the seemingly insignificant
details and in the larger principles (Matthew 23:23).
The doctrine of justification by faith does not destroy
the principle of law but rather establishes it (Romans
3:31), for we do not need justification if there is no law to
condemn us. God’s laws are written in the believer’s heart
(Hebrews 10:16). The Spirit enables us to fulfill the right-
eousness that the law taught but could not produce
(Romans 8:4).
As we have seen, Paul rejected ritualistic laws that for-
bade Christians to touch, taste, or handle foods regarded
as ceremonially unclean (Colossians 2:14-23). Some
today use this teaching to reject all moral guidelines and
all restraints on worldly conduct. However, Paul also
wrote, “Touch not the unclean thing” (II Corinthians
6:17). Paul did not contradict himself.
Christians today should still abstain from immoral,
ungodly, worldly things. The ceremonial law has been
abolished, but there are still many activities in this world
that Christians must avoid as morally or spiritually
unclean. Paul even compared the Christian life to a game
with certain rules that must be obeyed to obtain victory:
“And also if anyone competes in athletics, he is not
crowned unless he competes according to the rules”
(II Timothy 2:5, NKJV).
God still has many specific, practical guidelines as to
what His people should and should not do. As J. C. Ryle

76
noted, if we followed the definition of legalism that some
use, Christ’s Sermon on the Mount and many portions of
Paul’s epistles would be legalistic.
Some think our practical application of moral law is
too restrictive. Moral law is indeed a restricting force, but
that does not make it bad. The sinful nature needs a
restraint upon its desires. The spiritual man needs pro-
tection against the evils of the world. Railroad tracks keep
the train on course; without them the train would go
nowhere. Gravity binds us to the earth; without it we
would drift off into our own little world and die. Gravity
keeps the earth allied with the sun; without it the earth
would fly off on its own separate path without the life-sus-
taining light, heat, and energy that the sun provides.
The banks of a river define it and channel it. If the
banks were moved farther apart without increasing the
volume of water, the river would lose force and velocity. If
the banks were eliminated, the river would dissipate its
strength without arriving at its destination. It would lose
its identity as a river. Likewise, holiness teachings do not
force hardship on us, but bind us closely to a holy God
who is our source of life and strength. They preserve our
identity, channel our spiritual energy, provide direction,
and enhance our spiritual strength, so that we can arrive
at our final destination safely.
The fence around a garden does not serve to curb the
freedom of the garden but to preserve its freedom. The
fence protects the garden from external encroachment
that would bring damage or destruction. In like manner,
holiness teachings do not curb our freedom in Christ but
protect us from evils that would destroy our freedom.
In rejecting legalism, then, we must be careful not to

77
reject moral law or practical applications of moral law. We
must still uphold specific biblical teachings as well as
valid application of biblical principles to situations in
modern society. We must not allow either the legalistic
teachings of some or the “anti-law” teachings of others to
deflect us from the path of holiness.

God’s Nature: Holiness and Love

Those who reject moral law and practical holiness fail

to understand that holiness is the fundamental character-
istic of God upon which all His other moral attributes
depend. In particular, God’s holiness is the foundation of
His love and gives direction to His love. His holiness
determines His love, not vice versa. Because He is holy,
He does not love sin or evil. Because He is holy, His love
is impartial and eternal rather than arbitrary, capricious,
and fickle. God’s love can never contradict or override
His holiness.
Sin is a direct challenge to God’s sovereignty and a
violation of His holiness. God’s love will never cause Him
to overlook sin, because sin contradicts His basic nature
of holiness. When God forgives sin He does not simply
excuse it, but He accepts Christ’s death as the sufficient
penalty for that sin. In this way, God’s love can provide
forgiveness without violating His justice. “God presented
him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his
blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in
his forbearance he had left the sins committed before-
hand unpunished” (Romans 3:25, NIV). The death of
Christ showed that God demands punishment for all sin.

78
If we have faith in Christ, which includes repentance from
sin and obedience to His Word, then Christ’s death will
pay the penalty of our sin. Otherwise, we will receive
punishment for our sin.

Receiving the Holy Spirit

Since holiness is God’s very nature, when we receive

the Holy Spirit of God we receive a holy nature. Holiness
is not an external law but an integral part of our new
nature. The Spirit places God’s moral law within us, not
written on tables of stone but written in our hearts
(Jeremiah 31:31-33; Hebrews 10:16). The Spirit brings
power to live righteously. (See Romans 8:24 and the dis-
cussion of that passage in Chapter 1.)
In living for God, we do not merely follow an outward
list of rules, but we follow the nature of the Holy Spirit with-
in us. We live holy because that is what the new man is and
wants to be. We abstain from sin and worldliness because it
is anathema to our new nature. We still struggle against the
continual desires and lusts of the old nature, but this is an
internal struggle. No dictator imposes rules on us from the
outside; we impose restrictions on our sinful nature
because we no longer wish to follow the flesh but to follow
the Spirit. As Bruce said, the difference between legalism
and Christianity rests in the enabling power of the Spirit.

Faith

By faith we receive the Spirit that enables us to be

79
holy. By faith we do God’s will and obey His Word.
Faith in God will inevitably result in obedience to God
(Acts 6:7; Romans 1:5; 10:16; 16:26; James 2:14-26). If
we believe God we will believe His Word, and if we believe
His Word we will accept its teachings and apply them to
our lives. By faith we accept Christ’s atonement as suffi-
cient for our salvation and apply His death, burial, and res-
urrection to our lives. Specifically, by faith we repent,
receive remission of sins at water baptism, and receive the
baptism of the Holy Ghost. By faith we continue to walk
with God until final salvation. (For a full discussion of faith
and its necessary relation to obedience and works, see
Chapter 2 of The New Birth by David Bernard.)

Love

Along with faith in God, we must have a love for

God, His Word, and holiness. Without love, all attempts
to live for God are in vain (I Corinthians 13:1-13;
Revelation 2:1-7). If we love God, we will obey His com-
mandments and seek to implement holiness in our lives
(John 14:15, 23; I John 2:3-6). When we truly love God,
we will actively hate evil (Psalm 97:10) and we will seek
to become like our holy God. The greater our love for
God, the greater our desire for holiness.
Love is far stricter and more demanding than law, for
love always goes farther than duty. Love for God will
cause someone to draw much closer to God than legalism
will, both in attitudes and in disciplined living. Love will
cause someone to avoid everything that displeases God or
that hinders a closer walk with God. Love rejects every-

80
 thing that is not clearly compatible with godliness, or that
is not conducive to Christianity, even though no rules
have specifically labelled these things as sin. In this way,
the principle of love replaces the Law of Moses or a
codification of rules.
Love dominates all actions and all relationships. All
the law is summed up in love: we are to love God with all
our being and to love our fellow man as we love ourselves
(Matthew 22:36-40; Romans 13:8-10). Instead of the Law
of Moses we have “the perfect law of liberty,” which is the
“royal law” of love (James 1:25; 2:8; 2:12).
Rejecting legalism should lead to greater holiness
both inwardly and outwardly. This is depicted in the fol-
lowing diagram:

Faith and Love Versus Legalism

F
R
P A
C E
E I L
A P
R T E
R R S
F H G
G N O A
E A
O A B T
C HOLINESS L SIN
D L A A
T I
I T N
I L S
T I
O O M
Y O
N V
N
E
LAW

81
 Conclusion

The proper Christian alternative to legalism, then, is

to live by love, faith, and the Spirit. When we love God,
have faith in His Word, and walk after His Holy Spirit, we
will apply holiness principles to every situation of life. We
will not depend upon man-made rules, but we will rely
upon the teachings of God’s Word and the leadership of
God’s Spirit within us. In this way, we can overcome the
dangers of legalism.
Our salvation and our holiness rest in Christ and the
working of His Spirit, not in our own goodness. His Spirit
produces holiness, both internally and externally, as we
discipline ourselves, submit to Him, and obey Him.
We have principles to guide our conduct under all cir-
cumstances. We should not seek minimum requirements,
but the application of principles to every situation, new or
old. We must not be hypocritical, but should strive to live
consistently by biblical principles, which are not made
irrelevant by changes of culture, time, or geography.
Correct principles, both logically and scripturally,
carry their own authority with them since they stem from
the Word of God. We must not be judgmental of others
because we recognize that our holiness comes from God
and not from any goodness inherent within ourselves. We
should not be condemnatory of others because our lives
must be dominated by love.
Faith and love make us to be more concerned with
leading sinners to salvation than changing their conduct.
When they are born again, they will receive the desire and
power to change, making it unnecessary to use harsh,
dictatorial methods to teach them. Our reliance will be

82
upon the power of the Word, the Spirit, and personal
example. Instead of instantly imposing rules on new con-
verts, we should exercise love, patience, and tolerance to
let them mature at an individual rate of growth. We must
preach that holiness results from salvation, and that bib-
lical principles form the base of all practical guidelines.
Practical holiness is indeed scriptural and a sincere con-
vert will see this as he matures.
In conclusion, we can reject legalism and still empha-
size practical holiness. This will be done when we place
total faith in Jesus Christ, let our lives be dominated by
love for Him, sincerely seek to obey the teachings of the
Word of God, live in submission to the indwelling Holy
Spirit, and make the personal effort required to imple-
ment holiness principles in our lives.

FOOTNOTES

1
“Law in the OT,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (New
York: Abingdon), III, 77.
2
Rushdoony, Rousas. The Institutes of Biblical Law (Phillips-
burg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1973), pp. 6-7.

83
 4
CHRISTIAN LIBERTY
“For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only
use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love
serve one another” (Galatians 5:13).
Biblical Christianity is not a life of drudgery but a life
of liberty. Unfortunately, some people use this concept to
justify their rejection of practical holiness teachings.
Some discard many important aspects of moral law under
this guise. Chapter 3 has shown that rejection of legalism
does not nullify moral law, nor does it justify libertinism.
This chapter discusses the biblical meaning of liberty in
Christ and demonstrates that Christian liberty does not
eliminate the need for personal holiness.

Freedom from Sin

First and foremost, Christian liberty means that we

are no longer under bondage to sin. Before our conver-
sion we were at the mercy of the sinful nature and could
not help but sin. If we seemingly conquered sin in one

85
area, it would reassert its position in another aspect of
our lives.
Through the Holy Spirit we now have power over sin
—power not to sin. We can freely choose to sin or not to
sin. Of course, as Christians we must choose not to sin. If
we abuse our liberty and choose to live in sin again, we
will surrender our new-found freedom. When a prisoner
receives freedom, he has liberty to rejoin society; he is not
given the liberty to return to jail each day. Likewise, we
receive freedom from sin in order to have fellowship with
God, not to return to the slavery of sin. For the first time,
we are free to obey God and to become His servants.
“Sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not
under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin,
because we are not under the law, but under grace? God
forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves ser-
vants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey;
whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteous-
ness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of
sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doc-
trine which was delivered you. Being then made free from
sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. . . . As ye
have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and
to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members
servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were
the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. . . .
But now being made free from sin, and become servants
to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end ever-
lasting life” (Romans 6:14-20, 22).
A person will either serve good or evil, God or Satan.
He will either receive eternal life or death. There is no
middle ground in which a man can live his own life with-

86
out choosing either alternative.
Christian liberty cannot mean a Christian is free to do
as he pleases without reference to the will of God. By
rejecting the will of God, he automatically chooses the
world, sin, and Satan. To be freed from the will of God
automatically means submission to the dominion of sin.
To be freed from sin automatically means submission to
the will of God. By definition, to exercise Christian liberty
means to break free from sin’s bondage, to obey and
serve God, which in turn means to serve “righteousness
unto holiness” and to bear “fruit unto holiness.”

Freedom from the Law

Christian liberty also means freedom from the law. As

we discussed in Chapter 3 and in the preceding section,
Christian liberty cannot mean that moral law has been
abolished. Rather, it means that we have been freed from
the law of the Old Testament in at least four specific ways:
we are free from (1) the penalty of the law, (2) the
attempt to fulfill the law by human effort alone, (3) the
destructive power of the law that arises from man’s abuse
of it, and (4) the ceremonial law.
First, we are freed from the penalty and condemna-
tion of the law. The law condemned us to death, but when
we apply Christ’s atonement to our lives we are par-
doned: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the
law” (Galatians 3:13). The law has no more power to con-
demn us when we are in Christ.
Second, we are freed from the attempt to fulfill the
law through human effort alone. Of course, God never

87
meant for the law to bring righteousness in itself; salva-
tion has never been by works, but always by grace
through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), both before and during
the law (Romans 4:1-12). God gave the law to define sin,
to prove man’s utter sinfulness, to prove man’s need of
God’s grace, and to point man to Christ (Romans 3:20;
5:20; 7:7; Galatians 3:24).
In order to fulfill these purposes, God subjected man
to the law, even though man did not have power to fulfill
the law. God’s people were actually under bondage to the
law, just as a child is treated like a servant (slave) under
tutors (guardians) and governors (administrators) until
he reaches maturity (Galatians 4:1-11, 21-31).
Godly people in the Old Testament did not have the
full power of the Holy Ghost available to them to over-
come sin on a daily basis (Romans 8:3-4; Hebrews
8:7-13; I Peter 1:10-12). They were never able to live up
to the law because they had to rely on weak, sinful flesh.
They were saved by faith expressed in obedience to God’s
plan for that day; they attempted to fulfill the law and
offered sacrifices continually to atone for their failures.
The gospel of Christ has delivered us from this bond-
age to the law. By faith in Christ, we receive the right-
eousness of Christ without the deeds of the law (Romans
3:28). Through the Holy Spirit, we can fulfill all the right-
eousness that the law demanded but could not impart.
God counts us righteous (justifies us) through faith in
Christ and progressively makes us righteous (sanctifies
us) as we submit to and cooperate with His indwelling
Spirit. Rather than being bound to an externally imposed
law, we receive the moral law of God in our hearts as part
of the regenerated nature.

88
 “For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,
the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in
our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by
dying to what once bound us, we have been released
from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit,
and not in the old way of the written code” (Romans
7:5-6, NIV).
“There is therefore now no condemnation to them
which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh,
but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in
Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and
death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak
through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the like-
ness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the
flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled
in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”
(Romans 8:1-4).
“If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. . . .
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance:
against such there is no law” (Galatians 5:18, 22-23).
“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us
unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after
that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmas-
ter” (Galatians 3:24-25).
Third, we are freed from the destructive power of the
law caused by man’s abuse of it. Many Jews falsely
believed they could obtain righteousness merely by the
works of the law (Romans 9:31-10:4). This was a gross
distortion of God’s original purpose for giving the law.
The law, which was good in itself, actually became a
harmful force because they relied on it for salvation and

89
so rejected Christ. Paul attacked this legalistic thinking in
his day. Acts 15, Romans, and Galatians refute this doc-
trine as taught by some Jewish Christians.
Lewis Smedes explained the problem well: “When the
law came, the ‘flesh’ made the law an instrument of self-
righteousness. The law became part of a religious system
which fostered man’s sense of self-sufficiency. It became
party to man’s monstrous delusion. This was the Judaistic
religious system that Paul recognized as the enemy of
Christ. The law had been turned inside out; rather than a
witness to man’s need of being saved, it had become a
technique to save oneself. The inner meaning of the law
had been forgotten. . . . The law teamed with flesh pro-
duces sin. And sin ends in death.”1
Smedes also summarized the true meaning of Chris-
tian liberty: “Clearly, freedom in Christ does not retire us
from obedience to the moral law . . . [it] change[s] our
way of looking at the law. Once, in our stupidity, we
thought that with the help of the law we could conquer
the moral life. But we are weak and the law was unable to
protect our flanks. But Christ created a new alliance; now
we are under Him as Lord, with the Spirit enabling us to
‘fulfill the just requirements of the law.’” 2 Smedes con-
cluded that the law teaches submission to Christ and obe-
dience to the leading of the Spirit. In short, we have been
liberated from the condemnation of the law so that we
can freely serve in the Spirit.
Finally, we are specifically freed from the ceremoni-
al law of the Old Testament (Mark 7:15; Galatians
3:24-25; 4:9-11, 21-31). God used the ceremonial law—
including blood sacrifices, dietary laws, circumcision,
sabbaths, and feasts—as types and foreshadowings of

90
truth to be found in Christ and His gospel. Now that we
have the substance (antitype) we no longer need the
shadow (type). “When you were dead in your sins and in
the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you
alive with Christ. He forgave us at. our sins, having can-
celed the written code, with its regulations, that was
against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away,
nailing it to the cross. . . . Therefore do not let anyone
judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a
religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath
day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come;
the reality, however, is found in Christ” (Colossians
2:13-14, 16-17, NIV). Thus, the New Testament church
refused to impose the Jewish law upon Gentile
Christians (Acts 15).

Freedom in Non-Moral Matters

True to the principle of freedom from ceremonial law,

Christians have liberty of action in non-moral matters. In
general, the Christian is free to participate in any activity
or practice that does not violate biblical morality. He has
freedom to follow his individual judgment, desire, and
conscience in areas where the Bible is silent.
Romans 14 gives guidelines for situations in which
consciences differ. This chapter deals with morally indif-
ferent issues, so we must be careful to apply its teach-
ings within that context. The first controversial issue
Paul addressed was the eating of meat. This could refer
to vegetarianism, eating meat possibly offered to idols,
or eating meat classified as unclean under Jewish law.

91
Secondly, Paul discussed the proper observance of cer-
tain days, such as sabbaths and other Jewish holy days.
Later in the chapter, Paul mentioned the drinking of
wine (any juice from the grape). This, too, involved
Jewish law, for juice from the grape could be ceremoni-
ally unclean (Daniel 1:8-16) or forbidden by a Nazarite
vow (Numbers 6:3).
In each of these cases, the New Testament nowhere
prohibits the questioned conduct, but in fact expressly
forbids anyone to establish rules against it (Acts
15:19-29; Colossians 2:16; I Timothy 4:1-5). This chap-
ter does not deal with morally objectionable practices or
practices condemned by the Word of God.
With respect to these morally neutral issues, Paul pre-
sented several important guidelines: (1) We must not
judge others, but must avoid controversies over these
issues. The one who participates should not despise or
ridicule the one who abstains. The one who abstains
should not condemn the one who participates. (2) Every
man should have his own convictions and should follow
them. If the participator has faith in his liberty, he should
keep it to himself; if he has doubts he should stop. The
abstainer should continue to abstain if he has any doubts
at all. (3) Whatever a person does should be done unto
the Lord, that is, with the conviction that he is obeying
and glorifying the Lord in everything. In all things he
must acknowledge the lordship of Christ. (4) In no case
should one Christian allow his exercise of Christian liber-
ty to put an obstacle in the path of another. Rather than
judging others, we should judge ourselves so that our
actions will not cause others to stumble. We should not let
our liberty destroy others or the work of God, but in all

92
things we should seek peace and edification.
Paul also explained the proper use of Christian liberty
in his discussion of food offered to idols (I Corinthians
8:1-13; 10:23-33). Since an idol is nothing, there is noth-
ing inherently immoral or dangerous about eating food
that someone had offered to an idol. However, if others
saw a Christian eating food offered to idols, they proba-
bly would interpret it as endorsing or condoning idol wor-
ship. For their sakes, therefore, Paul told the Corinthians
not to eat food that they knew was offered to idols.
What if the Christian buys food in the market or eats
food at someone else’s house? There is no need to worry
about whether it has previously been offered to idols or
not. For the sake of an onlooker’s conscience, he should
innocently eat the food without asking questions. In no
case, however, can the Christian insist upon liberty if his
actions will harm others.

We Must Always Obey God’s Word

Some people abuse the concept of Christian liberty

in order to condone violation of holiness principles. In
the last days ungodly men will “change the grace of our
God into a license for immorality” (Jude 4, NIV). False
teachers will appeal to lustful desires and promise liber-
ty but will actually be under bondage to sin (II Peter
2:18-19). Some think they can continue to sin because
they are no longer under the law but under grace. Their
attitude is, “I can sin because I know God will forgive
me.” Paul rejected this philosophy emphatically: “God for-
bid!” (Romans 6:15).

93
 As Chapter 3 discussed, God’s moral law is still bind-
ing, and Christian liberty means freedom to submit to
truth, not freedom from truth. Even though we have lib-
erty, we must not use it to gratify the desires of the flesh.
Christian liberty does not give us license to disobey God’s
moral law or the principles of God’s Word. Paul
explained, “You, my brothers, were called to be free. But
do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature;
rather, serve one another in love. . . . The acts of the sin-
ful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and
debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jeal-
ousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions
and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you,
as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit
the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:13, 19-20, NIV).
God’s Word also teaches submission to godly authori-
ty. Christian liberty does not eliminate our responsibility
to follow His church and His leaders when they apply bib-
lical principles of holiness to contemporary issues. “Obey
them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves:
for they watch for your souls, as they that must give
account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief:
for that is unprofitable for you” (Hebrews 13:17). The
apostles and elders in Jerusalem wrote letters to Gentiles
Christians specifying what was required of them: “For it
seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon
you no greater burden than these necessary things” (Acts
15:28).
Some people quote a few passages out of context in
order to justify abandonment of all moral restraints. For
example, Paul wrote, “I know, and am persuaded by the
Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to

94
him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is
unclean” (Romans 14:14). The context of this verse makes
it clear that Paul was not referring to all activities but to
non-moral issues. The immediate context shows that he
specifically referred to the eating of certain types of food
sometimes considered to be unclean (Romans 14:6, 15,
20). In fact, the NIV translates this clause as “I am fully
convinced that no food is unclean in itself.” This verse
could not mean no activity is immoral in itself, for this
would contradict all of Paul’s practical teaching in chap-
ters 12 and 13. Nor could it mean that all physical things
are intended and fit for human consumption. Surely, Paul
did not recommend for us to drink hemlock, bathe in poi-
son ivy, smoke opium, or get drunk on alcohol!
In two other verses, Paul stated, “All things are
lawful unto [for] me, but all things are not expedient”
(I Corinthians 6:12; 10:23). Again, the context of each
verse indicates that he was dealing with non-moral mat-
ters and specifically meant all foods are permissible to
eat. I Corinthians 6:13 states, “Meats for the belly, and
the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and
them.” The passage in I Corinthians 10 deals with the
question of eating food offered to idols. Neither passage
can be interpreted to mean that all activities are per-
missible, for I Corinthians 6:9-10 states, “Know ye not
that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idol-
aters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of
themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous,
nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall
inherit the kingdom of God.”

95
 Guidelines for Proper Use of Christian Liberty

Our liberty does not permit us to indulge in fleshly

desires, to commit sin, or to violate God’s Word. We find
other important guidelines for the proper exercise of
Christian liberty, even with respect to non-moral matters.3
(1) All exercise of liberty should be to the glory of
God: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever
ye do, do all to the glory of God” (I Corinthians 10:31).
“And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name
of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by
him” (Colossians 3:17).
(2) We should avoid anything detrimental to us,
whether physically, mentally, or spiritually, even if it is not
inherently sinful: “All things are lawful unto me, but all
things are not expedient” (I Corinthians 6:12). Many
commentators believe Paul quoted an expression the Cor-
inthians used to justify questionable conduct and then
commented upon it. Thus, the NIV translates, “‘Every-
thing is permissible for me’—but not everything is bene-
ficial.” I Corinthians 10:23 uses the word edify: “All things
are lawful for me, but all things edify not.”
(3) We must regulate our activities so that none of
them controls us. We must not allow anything to dominate
our will or rob us of too much energy, time, and money. We
must not let anything interfere with our relationship with
God. “All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought
under the power of any” (I Corinthians 6:12).
(4) The Christian must never exercise liberty in a way
that would harm others. “Take heed lest by any means
this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them
that are weak. . . . Wherefore, if meat make my brother to

96
offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I
make my brother to offend” (I Corinthians 8:9, 13). “Give
none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor
to the church of God: Even as I please all men in all
things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of
many, that they may be saved” (I Corinthians 10:32-33).
“If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you
are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating
destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow
what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. . . . Do
not destroy the work of God for the sake of food”
(Romans 14:15-16, 20, NIV).
It is possible for something to be morally neutral in
itself and yet violate one of these principles. Some things
may be detrimental to one person and not to another,
because of differences of personality, background, or expe-
rience before conversion. A certain situation may pose a
great temptation for one person but not for another.
Jerry Bridges gave the example of a new convert who
decided not to attend a Christian skating party. Prior to
his conversion, he had frequently used skating rinks as
places to pick up girls. At that particular time in his life
any skating tended to inflame old lusts. Consequently, he
decided to flee these lusts by avoiding the seemingly inno-
cent situation.
Bridges gave another example of a tennis champion
who realized that tennis was totally dominating her to the
detriment of her spiritual life. Because of this, she quit
playing altogether. Years later, after the danger was gone,
she began to play again solely for recreation. (For further
discussion of Christian liberty as it relates to worldly
amusements, see Chapter 14.)

97
 The preceding examples illustrate the importance of
following the teaching of Romans 14. Each person must
be careful to follow his own convictions even though
others do not share them. Something could be wrong for
one person even if not wrong for another person. If
someone violates a conviction solely because of pressure
from others, he violates the faith principle in his life and
may place himself into a damaging situation from which
God is trying to protect him. Other should not ridicule
his conviction because they may destroy a defense mech-
anism God has erected for him. At the same time, he
should not try to impose his convictions on someone
who may not need it as much as he does. Of course, this
discussion applies only to situations not specifically cov-
ered by scriptural teachings.

Tolerance But Not Compromise

The concept of Christian liberty teaches us to be tol-

erant of the different personal convictions and prefer-
ences of fellow Christians. In no case can we compromise
with sin. We must avoid the one extreme of legalism and
the other extreme of condoning ungodly and immoral
practices. A mature understanding of Christian liberty
will show us that certain things are not sinful but yet are
detrimental to us spiritually. Therefore, we can person-
ally avoid them and even point out their dangers without
necessarily condemning those who do not understand
the dangers.
The legalist who does not understand Christian liberty

98
is forced to pigeonhole everything in one of two cate-
gories: either a practice is sinful and will send one to hell
or it is not sinful and therefore perfectly permissible.
However, it is scriptural to recognize that some things are
not necessarily sinful in themselves but yet are not bene-
ficial to Christian living.
Some things can be a “weight” or hindrance and yet
not be sin (Hebrews 12:1). In such cases, a proper exer-
cise of Christian liberty would cause us to avoid them.
Yet, if someone does not agree totally on this issue, we
can still accept his status as a Christian. In this way, we
can warn of the dangers of certain practices without
being legalistic. This allows us to have fellowship with
other believers without having to agree 100% on every
personal conviction.

Legalism, Liberty, and Church Standards

How does our discussion in the last two chapters

affect the establishment of specific church standards for
conduct? Certainly, the church must continue to teach
against practices the Bible opposes. To do this effective-
ly, ministers cannot merely parrot certain phrases but
must explain the Bible’s teachings and apply them to con-
temporary situations. The church must define clearly
what it means to lie, to defraud, to dress immodestly, and
so on. The writers of the epistles gave some very specific
instructions with respect to situations in their day, and the
church must do likewise today.
In some cases, the Bible presents a general principle
but does not give detailed instructions for our culture. For

99
example, it teaches men to have short hair but does not
specify the precise length. It teaches women to dress
modestly but does not describe a dress length. In such
cases the church should reach a consensus as to the
implementation of these principles. It must send forth a
clear sound, presenting clear guidance to the believer and
a clear witness to the unbeliever.
The church should not be chaotic but orderly, and its
members should walk orderly and in unity (II Thessalon-
ians 3:6-7). (See I Corinthians 14:8, 10 for an analogous
situation.) If everyone did what was right in his own eyes
without submitting to leadership, the result would be
chaos and confusion (Judges 21:25). Some differences of
opinion will exist, but since one Spirit has baptized us
into one body we should be able to reach a reasonable
position that all can uphold before the world.
This position should not be what we regard as the
absolute minimum, but rather a moderate stance. It
should be conservative, for we must live within biblically
acceptable limits. (Only a legalist would insist on an
absolute minimum. Others would rather be “extra” close
to God rather than risk being too close to the world.)
Honest-hearted converts truly desire to know how to
apply scriptural principles. They want practical direction
from experienced, mature, spiritual leaders. A wise per-
son appreciates counsel, instruction, correction, and
reproof (Proverbs 11:14; 13:1; 17:10). The true child of
God seeks godly leaders who will warn of danger and pro-
tect his soul (Hebrews 13:17). He will not despise or
reject authority (II Peter 2:10; Jude 8), for God has estab-
lished authority and government in the church to give
specific guidance (I Corinthians 12:28; I Thessalonians

100
5:12-13; I Timothy 5:17; II Timothy 4:2).
Even in areas where we have Christian liberty, if the
four principles we have discussed lead to one conclusion,
then the church should teach that conclusion. Even
though eating meat offered to idols fell within the scope
of Christian liberty, Paul taught against it in all situations
where it could be a stumbling block. Similarly, the coun-
cil at Jerusalem did not hesitate to forbid this practice
and to announce their decision as binding upon the whole
church (Acts 15:28-29).
The church can uphold biblical standards of holiness
and not be legalistic or violate Christian liberty. Standards
can become legalistic, however, if we present them in the
manner described in Chapter 3.

Legalism, Liberty, and Teaching

In particular, when we try to apply biblical principles

to modern situations, we must be careful not to claim the
same authority for our particular application that exists
for the principle itself. If we maintain that every con-
ceivable deviation from our particular application is a sin,
we can fall into legalism.
For example, we believe quite strongly that it is not
God’s will for us to drink alcoholic beverages. Yet can we
say the actual taste of alcohol is sinful? If so, it would be
a sin to go to a restaurant and eat cherries jubilee or meat
cooked in a wine sauce. It would be sinful to use vanilla
extract. Those who use fermented wine at communion
would be committing sin.
We also believe that owning a television is not the will

101
of God and that watching programs can be sinful. Yet can
we say the machine itself is evil or the act of watching the
news for one minute is necessarily a sin? If so, glancing at
a TV in a store display would be sinful. Watching a presi-
dential address or a moon landing on TV would be a sin.
The purpose of these examples is not to undermine
solid holiness teaching, but to demonstrate the proper
approach to holiness teaching. We do not have to take
such arbitrary positions in order to maintain holy living.
If we use a legalistic approach in teaching against certain
practices, our rules will either be inconsistent or ridicu-
lously harsh. We will alienate sincere, thinking people
with unwarranted extremism. On the other hand, we can
use a mature understanding of Christian liberty to
approach holiness in a positive way. This approach will be
moderate, temperate, and rational without surrendering
important practical teachings. In fact, it will enhance
those teachings and facilitate their acceptance.
For example, by properly applying Christian liberty
we can teach that Christians should not drink alcoholic
beverages or watch television. Both practices violate
scriptural guidelines for the proper exercise of Christian
liberty: (1) They fail to give God glory in any way, but in
fact they could bring a reproach. (2) They are physically,
mentally, and spiritually damaging. (3) They have strong
potential for getting mastery over us. (4) They are stum-
bling blocks to others, particularly to members of our
own family.

Contemporary Non-Moral Issues

In the preceding examples, the serious application of

102
the guidelines for Christian liberty will draw a clear line
between proper and improper conduct. In some cases,
however, these guidelines do not demand such a clear-cut
decision. These are essentially non-moral issues upon
which Christians may legitimately differ and which should
be handled in accordance with Romans 14. Let us give
modern examples.
Some people oppose the celebration of Christmas
because of pagan associations. Undoubtedly, December
25 was once a pagan holiday. However, there is no sin in
choosing December 25 to celebrate Christ’s birth and in
using some decorations. For us it is not an act of pagan
worship but a part of our cultural heritage and tradition.
The names for the days of the week, the names of the
planets, and many other things originated in pagan reli-
gions, but we routinely use them without question
because we have eliminated the pagan meaning and
retained only a cultural meaning.
We can divorce our celebration of Christmas from
pagan worship so that it becomes no more dangerous for
us than eating food offered to idols was to the mature
believer of Paul’s day. Since no one in our society realis-
tically believes that we actually worship pagan deities by
our Christmas celebration, we can exercise Christian lib-
erty in this matter without creating a stumbling block for
someone else. However, if a person feels uneasy about
ancient pagan associations, he should be true to his own
conscience and abstain from the celebration. Both those
who observe the day and those who do not observe it can
do it as unto the Lord (Romans 14:6). Neither should con-
demn, judge, or ridicule the other.
A related example concerns the Sabbath. Some believe

103
we should still keep Saturday as the Sabbath. Others believe
the Sabbath has been changed to Sunday, and therefore we
must not work, buy, or sell on Sunday. It seems clear that
the gospel has abolished all literal Sabbath-keeping (Acts
15:19-29; Romans 14:5-6; Galatians 4:9-11; Colossians
2:16-17). The literal Sabbath was uniquely associated with
the nation of Israel (Deuteronomy 5:15; Ezekiel 20:12).
Jesus compared it to ceremonial law, which could be super-
seded in cases of necessity (Matthew 12:1-13). It foreshad-
owed the rest, refreshing and sanctification we enjoy every
day in the Holy Ghost and the eternal sabbath rest we shall
enjoy in the life to come (Isaiah 28:11-12; Acts 3:19;
Hebrews 4:1-11).
We should attend church services whenever our local
congregation has designated them (Hebrews 10:25), and
early Christians chose Sunday in commemoration of the
Lord’s resurrection (Acts 20:7; I Corinthians 16:2). But
there is no legalistic requirement as to a certain day.
Those who observe a certain day as holy must not judge
those who do not, and vice versa (Romans 14:5-6).
A third example is the use of fermented wine at Com-
munion. We do not find any biblical support to demand
this practice. In fact, we can see potential dangers that
using wine could be a stumbling block. It poses unnec-
essary temptation to reformed alcoholics, and some may
see it as inconsistent with our stand against drinking in
general. However, we do not find any biblical passage that
would label using wine in the Communion a sin. In accor-
dance with his own conscience a person may not use wine
at Communion, but he cannot condemn as sinful those
who do. Likewise, those who use wine have no scriptural
ground to condemn those who do not. If they make it a

104
basis of salvation, they transform the Lord’s Supper into
a sacrament with saving power and make alcohol the
means of salvation. There is simply no biblical support for
this assertion.
Another example is the use of wedding rings. A per-
son may not wear a ring of any sort, basing his conscien-
tious scruple on biblical warnings against the use of
jewelry for adornment and his desire to be consistent in
the sight of everyone. However, in some cultures failure
to wear the wedding ring can imply that one is living in
fornication, thereby creating a possible stumbling block
for an observer. In such cases, we cannot label the wear-
ing of the ring as sin. We can respect the conviction of
one who wears a simple wedding band (assuming it is not
for ornamentation) just as we ask him to respect those
who have a conviction not to wear it.
Finally, we can use the example of beards and mus-
taches. In the 1960’s, men used facial hair to symbolize
rebellion against authority and the acceptance of an
immoral lifestyle. Frequently, the same men wore long
hair, which violates biblical teaching. In some segments
of society and in many conservative churches, beards and
mustaches still carry these negative connotations. If they
create an appearance of evil or a stumbling block in a
society, Christians should not wear them.
We must agree, however, that the Bible does not con-
demn them as inherently evil. Many godly men of Bible
days wore beards (I Samuel 21:13; Psalm 133:2; Ezekiel
5:1). One prophecy indicates that Jesus probably had a
beard (Isaiah 50:6). In American society of the 19th cen-
tury, beards had no ungodly associations. Many Pente-
costal pioneers of the early 20th century had beards. In

105
many foreign cultures and among many minority groups,
beards and mustaches have never had and do not now
have negative associations. Perhaps our society as a
whole will revert to the use of facial hair. In light of these
facts, we cannot legalistically condemn facial hair itself as
sinful. We can warn of the attitudes often associated with
it in our culture, but we must be flexible enough to accept
it in times, places, and cultures where these problems do
not exist.

Conclusion

John Calvin defined Christian liberty as consisting of

three things.4 First, we renounce the righteousness that
comes by observing law and look solely to Christ for
righteousness. Second, the conscience is freed from the
yoke of the law and voluntarily obeys the will of God.
Third, we have the free use of morally indifferent things.
Calvin observed that Christian liberty is “perversely inter-
preted by some who use it as a cloak for their lust, and
they may licentiously abuse the good gifts of God.”5
In summary, the Christian life is characterized by lib-
erty. Through the gospel of Jesus Christ we receive free-
dom from sin, freedom from the law, and freedom to act
as we will in non-moral matters. We follow “the law of lib-
erty,” which means freedom to do God’s will and to obey
His Word (James 1:25; 2:12).
In no case does Christian liberty give us license to
commit sin, violate God’s Word, or gratify the lusts of the
flesh. Furthermore, our exercise of Christian liberty must
always be regulated by four questions: (1) Can I glorify

106
God in this activity? (2) Is this activity detrimental physi-
cally,. mentally, or spiritually? (3) Can this activity gain
mastery over me and bring me under its control? (4) Is
this activity a stumbling block to another believer or to an
unbeliever? These guidelines even extend to things
morally neutral or innocent in themselves.
If the Bible condemns a practice either specifically or
in principle, then we must obey. If the four basic guide-
lines for exercise of Christian liberty point to a certain
course of action, then again we obey. If an issue is morally
neutral and the four guidelines do not define a certain
response, we apply the teaching of Romans 14. We must
grant liberty to others and not treat our private convic-
tions as gospel. We must not impose our tradition, pref-
erences, or habits upon others and condemn them as
sinners if they do not conform. The participator should
not despise the abstainer and the abstainer should not
condemn the participator, but everyone should avoid
contention, seek peace, and seek to edify. No one should
judge another in the matter, but each must be true to his
own convictions.
When we implement the concept of Christian liberty,
we will find that it does not detract from but rather it
enhances holiness teaching. It is the biblical alternative to
legalism. A mature understanding of our liberty in Christ
will motivate us to live a holy life worthy of the freedom
given to us. Christian liberty will lead to a life of greater
holiness, because it enables us for the first time to submit
voluntarily to the will of God. Liberated from the bondage
of sin and the law, we freely choose to obey the Word of
God.

107
 FOOTNOTES

1
Lewis Smedes, Union with Christ, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1983), p. 72.
2
Ibid., pp. 80-81.
3
See Bridges, p. 91.
4
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Henry
Beveridge, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rpt. 1981), II, 130-42.
5
Ibid., II, 135-36.

108
 5
PRACTICAL HOLINESS
IN CHURCH HISTORY
“Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with
so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every
weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let
us run with patience the race that is set before us”
(Hebrews 12:1).
Many people today view our practical application of
holiness principles as extremely narrow and even fanati-
cal. Jesus Christ did teach that the Christian walk was
narrow compared to the one chosen by the majority of
the world. “Enter ye in at the strait [small] gate: for wide
is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruc-
tion, and many there be which go in thereat: Because
strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth
unto life, and few there be that find it. . . . Not every one
that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the king-
dom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father
which is in heaven” (Matthew 7:13, 14, 21). “Strive to
enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will
seek to enter in, and shall not be able” (Luke 13:24).

109
 While we expect the world to think the holy life is
unnecessarily narrow and restrictive, it is somewhat sur-
prising to hear professing Christians voice this opinion.
Our defense rests in the Word of God itself, for we have
based all our conclusions on solid biblical teachings.
However, we also find our position vindicated by many
respected leaders and groups throughout the history of
Christendom. This chapter demonstrates that many in
church history have advocated the same holiness teach-
ings we do, even though we do not necessarily endorse all
their doctrines. In many ways, 20th century Christendom
has departed from the Christian lifestyle taught by his-
toric church leaders.

The Early Church Fathers

Holiness was an important theme in the writings of

the early post-apostolic fathers. Ignatius (30?-107?)
described the church as “adorned with holiness.”1
Clement of Rome (30?-100?) wrote to the Corinthian
church, “Let us then draw near to Him with holiness of
spirit, lifting up pure and undefiled hands unto Him. . . .
Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy
One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness,
avoiding all evil-speaking, all abominable and impure
embraces, together with all drunkenness, seeking after
change, all abominable lusts, detestable adultery, and exe-
crable pride. . . . How blessed and wonderful, beloved, are
the gifts of God! Life in immortality, splendour in right-
eousness, truth in perfect confidence, faith in assurance,
self-control in holiness! . . . May God . . . who chose our

110
Lord Jesus Christ and us through Him to be a peculiar
people—grant to every soul that calleth upon His glorious
and holy Name, faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffer-
ing, self-control, purity and sobriety, to the well-pleasing
of His Name.”2
The church fathers prior to the time of the Emperor
Constantine unanimously advocated a life of separation
from the world. They applied their teachings on holiness
to specific issues in their day. Kenneth Scott Latourette, a
leading authority on church history, stated that the early
Christians opposed polytheism, sexual immorality, gladia-
torial contests, the indecencies of the theater, infanticide,
abortion, pagan festivals, public amusements, sports of
the amphitheater, and warfare.3 They taught against all
forms of luxury, and preached simplicity in clothing, eat-
ing, and drinking.4 As subsequent chapters describe, they
specifically opposed astrology, magic, abortion, adultery,
fornication, homosexuality, effeminate dress by males,
immodesty of dress, jewelry, makeup, worldly music,
dancing, gambling, gluttony, drunkenness, and swearing
by oath.
In the latter half of the 2nd century, a Christian named
Montanus proclaimed himself a prophet and began to
attract a large following. He emphasized holiness of life,
the operation of the gifts of the Spirit, and the priesthood
of all believers, all of which he felt the church was losing.
As Latourette explained, Montanism was “a call to
Christians to stricter living . . . It stressed a high standard
of Christian living among Christian communities into
which laxity was beginning to creep.”5 According to his
opponents, Montanus claimed to be the last prophet
before the end of the world. They also accused him of

111
claiming to be the Holy Spirit because he always proph-
esied in the first person. Historical accounts indicate that
Montanism ultimately went to extremes in emphasizing
prophecy and asceticism. Eventually it was condemned as
heresy. However, it did represent an attempt to maintain
the purity of life characteristic of earliest Christianity, and
it attracted some highly respected followers.
Although some laxity began to creep into the church
in this early time, prominent Christian writers took strong
stands for holiness of lifestyle. These include Hermas (c.
110), the authors of the Didache (2nd century), Justin
Martyr (110-165), Tatian (110-172), Theophilus
(115-188), Athenagoras (177), Clement of Alexandria
(150-220), Tertullian (160-230), Hippolytus (170-236),
Origen (180-254), Minucius Felix (210), Commodianus
(240), Cyprian (200-258), and Lactantius (260-330).
(Dates before 300 are uncertain.) Subsequent chapters
refer to some of their specific teachings.
The conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine
sometime after 312 marked a turning point in the history
of Christendom. Constantine ended the persecution of
Christians and used the power of the Roman Empire to
promote Christianity actively. His successors established
Christianity as the official state religion. They persecuted
paganism and eventually outlawed it. Pagans converted to
Christendom without being spiritually reborn, carrying
their pagan doctrines and practices into the church with
them. Genuine Christian doctrines of the Holy Spirit, wor-
ship, and holiness were overwhelmed. Historian Walter
Nigg wrote, “As soon as Emperor Constantine opened the
floodgates and the masses of the people poured into the
Church out of sheer opportunism, the loftiness of the

112
Christian ethos was done for.”6
We do find some holiness teaching during this time,
such as in the writings of John Chrysostom (345-407)
and in the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles. Most of
the latter dates from the 4th century, but many scholars
believe it basically preserves church tradition from the
2nd and 3rd centuries.

The Middle Ages

The gradual doctrinal shift over the centuries led to

what we know as the Roman Catholic Church, which was
the undisputed religion of Western Europe until the Pro-
testant Reformation in 1517. During the medieval
period, the Catholic Church actively suppressed
“heretics” (people who opposed its doctrines), so very
little historical records remain of them. However, we do
find evidence of several large “heretical” groups that
were strongly committed to holiness of lifestyle. The
Waldensians, founded in 12th century France by Peter
Waldo, rejected papal authority and attempted to base
their beliefs solely on the Bible. Specifically, they refused
to lie, to take oaths, or to take human life. They were
chaste, were temperate in eating and drinking, opposed
taverns, did not dance, avoided the accumulation of
great wealth, and avoided anger.7 The Humiliati in
Lombardy were closely associated with the Waldensians.
“Its adherents were plain in dress and abstained from
oaths and falsehoods and lawsuits.”8
The Albigensians, also founded in 12th century
France, were known as Cathari. This latter name was

113
derived from a word meaning pure because they stressed
purity of lifestyle. They apparently held some question-
able doctrines taken from Persian dualism, but they were
a positive reaction to the immorality of the times,
particularly clerical corruption. The Inquisition severely
persecuted both Waldensians and Albigensians, and
Catholic armies massacred thousands of them.
John Hus (1369-1415) of Bohemia challenged papal
primacy and emphasized the supreme authority of Scrip-
ture. He was burned at the stake with the approval of
Pope John XXIII. The Hussites prohibited dancing, gam-
bling, and the appearance of “loose women” on the
streets, and one group of them rejected oaths and war-
fare.9
Girolamo Savonarola (1452-1498) was an Italian
priest who preached against the immorality that existed in
the papacy, Italian politics, and the lives of the people of
his day. Inspired by his preaching, the people of Florence
burned trinkets, masks, cosmetics, obscene books, dice,
games of chance and objects of luxury.10 Savonarola was
eventually hanged by the Catholic Church.

Luther and the Protestant Reformation

In 1517 Martin Luther challenged the Roman Catholic

practice of selling indulgences to remit punishment for
sin. This led to the formation of Protestant Christianity,
which stresses justification by faith rather than works.
Luther taught that we are justified by faith in Christ even
though we are not actually righteous and that we live by
faith rather than by the law. He did not reject moral law,

114
however, but, taught that the moral law of both Testa-
ments shows how a justified person should live in order
to please God. Luther opposed the immorality and cor-
ruption of the Catholic Church in his day and advocated
a godly life. Because of his total preoccupation with
defending justification by faith against salvation by works
and Catholic legalism, however, he did not stress the doc-
trine of sanctification. This singleness of vision even
caused him to question the validity of the Book of James
because it teaches the necessity of works as proof of gen-
uine faith.
Protestantism in the early 16th century soon devel-
oped into four distinct branches: Lutherans, Reformed,
Anabaptists, and Anglicans (Church of England). Follow-
ing Luther’s example, the Lutherans as a whole never
developed a strong emphasis on holiness in their theol-
ogy. However, it was inevitable that other Protestants
would. Since Protestants affirmed the sole authority of
Scripture, many of them began to study the Bible, inter-
pret it literally, and apply its teachings to their own lives.
On the whole, then, the Protestant Reformation brought a
renewed concern for biblical holiness.

The Anabaptists

The Anabaptists believed in the restoration of apos-

tolic worship and lifestyle, a definite conversion expe-
rience, baptism of believers only, baptism by immersion,
and separation of church and state. They taught that
power over sin comes at conversion and that the Chris-
tian must live a holy life. They did not see holiness of

115
life as a means to earn salvation, but as a necessary
expression of new life in Christ that results from salva-
tion. They interpreted the Sermon on the Mount literal-
ly. They adhered to a simple piety and a strict morality,
denouncing luxury, drinking, and intemperance in eat-
ing.11 “Most Anabaptists adopted a Puritan severity of
morals and simplicity of manners and dress . . . They
rejected military service on the ground that it is invari-
ably sinful to take human life. Like the early Christians,
they refused to swear oaths.”12
Many Anabaptists today retain this emphasis on prac-
tical holiness. For example, the Hutterites wear plain
clothing, do not own televisions, do not dance, do not
smoke, and are pacifists.13 The Mennonites advocate
modesty and simplicity of dress, pacifism, and a head
covering for women, while the Old German Baptist
Brethren oppose all worldly amusements.14 With respect
to modern Mennonites, “the doctrines of nonconformity
to the world, nonswearing of oaths, non-resistance in lieu
of military service, and church discipline are generally
affirmed but not practiced universally.”15 The Amish, who
emerged from the Mennonites, are very strict in modesty
of dress and simplicity of lifestyle. Most Anabaptist
women today do not cut their hair or wear makeup, jew-
elry, short skirts, or pants.

John Calvin and the Reformed

The branch of 16th century Protestantism known as

the Reformed is represented today by various Reformed
and Presbyterian churches. Its most famous leader was

116
John Calvin. Calvin gave much more attention in his the-
ology to ethics than did Luther. While Luther emphasized
that the gospel abolished the law, Calvin stressed that the
gospel is a continuation of the moral law and that it only
annulled the ceremonial law. Calvin lived by a strict
morality and taught that the basic rule of Christian life
is self-denial. When he and his followers gained control
of the city government of Geneva, Switzerland, they
attempted to impose much of their lifestyle on the entire
population. “Dancing, gambling, drunkenness, frequen-
tation of taverns, profanity, luxury, excesses at public
entertainments, extravagance and immodesty in dress,
licentious or irreligious songs were forbidden.”16 Wearing
jewelry and playing cards were illegal. Early Calvinists
also prohibited the theater and other worldly amuse-
ments.17
Calvin wrote, “He who makes it his rule to use this
world as if he used it not, not only cuts off all gluttony in
regard to meat and drink, and all effeminacy, ambition,
pride, excessive show, and austerity, in regard to his table,
his house, and his clothes, but removes every care and
affection which might withdraw or hinder him from aspir-
ing to the heavenly life, and decks the soul with its true
ornaments.”18 He admonished his readers to use earthly
blessings as if they constantly heard God say, “Give an
account of your stewardship.” He continued, “Let us
remember by whom the account is to be taken—viz. by
him who while he so highly commends abstinence, sobri-
ety, frugality, and moderation, abominates luxury, pride,
ostentation, and vanity; who approves of no administra-
tion but that which is combined with charity, who with
his own lips has already condemned all those pleasures

117
which withdraw the heart from chastity and purity, or
darken the intellect.”19

The Puritans

The Puritan movement began in the 16th century

Church of England. The Puritans basically followed Cal-
vin’s theology, and as their name suggests they sought to
purify their church. They ruled England from 1649 to
1660. Like the Calvinists in Geneva, they emphasized
holiness of life and tried to impose their lifestyle to some
extent on the entire society. “Their clothing was modest,
somber, and unadorned; their speech was grave and slow.
They were expected to abstain from all profane amuse-
ments and sensual pleasure. The theaters, which had
been closed in 1642 because of war, remained closed till
1656 because of Puritan condemnation. Horse races,
cockfights, wrestling matches, bear or bull baiting, were
forbidden.”20 They prohibited gambling, dancing, and
fancy dress as well, although many Puritans opposed
making all these restrictions mandatory for the general
public.21 The majority of the early New England colonists
were Puritans, and they brought their holiness lifestyle to
America.

The Anglicans

Historically, the Anglicans (or the Episcopalians as

they became known in America) have had a strong holi-
ness element in their midst. As we have seen, the Puritans

118
came from within the Church of England and for a time
gained control of both church and state. Other groups that
emphasized holiness of life emerged from an Anglican
background, including the Quakers and the Methodists.
An interesting witness from the 19th century, Anglican
Bishop J. C. Ryle, whom we quoted extensively in Chapter
2, wrote, “The times require of us a higher standard of
personal holiness, and an increased attention to practical
religion in daily life. . . . Since the days of the Reformation,
there never has been so much profession of religion with-
out practice. . . . The whole tone of men’s minds on what
constitutes practical Christianity seems lowered. The old
golden standard of the behaviour which becomes a
Christian man or woman appears debased and degenerat-
ed. You may see scores of religious people (so-called) con-
tinually doing things which in days gone by would have
been thought utterly inconsistent with vital religion. They
see no harm in such things as card-playing, theatre-going,
dancing, incessant novel-reading, and Sunday-travelling,
and they cannot in the least understand what you mean by
objecting to them!”22 He appealed to the writings of 17th
century Anglicans who strongly advocated the need for
holiness.
His writings highlight two points: (1) Some 19th cen-
tury Anglicans were very holiness minded. (2) He
believed that his holiness teaching reflected generally
held views of Anglicans of prior centuries.

The Quakers

The Quakers, a group that originated in 17th century

119
England, emphasized holiness and simplicity of life. They
were “Puritans of the Puritans” who rejected all worldly
show, all ornaments on clothing, all oaths, and all war.23
George Fox, their founder, taught simplicity of dress, with
no wigs, gold, or vain decorations.24

The Pietists

Pietism was a 17th century movement that began in

Lutheran Germany. Today, it is represented by the Mora-
vians and the Brethren. The Pietists basically retained
orthodox Lutheran theology. However, they emphasized
spiritual experience, practical Christian living, and the
devotional life in contrast to the cold formalism and tradi-
tionalism of their day. The founder of the Pietist movement,
John Philipp Spener, warned of the evils of the theater,
playing cards, jewelry, finery of apparel, and drunkenness.
He taught moderation in dress, food, and drink. Other
early Pietists wrote against dancing. Spener said the mark
of a Pietist was his willingness “to give up freedom in ques-
tionable little things.”25 The Brethren have advocated plain
clothing, veils on women, abstention from worldly amuse-
ments, no oaths, no war, and no lawsuits. In particular, the
Church of the Brethren today believes in pacifism, total
abstinence from alcoholic beverages, and a simple lifestyle,
shunning unwholesome amusements and luxuries.26

The Baptists

Early Baptists were at first grouped with the Puritans,

120
but they began to organize separately in England in the
17th century. They, too, adhered to holiness teaching.
Some Baptist groups still remain quite conservative on
holiness issues. For example, the Baptist Bible Fellowship
opposes dancing, drinking, smoking, gambling, and the
movies.27 In 1984 the Southern Baptist Convention
admonished all members not to use tobacco or alcohol.
Many independent Baptists teach against worldly amuse-
ments, immodest dress, women wearing pants, and
women cutting their hair. Sword of the Lord Publishers
prints a number of books and booklets that deal with
these issues, including John R. Rice’s Amusements for
Christians and Elizabeth Rice Handford’s Your Clothes
Say it For You. Liberty Baptist College, founded by Jerry
Falwell, has a dress and conduct code for its student body
of over 4000: “Men are not allowed to grow beards or
mustaches, or to wear hair that touches their shirt collars
or covers the tops of their ears. . . . Women are expected
to dress modestly. Students are not allowed to dance or
attend movies.”28

John Wesley and the Methodists

The Methodist movement began in 18th century

England with a club founded by Oxford University stu-
dents Charles and John Wesley. This club emphasized
devotional life and academics. Detractors called it the
Holy Club because of its emphasis on holiness of life and
called its members Methodists because of their methodi-
cal system of devotion. John Wesley worked as an
Anglican clergyman for a number of years, but eventually

121
his teachings on personal and social morality and his
organizational ability led to the formation of a separate
church. He did not originally intend to oppose Anglican
church structure or doctrine, but saw himself as working
to renew and strengthen Christians.
Wesley taught that sanctification is a process which
begins with justification. According to him, the ultimate
goal of sanctification is Christian perfection, which is
purification from inward sin. Achieving this state does not
mean one cannot sin or does not need grace any longer,
but that one no longer willfully breaks God’s law. It is not
a sinless perfection but a perfection of motives, desires,
and thoughts. The Christian is still subject to ignorance,
mistakes, external temptation, and infirmities of the flesh.
Wesley believed that Christian perfection could be
attained in this life, but that most Christians in his day did
not attain it. He aimed to change this by preaching that
Christians can and should be holy, and perfectionism
became the distinguishing doctrine of Methodism.
Basically, Wesley’s Methodism held that the sanctified
person can live a life of victory over sin through
self-examination, godly discipline, methodical devotion,
and avoidance of worldly pleasures.
In applying these principles to practical living, John
Wesley “forbade the ladies of his congregation to wear
rich dresses or gold ornaments . . . [He] thought it a sin
to go to fairs, to wear jewelry or fine clothes, to attend a
theater or to dance.”29 He also wrote against luxuries, tav-
erns, and things harmful to the body. Members of his
United Society pledged to abstain from (among other
things) drinking, suing Christians at law, wearing of gold
and costly apparel, worldly diversions, worldly music,

122
worldly literature, and borrowing without the probability
of repayment.30 Until recent years, most Methodists
adhered to these standards. As late as 1952, The Metho-
dist Church passed resolutions that strongly condemned
drinking, smoking, and gambling.

The Holiness Movement

The Holiness movement developed in the 19th century

among American and English Methodists who felt that
Methodism was losing its traditional zeal for holiness. In
1867 a New Jersey camp meeting was organized as a call
to holiness, and this led to the creation of the National
Holiness Association. The Methodists as a whole rejected
this renewal of holiness preaching. Consequently, a num-
ber of Holiness organizations came into being, including
The Church of the Nazarene, The Christian and Missionary
Alliance, The Salvation Army, The Wesleyan Church, The
Church of God (Anderson, Indiana), and The Church of
God (Cleveland, Tennessee).
Two different doctrines of holiness were advocated
during this time. One belief, represented by Oberlin Col-
lege and Charles Finney, was called Oberlin perfectionism.
This view continued to emphasize Wesley’s doctrine of
Christian perfection and taught that it is obtained by an
instantaneous experience subsequent to salvation. At this
“second work of grace” or “baptism of the Holy Ghost”
(without tongues), the Christian receives entire sanctifica-
tion. This granted purification from indwelling sin or erad-
ication of the sinful nature.
The second view became known as Keswick holiness,

123
and was represented by Keswick Parish in England and
Dwight L. Moody. According to this view, the sinful nature
is never eradicated in this life, but at justification the
Christian is endued with power to overcome sin. Man’s
old nature remains the same but the new, regenerated
nature has power to override the old, sinful nature on a
daily basis. Advocates of both Oberlin perfectionism and
Keswick holiness agreed that the Christian can and
should live a holy life of obedience to God’s moral law
with victory over sin.
The Holiness churches are characterized by “a doc-
trine of separation that advocates the avoidance of
‘worldly’ practices such as attending the movies, dancing,
using tobacco or alcohol, or belonging to ‘secret soci-
eties.’” 31 They followed John Wesley in disapproving of
flashy clothes, costly apparel, and expensive jewelry; and
in the 20th century, many Holiness churches have
opposed women wearing pants, television, cosmetics,
mixed swimming, cutting of women’s hair, and immodest
clothing.32 Other Holiness groups have largely abandoned
their stand on these issues, just as the Methodists did
before them.

The Pentecostals

At the start of the 20th century, many people began to

receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the sign of
speaking in tongues. These Pentecostals, many of whom
had come from the Holiness movement, stressed the
necessity of living a holy life. One of the earliest Pente-
costal organizations was The Apostolic Faith, founded in

124
1907. It took a stand against worldly amusements, danc-
ing, the theater, card playing, drinking, smoking, makeup,
and women cutting their hair.33 The Church of God
(Cleveland, Tennessee), a Holiness group that accepted
the Pentecostal experience, opposed alcohol, tobacco,
jewelry, and secret societies.34 The other Pentecostal
denominations also started with a strong belief in per-
sonal holiness, but many have relaxed their stand in
recent years.
A non-Pentecostal scholar, Walter Hollenweger, has
described this shift: “The ethical rigorism of the Church
of God (the prohibition of mixed bathing, of permanently
waved hair, of going to the cinema or the theatre and of
make-up) seems according to some observers no longer
to be exercised very strictly.”35 “As a Holiness church, the
Assemblies of God began by making rigorist demands
upon its members,” teaching against makeup, the cinema,
and worldly dress.36 However, he wrote, both insiders and
outsiders have noticed a considerable modification of this
original stance. According to Hollenweger, the older lead-
ers still dislike “worldly” things such as movies, makeup,
and rock music, but today’s leaders seem to be retreating
from this position so they will not lose influence with the
younger generation.
Oneness Pentecostal groups have been more conserv-
ative on these issues. As late as 1963, The Pentecostal
Assemblies of the World went on record as opposing “all
unnecessary jewelry, such as rings (not including wed-
ding rings), bracelets, earrings, stick-pins, and flashy
breast pins . . . showy colors in dress, attractive hosiery,
short dresses, low necks, short sleeves (that is, above the
elbow), and bright ties.” 37

125
 The Articles of Faith of The United Pentecostal
Church International contain the following: “Godly living
should characterize the life of every child of the Lord, and
we should live according to the pattern and example
given in the Word of God. . . . We wholeheartedly disap-
prove of our people indulging in any activities which are
not conducive to good Christianity and godly living, such
as theaters, dances, mixed bathing, women cutting their
hair, make-up, and apparel that immodestly exposes the
body, all worldly sports and amusements, and unwhole-
some radio programs and music. Furthermore, because
of the display of all these evils on television, we disap-
prove of any of our people having television sets in their
homes. We admonish all of our people to refrain from any
of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and
the soon coming of the Lord for His church.”38 The UPCI
also opposes in its Articles of Faith the bearing of arms,
the taking of human life, secret societies, organizations
that bind believers and unbelievers with an oath, and pub-
lic school activities that violate any of its religious scru-
ples.

20th Century Changes

At the beginning of the 20th century, Christendom as

a whole and even society as a whole observed many
aspects of practical holiness. Most Protestant churches
were very conservative in lifestyle by modern standards,
and even the general public acknowledged the truth of
many holiness teachings. However, the 20th century
brought drastic changes to society, and Christendom as a

126
whole changed with society. Only a minority of Christian
churches today advocate the holiness of life generally
accepted less than a century ago.
This is particularly noticeable with respect to outward
appearance. Encyclopedia Britannica describes the
changes in this area.39 After World War I (1914-1918) the
following practices developed in American society:
Women began to cut their hair, extremely short skirts
began to appear (i.e., skirts that exposed the knee),
women’s sportswear and swimwear became scanty, and
women began to wear trousers for sports activities. Dur-
ing and after World War II (1939-1945) women began to
wear pants to work in factories and then to wear at home.
In the 1960’s miniskirts, short shorts, and unisex styles
came into vogue, as well as long hair on men.
Social changes particularly affected women. Historian
Carl Degler has written, “Early in the twentieth century
upper middle-class women . . . learned to . . . smoke
cigarettes, and embrace men in the modern ballroom
dance. . . . The more advanced also insisted on their right
to go anywhere unchaperoned, to drink, smoke, and
swear in public, and generally to behave as men did.”40
Evils that society had restricted to men were now
extended to include women, and society no longer
retained even a facade of morality in these areas.
In 1933 the U.S. government repealed its prohibition
on the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. In the
1960’s, American society lifted legal as well as moral
restraints on divorce and abortion.
It is difficult today to recapture the feeling of society
before and during these changes. My mother can remem-
ber when a woman was arrested in the 1940’s for indecent

127
exposure because she wore shorts on a public street in
Louisiana. My uncle remembers his Baptist mother sitting
in the car crying while her family watched movies at the
cinema. Some senior citizens can remember when only
disreputable women cut their hair, wore makeup, wore
short skirts, or wore pants in public. I can remember
when divorce would have doomed a politician’s chance
for election and when no public figure would have dared
confess to homosexuality.
When we view these modern changes from biblical
and historical standards of holiness, we realize that it is
the modern departure that is strange, not the holiness
teachings on outward appearance. History calls us to
return to scriptural practices from which our society and
our churches have strayed.
Where will modern changes end? Will Christian
churches one day accept men wearing dresses as they do
women wearing pants? Will they accept men wearing
makeup and jewelry as they do women? Will they allow
the use of marijuana and cocaine “in moderation” as they
do the use of alcohol and tobacco? Will they condone
total nudity on the beach as they do near nudity? Will they
practice infanticide or euthanasia as they do abortion?
Will they watch live sex shows as they do sex shows on
TV and in movies? Will they overlook homosexual affairs
and adulterous affairs as they do divorce and remarriage?
Will they be unashamed for women to shave their heads
as they are for women to cut their hair?
What about holiness people today? Will we follow the
drift of other churches and of society until we are indis-
tinguishable from the world? To most people today holi-
ness is an archaic, quaint word. However, if we ever

128
abandon the concept of holiness, referring to it as old
fashioned, legalistic, and unnecessarily restrictive, there
will be no logical stopping place. Without biblical holi-
ness as a foundation, we will absorb the evils of a worldly,
ungodly society as it becomes progressively worse.

Non-Christian Religions

Before concluding our survey of holiness teaching, it

is interesting to note the teachings of some non-Christian
religions.41 Of course, we do not take their teachings as
normative, but to a certain extent even pagan religious
systems have recognized the dangers of some prac-
tices. As Romans 1 and 2 point out, even the heathen
can know from nature and conscience that many things
are evil.
Islam is a monotheistic religion founded by Moham-
med in 7th century Arabia. Moslems worship the God of
the Bible, but believe that Mohammed’s book, the Koran,
is God’s Word for today. They are forbidden to drink alco-
holic beverages, eat blood, or gamble. Conservative
Moslem women wear very modest clothing and refuse to
wear masculine clothing. Saudi Arabia, controlled by a
strict Moslem sect, placed a ban upon television because
of its immoral influences, while Iran banned rock music
for the same reason.
Hinduism is the ancient polytheistic religion of India.
According to one Indian Christian leader, many Indians
disapprove of Christianity because so many Christians
wear clothing considered to be immodest by Indian stan-
dards.42 Jainism, a religion that emerged from Hinduism,

129
forbids all followers to lie, steal, commit adultery, gamble,
drink wine, or kill. Sikhism, another offshoot from
Hinduism, requires its adherents to abstain from tobacco
and alcohol.
Theravada Buddhism, the branch of Buddhism that
adheres most closely to the original teachings of Buddha,
has five precepts for all laymen to obey. These are to
abstain from killing, theft, adultery or sensuality, lying or
deceit, and use of intoxicants. Furthermore, monks must
obey additional precepts which include abstention from
self-adornment, dancing, and the theater.
Many non-Western countries have resisted the
changes in morality brought about by the West. Below are
a few examples from the present or recent past: TV cen-
sorship in South Africa, banning many U.S. TV shows in
Mexico because of excessive violence, banning immodest
clothing on women and long hair on men in Korea, and
banning long hair on men in Singapore. Even atheistic
Communism has denounced “western decadence,” and
many Communist regimes have taken steps to curb or
eliminate rock music, pornography, long hair on men, and
immodest dress.
We do not recommend that the church should try to
legislate holiness for all of society. Nor do we accept
many of the practices and teachings of the religions we
have cited. However, we have presented this evidence to
make the following points: (1) Many sincere people all
over the world have recognized the moral detriments
associated with things that modern Western society
accepts. (2) Many non-Christians willingly restrict their
behavior in certain ways for the sake of conscience or
religious tradition even though they do not recognize the

130
authority of the Bible and the Spirit as we do. Some have
attained a higher morality than many professing
Christians. This does not justify them, but it does indict
those Christians. Do the heathen love their gods more
than some Christians love the true God? Are the heathen
more willing to live sacrificially for their religions than
some Christians are to surrender worldly pleasures detri-
mental to true spirituality?

Conclusion

In summary, prominent Christian leaders and groups

throughout church history have advocated a separated
lifestyle with an avoidance of worldliness. Many of them
applied the biblical principles of holiness to practical liv-
ing in the same ways we have done in this book. In addi-
tion, Western society prior to the 20th century and many
non-Christian societies in recent times bear witness that
the human race has recognized (if not always adhered to)
certain moral principles that are being rapidly discarded
today.
Not only are holiness teachings biblically sound, but
they also represent the beliefs of the ante-Nicene fathers,
Calvin, Wesley, and many other respected religious fig-
ures. Whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, all pro-
fessing Christians will find that many of their highly
regarded leaders were strict holiness preachers. Those
who reject practical holiness are the ones who have devi-
ated from the biblical and historical norm.
In light of this evidence, holiness people today should
maintain their ground against the onslaught of worldliness

131
and compromise. We can stand confidently upon our bib-
lical and historical heritage.

FOOTNOTES

1
Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, superscription, The Ante-
Nicene Fathers, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (eds. and
trans.) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rpt. 1981) [hereinafter ANF], I, 86.
2
Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 29, 35, 39
& 58, ANF, I, 12-14, 21.
3
Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity (New York:
Harper & Row, 1953), I, 81-82 & 239-48.
4
Ibid., 1, 246.
5
Ibid., 1, 128-29.
6
Walter Nigg, The Heretics (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962), p.
102.
7
Latourette, I, 452-53.
8
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (1890;
rpt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), V, 211.
9
Ibid., VII, 181-82.
10
Ibid., VII, 321.
11
Ibid., VIII, 40.
12
Will and Ariel Durant, The Story of Civilization (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1935-1967), VI, 395.
13
J. Gordon Melton, The Encyclopedia of American Religions
(Wilmington, N.C.: McGrath Publishing Co., 1978), II, 31-32.
14
Ibid., I, 331, 345.
15
“Mennonites,” Encyclopedia Britannica (Chicago: William
Benton, 1976), VIII, 993.
16
Schaff, VIII, 232.
17
Crane Brinton et al, A History of Civilization, 3rd ed. (Engle-
wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967), I, 479.
18
Calvin, II, 33. The last clause uses the literal translation, taken
from footnote 1.
19
Ibid., II, 34.
20
Durant, VIII, 194-95.

132
 21
Brinton, I, 596-97.
22
Ryle, pp. 301-02. Emphasis in original has been omitted.
23
Brinton, I, 597.
24
Melton, I, 348.
25
Dale Brown, Understanding Pietism (Grand Rapids: Zonder-
van, 1978), pp. 122-23.
26
Frank Mead, Handbook of Denominations In the United
States, 7th ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1980), pp. 62-63.
27
Ibid., p. 44
28
“Falwell’s College Strives to Become a Fundamentalist Univer-
sity Serving 50,000,” Christianity Today, November 25, 1983, p. 43.
More recently it has relaxed its rule against facial hair.
29
Durant, IX, 131 & 135.
30
Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Church 1952, Nolan
Harmon (ed.) (Nashville: The Methodist Publishing House, 1952), pp.
34-35.
31
“Holiness Churches,” Encyclopedia Britannica, VIII, 993.
32
Melton, I, 200.
33
Mead, p. 30.
34
Ibid., p. 85.
35
Walter Hollenweger, The Pentecostals, R. A. Wilson, trans. (Min-
neapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1972), p. 50.
36
Ibid., pp. 35-36.
37
Ibid., p. 402.
38
Manual, United Pentecostal Church International (Hazel-
wood, Mo.: Pentecostal Publishing House, 1984), pp. 22-23.
39
“Dress,” Encyclopedia Britannica, V, 1033-35.
40
Carl Degler, The Democratic Experience, 3rd. ed (Glenview,
Ill.: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1973), pp. 437-38.
41
See Sir Norman Anderson (ed.), The World’s Religions, 4th ed.
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) and John Noss, Man’s Religions,
5th ed. (New York: MacMillan, 1969).
42
Anselm Rosario, “Witness to Hindu Neighbors,” Theology
Today, Princeton, N.J., Vol. 40, No. 3 (October 1983), p. 317.

133
 6
TELEVISION
AND MOVIES
“I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes”
(Psalm 101:3).

Biblical Foundation

In addition to Psalm 101:3, many biblical passages

admonish us to guard our eyes from beholding evil scenes
and our minds from entertaining evil thoughts (Job 31:1;
Psalm 19:14; 119:37; Isaiah 33:15-16; Romans 1:32;
I Thessalonians 5:22). Philippians 4:8 instructs us to think
on things that are true, honest (noble), just (right), pure,
lovely, of good report (admirable), virtuous (excellent),
and praiseworthy. Evil thoughts defile us (Matthew
15:18-20; Mark 7:21-23). Our thoughts determine in a
large measure what we are or will become (Proverbs 23:7).
The eye is the primary means by which external informa-
tion enters the mind, thereby stimulating our thought life.

135
For this reason the eye is the light of the body, and the lust
of the eyes is a major source of temptation (Matthew
6:22-23; Luke 11:34; I John 2:16). To a large degree, then,
what we allow our eyes to indulge in both shapes and
reveals our inner spiritual character.
As both secular and religious evidence, presented in In
Search of Holiness, demonstrates, television and movies
depict so much evil that watching them violates biblical
principles. Violence and illicit sex are two prominent sub-
jects they display. In addition, they portray many other
evils (usually with no indication that they are in fact evil),
such as immodest dress, profanity, smoking, drinking,
lying, hatred, assault, cursing, and indecent speech. These
are the very things that defile a person (Matthew
15:18-20). In addition, TV programs and movies have little
or no redeeming value. They unjustifiably waste the
Christian’s valuable time (Ephesians 5:16; Colossians 4:5).
In addition to these specific teachings, we can also
apply the principles of Christian liberty discussed in
Chapter 4. When we do, it becomes clear that we should
avoid television and movies. (1) They do not glorify God,
but glorify evil. (2) They are detrimental physically, men-
tally, and spiritually. (3) They have tremendous power to
gain mastery over us. (4) They become stumbling blocks
to others, particularly to our own children.
New evidence of their detrimental effects continues to
surface, and other conservative Christians have begun to
voice their concern about the evils on the screen. This
chapter presents some developments in recent years.

136
 Additional Findings

* “Why Johnny can’t listen to the sermon,” Ministry,

May, 1981. Television is shortening children’s attention
span. Commercials teach that all problems can be solved
and solved quickly by modern technology. Life on TV is a
caricature of real life.
* “Gays to the Fore, Cautiously,” Time, May 17, 1982.
A number of new movies have portrayed homosexuality
as an alternative lifestyle and as a legitimate choice.
* “Warning from Washington,” Time, May 17, 1982.
The National Institute of Mental Health issued a report
based on a two-year study. It says there is overwhelming
evidence that violence on TV causes aggressive behavior
in children.
* “What is TV Doing to America?” U.S. News &
World Report, August 2, 1982. The average American
home watched TV 63⁄4 hours per day in 1981 compared to
41⁄2 hours in 1951. The average person watches TV from
23 hours per week (teenagers) to 361⁄2 hours per week
(older women). Anything from partial nudity to simulated
intercourse is available on cable TV. Almost 100,000
households have a two-way system in which a computer
scans the household every 6 seconds.
* “TV Violence: The Shocking New Evidence,”
Reader’s Digest, January 1983. Studies have shown that
TV violence produces lasting and serious harm, violent
cartoons are definitely damaging, TV erodes inhibitions,
TV causes antisocial behavior, and TV contributes to poor
academic performance.
* “As TV Violence Grows, the Campaign Against It
Alters Course,” Christianity Today, November 25, 1983.

137
The National Coalition on Television Violence advocates a
law to require TV networks to broadcast warnings of pos-
sible hazards of TV violence. The American Medical
Association asserts that TV violence is a hazard to young
Americans and to the future of our society. U.S. Surgeon
General C. Everett Koop has been an outspoken critic of
TV violence, as have his predecessors. The National Insti-
tute of Mental Health says that TV is a major socializing
institution comparable in influence to family, church, and
school. The Coalition for Better Television is attacking
the widespread immorality on television.
* “Children Spend More Time Before TV Than in
Classroom,” UPI, Korea Times, November 12, 1983.
According to David Pearl, Chief of the Behavioral Sciences
Research Branch of the National Institute of Mental Health,
parents significantly underestimate the time their children
spend watching TV and the type of programs they watch.
The average American child, age 9-12, spends about 1000
hours per year in the classroom but 1340 hours per year
watching TV. By age 18 he will have spent 11,000 hours in
the classroom but 22,000 hours in front of the TV.
* Television morality has continued to degenerate
rapidly. In the last few years Time Magazine has docu-
mented the following “firsts” on the screen: the first sym-
pathetic portrayals of homosexuality, incest, prostitution,
and transvestitism, as well as the first television com-
mercial to feature a totally nude woman.

“Taming the TV Habit”

Of great interest is a recent book by Kevin Perrotta,

138
managing editor of Pastoral Renewal, which is a
monthly magazine for evangelical ministers.1 The back
cover states, “Certainly the continuous display of folly,
sex, and violence is deplorable to Christians. And much
has been written about the decadence in television’s con-
tent. In Taming the TV Habit, Kevin Perrotta looks at
another issue as well—television’s dominating role in the
home. He points out, ‘It’s not what you watch, it’s that
you watch.’ He argues persuasively that extensive televi-
sion viewing produces serious, detrimental consequences
in the Christian home: it erodes our children’s intellectu-
al and social development, undermines parental authori-
ty, and contributes to the fragmentation of family
relationships.” Perrotta surveyed many articles and scien-
tific studies and arrived at the following conclusions:
(1) Television is a thief of time. The average American
watches 50,000 to 75,000 hours of TV during his life, which
is the equivalent of 5 to 8 years of his life. The TV is on
more than 7 hours per day in the average American home.
(2) Television viewing displaces many more impor-
tant activities. It is the greatest rearranger of time in the
20th century. It replaces talking, dealing with problems,
reading, thinking, praying, and meditating. It detracts sig-
nificantly from relationships with God, family, church, and
neighbors. It becomes an escape from problems such as
tension and loneliness, without providing real solutions. It
acts like a drug, as Marie Winn described in her book, The
Plug-In Drug. Children are especially heavy viewers, and
this heavy viewing negatively affects reading skills, intel-
lectual learning, overall scholastic performance, and
amount of parental training received. Perrotta concluded,
“Our heavy investment in television viewing squanders our

139
time. It is a bad deal. . . . We need to bring our use of time
into closer alignment with our priorities in life.”2
(3) Television is an empty experience. It is not truly
relaxing, for the best form of relaxation is not inactivity
but participation in a contrasting activity. It brings none
of the benefits associated with other forms of relaxation,
such as physical exercise, reading, or meditation. The
constantly changing scenes make it impossible for the
viewer to engage his imagination; he is carried along by
the pace of the program. Viewers consistently report feel-
ing weak, passive, drowsy, lonely, unconcentrated, and
unchallenged, but they continue to watch out of habit
long after most of the pleasure has gone. TV viewing cre-
ates a passive state, much like daydreaming. The viewer
is highly suggestible, but has a greatly lessened ability to
process information and deal intelligently with it. (Note:
In view of the content of TV programming, this fact shows
how damaging TV is spiritually.)
(4) Television is detrimental to thinking. By its very
nature, TV emphasizes the superficial, the exciting, the
vivid, and the individual personality. It is not conducive to
logical thought. It decreases the attention span, greatly
increasing the degree of stimulation needed to attract and
maintain attention. It appeals to the emotions rather than
the intellect. It is a form of passive rather than active
learning.
(5) Television has powerful and dangerous access to
the mind. Viewers relate to programs as real, many believ-
ing that TV characters are living people. TV derives great
power from our instinctive feeling that “seeing is believ-
ing.” For the first time in history, the vast majority of peo-
ple give 5 to 8 years of their lives to a small, elite group of

140
programmers. Throughout their lives, they see the world
through the eyes of others, giving TV’s view of reality an
extraordinary access to their minds. Unquestionably, this
will greatly affect both individuals and society as a whole.
(6) Television modifies behavior in negative ways.
Commercial TV is not designed primarily for entertain-
ment but for the arousal of desires. TV stimulates aggres-
sive behavior. All researchers, regardless of moral beliefs,
agree television is sexually arousing. One recent study
found that the ratio of unmarried sexual activity to mar-
ried sexual activity on prime time was 11 to 1. The soap
operas attack the family and present sin as routine behav-
ior. TV cultivates change and offers new role models. It
magnifies trends in certain elite groups and transfers this
to society as a whole; subgroups tend to lose their dis-
tinctive views.
“In many ways television programming works to
broaden our thinking, so that we accept viewpoints and
behavior which we previously ruled out of bounds. It
deadens our reactions to social patterns which we previ-
ously found wrong and reacted against. Television culti-
vates the response, ‘Well, what I always thought was right
turns out not to be right for everyone, at least today. And
what I thought was wrong may actually be right for some
people. What I used to find shocking maybe isn’t so bad.
I suppose we have to accept it and learn to live with it.’
And finally television disinhibits us from actually doing
things we would have restrained ourselves from doing.” 3
(7) The world view presented by television is very
dangerous. For example, TV subtlely teaches that sex
underlies everything and that new forms of behavior are
acceptable. People believe that TV actually portrays what

141
the world is like. In this way it promotes conformity to the
“mainstream.” For example, it cultivates youth’s dissatis-
faction with their lack of sexual experience by making it
appear that everyone else has it.
(8) TV is unchristian. It totally ignores God, concen-
trating exclusively on the created and not on the Creator.
It consistently confuses moral issues, constantly present-
ing arguments in favor of situation ethics. It presents no
concept of sin. “To spend many hours with the television
is to fail to love God. . . . We enter a receptive communion
with the images and messages of a culture. We begin with
relaxing, and end with loving the world. Part of the prob-
lem is that we have lost a sense of how vulnerable our
minds can be to the influences of the world. Many Chris-
tians of the past would undoubtedly be amazed at the
unworried way we expose our minds to the television
world.” 4 The well-known Christian writer Malcolm
Muggeridge has severely criticized TV viewing, charging
that it constitutes the making and worship of graven
images, in violation of the Second Commandment.
(9) In the future, television will have an even greater
impact upon our society, due to such technological -
advances as video cassettes and cable television. In partic-
ular, there will be an increase in pornography. Already,
between 25% and 50% of all video cassettes sold are X-rated.
(10) It is very difficult to make positive use of TV or
to control its influence in our lives. Here are five reasons
why: TV is fascinating, it is easier to watch TV than to do
anything else, TV tends to produce a passive mentality, we
overestimate our ability to overcome TV’s evil influence,
and the possibility of countering TV’s influence by family
discussion is very limited.

142
 Perrotta suggested the following cure: repent, ask
God’s help to overcome, and associate with supportive
Christians. He cited with approval some who have limited
TV watching to one hour per day or two to three hours per
week, but stated that some should stop totally. “To give it
up completely is preferable to spending large amounts of
time—almost against one’s will—stupefied before the
screen. Better to be thought odd by one’s friends than to
have one’s life at the mercy of an electronic master.” 5

“Book Burning”

Cal Thomas, journalist and vice-president of Moral

Majority, Inc, has written Book Burning, which discusses
the ways in which our society censors Christian values.
One chapter deals with television and contains the fol-
lowing significant observations.6
* Fewer than 200 producers in Hollywood and New
York decide what the entire United States will watch on
network television. Hollywood writer and newspaper col-
umnist Ben Stein described this entertainment elite as
egotistical, materialistic, and sexually promiscuous.
* As Stein further noted, most of this elite see religion
as innocuous, irrelevant, or bizarre. When clergymen
appear on the screen they are pictured as irrelevant,
impotent, or fanatical. No character is motivated by reli-
gious feelings to do an important act.
* As reported in a 1981 TV Guide series entitled “The
Gay Lobby in Hollywood,” network executives have been
sending scripts dealing with homosexuality to homosexual
representatives for review. These people practically had

143
veto power over a script if it did not depict homosexuality
in a favorable light. A person can only imagine what
would happen if conservative Christians tried to exert
such influence!
* “Prime-time television is a contest to see which net-
work can cram in the most sex and violence in thirty-
minute segments . . . It is rare to find on TV any view of
the traditional family (in the twentieth century), any hint
of goodness or ‘right’ values, much less any non-profane
allusion to God.”
* One journalism school study found that an average of
two fornications per hour occur on daytime soap operas.
* At least 29 people shot themselves trying to imitate
a Russian roulette scene in a movie called The Deer
Hunter, after they saw it on TV.
* “Television is a passive medium; once on, it is hard
to shut off. Many people may personally object to the
message of some shows, but leave them on because they
are too tired to do anything else, or because they find
them titillating.”
* Thomas concluded that Christians could stop
watching TV altogether, but he preferred to work towards
changing its content.
Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that we will be able
to persuade the world to clean up TV enough so that it
would be wholesome to watch. At any rate, if we are wait-
ing for TV to convert to Christianity, our only practical
present alternative is to stop watching it altogether.

144
 Movies

In 1938, independent fundamentalist John R. Rice

wrote a booklet entitled What is Wrong with the Movies?
This was based on his sermon, “The Sins of the Movies.”
In the introduction to the 19th edition, he stated that he
had personally investigated the movies all over again to
see if his original opposition to them was still valid. He
concluded that “the very best of the movies are still bad,
that the weight of their influence is constantly immoral
and unchristian, and that Christians ought to leave them
absolutely alone.” 7
Rice objected to these evils associated with the movies:
the immoral lifestyles of the stars (who become role mod-
els and heroes in our society), tobacco, gambling, sex,
crime, and impure love themes. He noted that producers
make movies for greed and notoriety, having no feeling of
responsibility to society and morality. Rice said that movies
teach and encourage crime, endorse sin, teach and incite
lust, break down virtue, and contribute to delinquency.
In response to objections, he pointed out: (1) A few
movies are not bad, such as some for children, but if we
take children to them we will break down their resistance
to attending bad movies. (2) Not all moviegoers fall into
the evils that movies promote, but so many viewers are
influenced to do evil that we should all avoid movies. (3)
It would be good if we could totally reform movies, but we
will never be able to do so.

145
 Teaching in Early Church History

Since television and movies are 20th century inven-

tions, we do not find information on them in ancient
church history. However, it is very enlightening to see
that ancient Christians avoided the Roman theater for
much the same reasons that we refuse to watch TV and
movies. Prior to the time of Constantine, Christians were
forbidden to “attend the theatre where the performances
were lewd and the faith might be ridiculed.” 8 “Leading
Christians unhesitatingly condemned the theatre”
because of the lewdness and hypocrisy associated with it.9
Tatian in his Address to the Greeks described the
actor as “giving himself excessive airs of daintiness and
indulging in all sorts of effeminacy . . . an epitome of
superstition, a vituperator of heroic deed, an actor of
murders, a chronicler of adultery, a storehouse of mad-
ness . . . and yet such a man is praised by all. But I have
rejected all his falsehoods, his impiety, his practices . . .
But you are led captive by such men . . . They utter rib-
aldry in affected tones, and go through indecent move-
ments; your daughters and your sons behold them giving
lessons in adultery on the stage.” 10
Theophilus warned against attending dramas, “lest
our eyes and ears be defiled, participating in the utter-
ances there sung.” 11
Clement of Alexandria in his Exhortation to the
Heathen taught some relevant principles when he
described the evil paintings and statues of his society:
“You are not ashamed in the eyes of all to look at
representations of all forms of licentiousness which are
portrayed in public places . . . Your ears are debauched,

146
your eyes commit fornication, your looks commit adul-
tery.” 12 In The Instructor, written to new converts, he
warned: “From shameful things addressed to the ears,
and words and sights, we must entirely abstain. . . . Let
. . . plays that are full of scurrility and of abundant gos-
sip, be forbidden. For what base action is it that is not
exhibited in the theaters? And what shameless saying is it
that is not brought forward by the buffoons?” 13
Tertullian opposed the theater in his treatise The
Shows: “Are we not . . . enjoined to put away from us all
immodesty? On this ground, again, we are excluded from
the theatre, which is immodesty’s own peculiar abode,
where nothing is in repute but what elsewhere is disrep-
utable . . . If we ought to abominate all that is immodest,
on what ground is it right to hear what we must not speak?
. . . Why, in the same way, is it right to look on what it is
disgraceful to do? How is it that the things which defile a
man in going out of his mouth, are not regarded as doing
so when they go in at his eyes and ears—when eyes and
ears are the immediate attendants on the spirit—and that
can never be pure whose servants-in-waiting are impure?
. . . If tragedies and comedies are the bloody and wanton,
the impious and licentious inventors of crimes and lusts, it
is not good even that there should be any calling to
remembrance the atrocious or the vile. What you reject in
deed, you are not to bid welcome in word.” 14 In this trea-
tise, Tertullian related the actual case of a Christian
woman who visited the theater and became possessed by
an unclean spirit. At the time when the spirit was rebuked
and cast out, the spirit reportedly said, “I did it most right-
eously, for I found her in my domain.” 15
Cyprian condemned the crimes, adultery, incest,

147
effeminacy, and homosexuality portrayed by plays and
pantomimes. He observed: “Adultery is learnt while it is
seen; and while the mischief having public authority pan-
ders to vices, the matron, who perchance had gone to the
spectacle a modest woman, returns from it immodest. . . .
[An effeminate actor] is looked upon—oh shame! and
looked upon with pleasure.” 16 Cyprian taught that an actor
who converted to Christianity could not continue to act or
to teach acting.17
A treatise attributed to Cyprian contains the following
teaching. “What has Scripture interdicted? Certainly it has
forbidden gazing upon what it forbids to be done. . . . He
is shameless who in the church exorcises demons while he
praises their delights in public shows . . . I am ashamed
to tell what things are said; I am even ashamed to
denounce the things that are done—the tricks of argu-
ments, the cheatings of adulterers, the immodesties of
women, the scurrile jokes, the sordid parasites, even the
toga’d fathers of families themselves, sometimes stupid,
sometimes obscene, but in all cases dull, in all cases
immodest. . . . Even if they were not criminal, they are
characterized by a worthlessness which is extreme, and
which is little suited to believers. . . . Such things as these
should be avoided by faithful Christians, as I have
frequently said already; spectacles so vain, so mischie-
vous, so sacrilegious, from which both our eyes and our
ears should be guarded. We quickly get accustomed to
what we hear and what we see.” 18
Lactantius wrote of the “contaminating [and] cor-
rupting influence of the stage . . . For the subject of
comedies are the dishonouring of virgins, or the loves of
harlots . . . In like manner, the stories of the tragedians

148
place before the eye the parricides and incests of wicked
kings, and represent tragic crimes. And what other effect
do the immodest gestures of the players produce, but both
teach and excite lusts? . . . Why should I speak of the actors
of mimes, who hold forth instruction in corrupting influ-
ences, who teach adulteries while they feign them . . . What
can young men or virgins do, when they see that these
things are practiced without shame, and willingly beheld
by all? They are plainly admonished of what they can do,
and are inflamed with lust, which is especially excited by
seeing . . . And they approve of these things, while they
laugh at them, and with vices clinging to them, they
return more corrupted to their apartments; and not boys
only, who ought not to be inured to vices prematurely, but
also old men, whom it does not become at their age to
sin.” 19
The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles admonished
Christians to avoid the theater.20
John Chrysostom preached against the popular farces
and pantomimes even after the Roman Empire became
nominally Christian.21

Teaching in Later Church History

Early Calvinists prohibited theater attendance. The

Puritans in 17th century England shut down the theaters
when they came to power, because they regarded them as
profane and sensual. They also stated that most actresses
were prostitutes. John Philipp Spener, founder of the
Pietist movement, warned against the theater.
John Wesley, founder of Methodism, thought it a sin

149
to attend the theater. Wesley wrote a letter to the mayor
and city of Bristol in an effort to persuade them not to
build a theater: “Most of the present stage-entertainments
sap the foundation of all religion, as they naturally tend to
efface all traces of piety and seriousness out of the minds
of men . . . giving a wrong turn to youth especially, gay,
trifling, and directly opposite to the spirit of industry and
close application to business; and as drinking and
debauchery of every kind are constant attendants on
these entertainments, with indolence, effeminacy, and
idleness.” 22
In the 19th century, the editors of The Ante-Nicene
Fathers repeatedly endorsed the ancient condemnations
of the theater. They noted the emphatic “hostility to the-
atrical amusements, which in our days are re-asserting
the deadly influence over Christians which Cyprian and
Tertullian and other Fathers so solemnly denounced.” 23
In the early 20th century, many respected leaders in
Christendom opposed movies, including H. A. Ironside,
R. A. Torrey, the leaders of Moody Church, and Roman
Catholic Archbishop George Mudelein of Chicago.24 One
characteristic of most Holiness denominations was their
strong opposition to attending the movies. Early
Pentecostals did not attend movies, and Pentecostal
denominations such as The Apostolic Faith, the Church of
God (Cleveland, Tennessee), the Assemblies of God, and
the United Pentecostal Church officially took a stand
against the practice. Many conservative Baptist groups
have done the same, including the Baptist Bible Fellow-
ship, the followers of John R. Rice, and Jerry Falwell’s
Liberty Baptist College. Today, some of these groups have
relaxed their stand.

150
 Many religious groups opposed television when it
came along, on the ground that it simply brought worldly
movies into the home. For example, many Holiness peo-
ple have rejected the use of television. Some Anabaptist
groups, such as the Hutterites, refuse to own TV’s, as do
the United Pentecostals, many independent Baptists, and
other fundamentalists.
In 1955 (shortly after TV was introduced to society),
John R. Rice wrote: “Television could be, if carelessly
used, a real menace to the morals and manners of
Christian homes.” He called television a “very serious
problem.” 25 However, he did not oppose TV ownership
because he regarded it as just a radio with sight added to
hearing. We reject his conclusion for several reasons. (1)
As the Bible, psychological studies and common experi-
ence demonstrate, sight has a much more powerful influ-
ence upon the mind than hearing alone. (2) TV displays
many sins that cannot be portrayed as vividly on radio,
such as immodest dress, nudity, smoking, drinking,
bloodshed, and fornication. (3) Most of TV’s program-
ming today is objectionable using the principles Rice him-
self established in his book against movies.
Jerry Bridges, secretary-treasurer of The Navigators,
wrote in 1978: “Too many Christians, instead of resisting,
are more and more giving ground to the world’s constant
pressure. A few years ago sincere Christians were quite
selective about the movies they attended, if they attended
them at all. Today the same movies that were avoided are
being shown on television in the living rooms of Christians
across the nation. A friend of mine told me of a young cou-
ple in full-time Christian work who came to him wanting
to know if it was wrong to attend X-rated movies!” 26

151
 Many well-known Christian leaders now warn of TV’s
evils, including James Dobson (family life specialist) and
Donald Wildmon (Methodist minister who founded the Na-
tional Federation for Decency). Wildmon’s book, The
Home Invaders, provides detailed evidence of TV’s
anti-Christian, humanistic, sinful programming. Christi-
anity Today discussed TV’s dangers in a major article
(October 4, 1985). Leaders who advocate total abstention
from TV include Malcolm Muggeridge (media figure turned
Christian writer), Bill Gothard (seminar speaker), and
David Wilkerson (founder of Then Challenge). Wilkerson
related in The Cross and the Switchblade how God con-
victed him of wasting time by watching TV instead of pray-
ing. In Set the Trumpet to Thy Mouth he calls TV an idol,
abomination, and accursed thing, giving “thirty-one scrip-
tural reasons why overcoming Christians should remove
the idol of television from their homes.”
Entire congregations of Baptists, Nazarenes, charis-
matics, and other groups have sold or destroyed their TV
sets. Recently, two independent Pentecostal congregations
sold their televisions after studying In Search of Holiness.
As that book documented, even the secular world has
become aware of the evils of television. An experienced
advertising executive has written a nonreligious book enti-
tled Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television,
which advocates precisely what its title states.

Home Video

New technological advances such as home movie sys-

tems and video cassettes confront us with new situations.

152
Since the owner can program these systems himself, we
see the possibility of harmless and even beneficial use.
However, whatever is objectionable at the movie theater
or on television is certainly objectionable on these sys-
tems. Therefore, we must reject the showing of
Hollywood movies on home video equipment.
In some cases, families that do not view movies or TV
have allowed a worldly spirit to enter their homes through
video. This can become a great danger to the church. We
should not own video equipment unless we are mature
enough to regulate its use in accordance with holiness
principles. We should view only those things that are
clearly compatible with the Christian lifestyle, such as
recordings of family and church activities and videos for
teaching and business.

Conclusion

It is difficult to imagine how television, movies, and

commercial videos could become much more worldly and
ungodly than they already are. They have presented our
society with the depths of immorality, displaying in
graphic color things shameful even to mention
(Ephesians 5:12). They feed ungodliness directly to the
mind through the eyes, often in the sanctity of the home.
Those who take biblical admonitions seriously will
separate from worldliness, guard their eyes, elevate their
thoughts, protect their families, and redeem the time by
refusing to watch television programs and movies. In
doing so, they will follow the spirit of the Bible as well as
that of stalwart champions of morality from early church
history to the present.

153
 FOOTNOTES

1
Kevin Perrotta, Taming the TV Habit (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Servant
Books, 1982).
2
Ibid., p. 39.
3
Ibid., p. 93.
4
Ibid., pp. 125-26.
5
Ibid., p. 141.
6
Cal Thomas, Book Burning (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books,
Good News Publishers, 1983), pp. 127-33.
7
John R. Rice, What is Wrong with the Movies?, 19th ed. (Mur-
freesboro, Tenn.: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1938), p. 38.
8
Bainton, p. 50.
9
Latourette, I, 244-45.
10
Tatian, Address to the Greeks, 22, ANF, II, 75.
11
Theophilus, To Autolycus, 15, ANF, II, 115.
12
CIement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, 4, ANF, II,
189.
13
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2.6 & 3.11, ANF, II, 251
& 289-90.
14
Tertullian, The Shows, 17, ANF, III, 86-87.
15
Ibid., III, 90.
16
Cyprian, Epistles, 1.8, ANF, V, 277.
17
Cyprian, Epistles, 60, ANF, V, 356.
18
Cyprian (?), On the Public Shows, 4-8, ANF, V, 576-78.
19
Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 6.20, ANF, VII, 187.
20
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 2.62, ANF, VII, 424.
21
Latourette, I, 245.
22
John Wesley, “To the Mayor and Corporation of Bristol,” The
Works of John Wesley, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, rpt.
1978), XII, 128.
23
ANF, V, 595.
24
Rice, What is Wrong with the Movies?, pp. 98-101.
25
John R. Rice, Amusements for Christians (Murfreesboro, Tenn.:
Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1955), pp. 16, 18.
26
Bridges, p. 119.

154
 7
SCRIPTURAL TEACHING
ON ADORNMENT
AND DRESS
“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves
in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety;
not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array”
(I Timothy 2:9).
“Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning
of plaiting the, hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting
on of apparel” (I Peter 3:3).
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth
unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s gar-
ment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD
thy God” (Deuteronomy, 22:5).

Biblical Foundation

God desires for His people to display the spirit of

155
holiness in outward appearance. Paul exhorted men and
women to approach God in holiness, mentioning specific
problems each sex had in his day. “Therefore I desire that
the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without
wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women
adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and
moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or
costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing
godliness, with good works” (I Timothy 2:8-10, NKJV). As
stated in The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries,
“Paul was shrewd enough to know that a woman’s dress is
a mirror of her mind. Outward ostentation is not in keep-
ing with a prayerful and devout attitude. . . . Paul leaves no
doubt as to what he means, by adding a list of prohibitions
relating to outward adornment. . . . The plaiting of the hair
was a usual feature of Jewish women’s hairstyle, and in
the more elaborate types the plaits were fastened with rib-
bons and bows . . . Such tendencies to ostentatious adorn-
ment must be resisted by Christian women, and the same
applies to the use of jewelry and costly clothing. In all
these injunctions the dominating idea is the avoidance of
anything designed merely to promote ostentation, with all
its accompanying dangers.” 1
To be modest means to be decent, chaste, proper,
unpretentious and pure, with particular reference to
dress, speech, conduct and deportment. The word
shamefacedness (KJV) or propriety (NKJV) comes from
the Greek word aidos. The KJV of 1611 used the word
shamefastness, meaning to be stedfast in modesty.
According to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament, aidos means a sense of shame, modesty, and
reverence. The word sobriety (KJV) or moderation

156
(NKJV) comes from the Greek word sophrosune, which
Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
defines as soundness of mind, sound judgment, habitual
inner self-government with constant rein on all passions
and desires. Thayer defined the adjective form as curbing
one’s desires and impulses, self-controlled, temperate.
Peter wrote, “Likewise you wives, be submissive to
your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the
word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of
their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct
accompanied by fear. Do not let your beauty be that out-
ward adorning of arranging the hair, of wearing gold, or
of putting on fine apparel; but let it be the hidden person
of the heart, with the incorruptible ornament of a gentle
and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of
God. For in this manner, in former times, the holy women
who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being sub-
missive to their own husbands” (I Peter 3:1-5, NKJV). The
Wycliffe Bible Commentary says of the wife in I Peter
3:1-6, “She is not to seek attention by the artificialities of
coiffure, jewelry, or ostentatious dress, but to be distin-
guished by that meek and quiet spirit so rare in the world
and so prized by God. The wives of the patriarchs are
seen as examples of this deportment (v. 5). Apparently
gaudy and showy adornment is viewed as contrary to the
spirit of self-effacement and modesty toward husbands.
The same implication appears in I Timothy 2:9-12.
Modesty of woman’s dress is associated with becoming
modesty of deportment. Apparently Christian faith
implies a different standard of dress and adornment from
the world’s.” 2
Paul and Peter did not oppose the simple braiding or

157
arranging of the hair. Many women of the day arranged
their hair lavishly and extravagantly. They often braided
into their hair strands of pearls and silk cords with gold
coins attached. Many wore ornamental crowns and head-
dresses. These passages, then, reject very elaborate hair
arrangements as well as the use of ornaments in the hair.
As Fred Wight stated, “Peter and Paul condemned an
elaborate braiding of women’s hair . . . and the use of
ornaments may possibly have been involved in the cus-
tom.” 3
When we take Peter’s advice and look at the holy
women of the Old Testament, we find that women should
not wear clothing pertaining to men, and vice versa
(Deuteronomy 22:5). Protestant theologian Rousas
Rushdoony has said, “A fifth aspect of holiness has refer-
ence to dress. Transvestite dress is an ‘abomination’ to
the Lord (Deuteronomy 22:5); it is a sterile and perverse
hostility to God’s created order.” 4 He cited Keil and
Delitzsch with approval: “The immediate design of this
prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness, or to
oppose idolatrous practices . . . but to maintain the sanc-
tity of that distinction of the sexes which was established
by the creation of man and woman . . . Every violation or
wiping out of a woman . . . was unnatural, and therefore
an abomination in the sight of God.” 5 The Wycliffe Bible
Commentary notes, “The distinction between man and
woman should not be blurred by the one’s appropriating
the characteristic articles of the other (Deuteronomy
22:5). God created them male and female, with distinc-
tive natures and functions.” 6 Other passages support this
teaching. The New Testament affirms that effeminate
men will not inherit the kingdom of God (I Corinthians

158
6:9-10). Nature itself teaches us to maintain a clear, visi-
ble distinction between male and female (I Corinthians
11:13-15).

The Spiritual Significance of Dress

The Bible does speak on the subject of adornment and

dress. If we are to apply its teaching properly in our day,
we must understand some of the underlying reasoning.
Why is God concerned with the way we dress? Why is it
important for Christians to maintain holiness in outward
appearance?
* Our dress reflects what we truly are inside. The
Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary says, “The clothing
worn by the Hebrew people of Biblical times was grace-
ful, modest, and exceedingly significant. They were con-
sidered so much a part of those who wore them that they
not only told who and what they were, but were intended
as external symbols of the individual’s innermost feelings
and deepest desires and his moral urge to represent God
aright.” 7 We can see this by the use of special dress for
religious ceremonies, festive occasions, mourning, and
repentance. In this light Elizabeth Rice Handford, wife of
an independent Baptist pastor, has asked, “Why does a
woman insist on wearing short skirts, tight knits, low
necklines, and seem oblivious to the stress she puts on
others? Can it be she subconsciously invites a proposition
to sin? Does she like the gleam of desire she sees in a
man’s eyes?” 8
* As the preceding discussion indicates, our dress is
an important statement to God. It signifies to Him our

159
attitude, lifestyle, and choice of identity. Some say out-
ward appearance is irrelevant because, “Man looketh on
the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the
heart” (I Samuel 16:7). However, this verse does not say
God approves of sinful or ungodly appearance, but that
He does not evaluate someone by outward beauty or lack
of beauty. It does not give license to Christians to adorn
their bodies in ungodly ways. To the contrary, it shows
that God is not interested in adornment. All attention
given to adornment of the body is vain and useless. We
should not spend excessive time on the external, but
should emphasize what God emphasizes. If we want to
please God and godly people, we will not concentrate on
ornamentation of the body but on that of spirit.
* Our dress reveals to others our commitments and
beliefs. It is important for Christians to appear to be holy
and godly in front of others. Since man does look on the
outward appearance, it is important for Christians to dis-
play godliness in outward appearance. Other people
know us by our fruit (Matthew 7:16-20), which means our
entire lifestyle, including actions and appearance. We
must not only be right in the sight of God, we must
appear right in the sight of all mankind (Romans 12:17;
II Corinthians 8:21). We are to abstain from all appear-
ance of evil (I Thessalonians 5:22). One writer tried to
justify the Christian woman in wearing makeup and jew-
elry by saying, “If the motive of her heart is right, her
efforts are not wrong.” 9 However, sincere motives are not
enough; it is possible to be sincerely wrong. Despite inno-
cent motives, if one’s actions violate God’s will and cre-
ate spiritual problems for self or others, then those
actions are wrong.

160
 Dress and Christian Values

* The Christian is to exhibit self-control and modera-

tion in all aspects of life (I Corinthians 9:25; Galatians
5:23). Temperance or self-control is part of the fruit of
the Spirit. The Christian must discipline the flesh, subdue
its desires, and turn the spotlight away from it. Excessive
preoccupation with adornment, significant alteration of
the natural physical appearance, and lavish expenditure
of money on ornamentation all violate this principle.
* The Christian is not to love the things of the world
(James 4:4; I John 2:15). “Be not conformed to this world”
(Romans 12:2). Other translations of this verse elaborate
upon its meaning: “Do not live according to the fashions
of the times” (Norlie). “You must not adopt the customs of
this world” (Goodspeed). “Don’t let the world around you
squeeze you into its own mold” (Phillips). “Do not be con-
formed to this world—this age, fashioned after and adapt-
ed to its external, superficial customs” (Amplified).
People everywhere use dress to identify themselves
with certain beliefs and lifestyles. We can give many
examples: dress and hairstyle of hippies in the 1960’s,
Mao suits of the Communist Chinese, use of uniforms by
many organizations, business clothes, clothing of ethnic
groups, similarity of dress among teenagers, dress of
rock stars and fans, styles worn by homosexuals, clothing
worn by prostitutes, and fads and fashions in general.
If Christians follow worldly fashions, they will often
identify themselves with ungodliness. They put on the
uniform of the devil’s team. They associate themselves
with the world’s emphasis on sensuality, its focus on ego,
and its blurring of sex roles. God does not want Christians

161
to live in slavish conformity to worldly fashions and thus
to identify with worldliness. Rather, He wants Christians
to be identified clearly as such even in outward appear-
ance.
* The Christian is to be a good steward of the bless-
ings God has bestowed, including financial blessings
(Luke 16:10-13). We are to store up treasure in heaven,
not hoard it on earth (Luke 12:33-34). Jewelry, makeup,
and very expensive clothing are poor investments.
Without them people can still be clean, neat, attractive,
and beautiful. The money saved can be used in many
more beneficial ways: for necessities, for less fortunate
people, and for the church. A preoccupation with outward
adorning invests time and energy in something that sim-
ply is not profitable.
* The Christian is to be content with the way God has
made him and the position in which he finds himself. “For
I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be
content” (Philippians 4:11). Everything God creates is
good, and we should not try to alter our natural, God-
given appearance by using false colors for the face, false
hair dyes, false eyelashes, or false hair. What is wrong
with the way God made us? What is wrong with the com-
plexion and hair we inherited? Why be ashamed of what
we are? Why base our identity on the outward man? Why
evaluate self-worth by physical appearance?
Instead of accepting themselves for what they are and
what God wants them to be, many mistakenly try to fight
nature. The Bible teaches that gray hair is a crown of
glory and a mark of beauty or splendor (Proverbs 16:31;
20:29), yet many people with a false sense of values try
to change it. Jesus taught that people could not alter the

162
color of their hair (Matthew 5:36), yet many people today
try to prove Him wrong. Nature itself teaches a distinc-
tion between male and female in behavior and ap-
pearance (Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 11:13-15), yet
society today tries to destroy that God-ordained separa-
tion.
* Jewelry and makeup reflect a false set of values.
They overemphasize the temporal, the unimportant, the
physical, and even the ungodly. One author tried to justify
jewelry and makeup by saying, “God does not require a
drab and dull appearance. Why shouldn’t a woman try to
look nice? . . . The extreme view that God requires a dull
appearance (often accompanied with a dull personality)
is certainly not consistent with the over-all teaching of the
Bible.” 10
This statement actually insults both God and women.
Who says a woman is dull and drab unless she wears
makeup and jewelry? Who says a woman’s personality is
dull unless she attempts to look seductive or showy?
Certainly a Christian woman should seek to be attractive
in both appearance and personality. However, we reject
the notion that it takes cosmetics to make a woman
attractive. What is wrong with God’s creative ability?
What is wrong with natural beauty? What is wrong with
the beauty that emanates from within? The movie pro-
ducers in Hollywood, the fashion designers in Paris, and
the advertising agencies on Madison Avenue in New York
will tell us that beauty comes from sex appeal, bottles,
tubes, potions, colors, dyes, and the latest fashions, but
why should Christians believe this satanic deception?
According to Paul and Peter, a woman develops her beau-
ty by concentrating on spiritual values.

163
 Detrimental Effects of Unholy Dress

* Immodest clothing, jewelry, and makeup feed the

lust of the flesh, which is one of the three major areas of
worldliness (I John 2:16). The woman who wears these
things emphasizes physical sex appeal towards men to
whom she is not married. In the minds of self and others,
she defines her identity in terms of appeal to sinful lusts.
* Immodest clothing, jewelry, and makeup appeal to
the lust of the eyes, which is the second major area of
worldliness. Both psychology and common experience
tell us that the male sex drive is often triggered by visual
stimuli alone. Many women do not fully realize how
visually oriented the male is. Jesus recognized this prob-
lem, for He said it was possible to commit adultery with
the eyes only (Matthew 5:28).
Women who wear immodest clothing and adorn
themselves sensually are actually placing temptation
before men. If they cause someone to sin, God will not
hold them blameless. A fundamental principle of Chris-
tian liberty is that we should not do anything to cause
others to stumble, but this type of adornment uses one of
the most dangerous forms of temptation to do precisely
that.
* Immodest clothing, jewelry, and makeup cater to the
pride of life, the third major area of worldliness. These
things breed pride and vanity, building up the human ego.
They make a woman feel powerful because she can attract
lustful attention. They make a woman proud of her own
appearance. They give honor to the flesh, which actually
contains no good thing (Romans 7:18), instead of giving
honor to things of true value, such as good works and

164
beauty of spirit, which can only come by God’s grace. In
this context, we note that God hates a proud look, not only
a proud spirit (Proverbs 6:16-17).
* External appearance has a profound impact on the
inner self. What we wear can drastically change our
moods in the short-term and our attitudes in the long-
term. We become what we think upon and spend time
upon. If we act out a part long enough it affects the way
we think about ourselves. The perceptions others have of
us also affect the way we think about ourselves. If we are
with someone who thinks we are bold, humorous, bril-
liant, or seductive, we tend to act in accordance with
those expectations.
Many times what we wear helps to mold their expec-
tations as well as our own. When a woman wears an
immodest dress, she begins to think of herself as seduc-
tive and acts accordingly. Other people perceive her as
provocative and treat her as such, which reinforces her
behavior. In short, appearance both reflects and to a
large degree determines what we are in the eyes of self
and others.
Elizabeth Handford has elaborated on this subject:
“Clothing a woman puts on can affect how she feels. . . .
What you wear affects your performance. . . . How you
dress does affect how you feel! . . . This is, I believe, an
important reason for a woman to dress modestly—not
only for the sake of those who might be tempted to sin,
but for her own sake. She herself may be affected by what
she wears. . . . Does she put on a scanty skirt because she
feels provocative, or does the skirt bring out her feeling
of seductiveness? Perhaps it is both. . . . A woman sets
herself up for falling into sin when she chooses hair styles

165
and clothes that are sensual. They will affect how she
feels, and she won’t want to resist temptation.” 11
We can give many specific examples. Girls who wear
pants all the time gradually become more and more mas-
culine in their behavior. They sit, recline, and prop their
legs up in masculine ways. When they do wear dresses,
they often do not know how to act with modesty, grace,
and femininity. Many men prefer for their wives or girl-
friends to wear dresses, particularly on special occasions,
because they look and act more feminine this way.
When a woman begins to wear a new article of jew-
elry, such as a ring, often her behavior and attitude will
change noticeably. By her actions and looks she manifests
pride, vanity, and a desire to be seen and noticed.
When a girl first begins to wear makeup and to dress
immodestly there is often an observable change in her
spirit. She becomes aware of her sexual power and often
delights to influence men by it. It brings out a dark cur-
rent of sensuality and seduction.
On one occasion, I observed a group of Pentecostal
women putting on makeup for a video production. I was
shocked at the subtle change in their conduct and the
conduct of men towards them. At first, there was some
nervousness and embarrassment, covered up by hesi-
tant humor. Soon, however, the humor, behavior of the
women, and comments of the men became bold and
suggestive. The atmosphere became charged with sen-
suality.
* Ultimately, ungodly dress styles have a profound
impact on society as a whole. Immodesty of dress, jew-
elry, and makeup teach false values to the entire society.
In our day, a new generation has grown up not knowing

166
anything else, and this has distorted their value system.
Just because a woman wears slacks certainly does not
mean she personally has usurped her husband’s role or
condoned lesbianism. However, when all women in soci-
ety wear slacks, the distinction between male and female
blurs. The greater masculinity in dress and conduct helps
to confuse societal, familial, and sexual roles.
The feminist movement is certainly aware of this; they
promote the wearing of pants as part of their “liberation.”
Feminist Susan Brownmiller’s recent book Femininity
holds that femininity is “a nostalgic tradition of imposed
limitations” and that women who adopt a feminine style
are “trapped.” 12 As part of her revolt against the God-
given distinction between male and female, she stopped
wearing dresses and skirts altogether.
This is precisely the development God sought to pre-
vent when He instituted Deuteronomy 22:5. An individual
woman may not see how her particular violation of this
principle will cause great moral damage to her, but we
must obey God whether we understand His reasons or
not. When air entire society abandons God’s law, then the
consequences become more obvious.
In light of all these problems, why would a Christian
woman want to use makeup and jewelry? For whom is she
adorning herself? If for God, it does not impress Him at
all. If for herself, it is a dangerous, unjustifiable expres-
sion of pride. If for her husband, he should be more inter-
ested in her inner beauty, and any physical display should
be in private for his eyes only. If for others, it is an unjus-
tifiable expression of ostentation or seduction. If unmar-
ried, she should seek to attract those interested in true
beauty rather than in false, transient trappings.

167
 Biblical Examples: Immodesty

The Bible contains a number of examples that il-

lustrate the problems we have discussed.
When Adam and Eve sinned they became aware of
their nakedness and sought to cover themselves with fig
leaves (Genesis 3:7). Originally, God created their bodies
with glory and beauty. There was no need for false mod-
esty between husband and wife, for they were one flesh.
After they sinned, however, they recognized that whole-
some, God-given sexuality had the capacity for evil. God
gave them a sense of shame so they would cover their
bodies, thereby minimizing temptation for sexual sin in
the future. The clothing they made was inadequate; God
had to cover them with garments made from animal skins
(Genesis 3:21).
From that time forward, immodest exposure of the
body has often resulted in sin. In fact, “to uncover naked-
ness” is an Old Testament idiomatic expression for sex
acts (Leviticus 18:6-19). Ham’s reaction to seeing the
nakedness of his father Noah was sinful (Genesis
9:20-25). When David saw Bathsheba bathing, he yielded
to the temptation to commit adultery (II Samuel 11:1-5).
Satan delights to cause immodest exposure of the
body. The demons in the maniac of Gadara caused him to
tear his clothes off, but when Jesus cast the demons out
the man began to wear clothes (Luke 8:26-36). A
demon-possessed man tore the clothes off seven Jews
who tried to exorcise him (Acts 19:13-17).
God compared Babylon’s downfall to a woman’s
shame in having her nakedness exposed, when she bares
her leg and uncovers her thigh (Isaiah 47:1-3).

168
 The Bible also shows that certain types of clothing
can be particularly associated with adulterous behavior.
When Judah’s daughter-in-law seduced him, she took off
her widow’s garments and put on prostitutes’ garb
(Genesis 38:14-19). The immoral woman in Proverbs
7:10 wore the attire of a harlot.

Biblical Examples: Makeup

Without exception, the Bible always associates the use

of makeup with wicked women. When heathen Queen
Jezebel tried to seduce Jehu so that he would not execute
her, she used makeup and ornamentation. “And when Jehu
had come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she put paint
on her eyes and adorned her head, and looked through a
window” (II Kings 9:30, NKJV). Solomon warned young
men to avoid the immoral woman, who would use painted
eyelids as one of her seductive techniques. “Do not lust
after her beauty in your heart, Nor let her allure you with
her eyelids” (Proverbs 6:25, NKJV).
God compared His unfaithful people to an adulteress
who adorns herself for her lovers. “And when you are
plundered, What will you do? Though you clothe yourself
with crimson, Though you adorn yourself with ornaments
of gold, Though you enlarge your eyes with paint, In vain
you will make yourself fair; Your lovers will despise you;
They will seek your life” (Jeremiah 4:30, NKJV). “Fur-
thermore you sent for men to come from afar, to whom a
messenger was sent; and there they came. And you
washed yourself for them, painted your eyes, and adorned
yourself with ornaments” (Ezekiel 23:40, NKJV). (The

169
name of one of Job’s daughters in Job 42:14 means “horn
of eye paint,” but this no more endorses the wearing of
makeup than the names Ruby and Jewel endorse the
wearing of jewelry or the name Jade endorses the con-
tents of a jade box.)

Biblical Examples: Jewelry

The Bible frequently associates jewelry with a proud

attitude, an immoral lifestyle, or pagan worship. When
Jacob went back to Bethel to renew his relationship with
God, he disposed of all the idols and earrings belonging
to his family (Genesis 35:1-7).
The Israelites melted down earrings and made a
golden calf to worship (Exodus 32:2-4). After Moses
interceded for them, God spared their lives but
announced He would not go with them to Canaan. “And
when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned:
and no man did put on him his ornaments. For the LORD
had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye
are a stiffnecked people: I will come up into the midst of
thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put
off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do
unto thee. And the children of Israel stripped themselves
of their ornaments by the mount Horeb” (Exodus 33:4-6).
As a sign of their humility, repentance, and consecration,
God ordered them to take off these badges of vanity,
pride, and lust. They gave all their jewelry to God, to be
melted down and used in construction of the Tabernacle
(Exodus 35:22).
Where did they get this jewelry originally? They

170
received “jewels” of silver and gold from the Egyptians
(Exodus 11:2). The more accurate translation is probably
“articles” of silver and gold. (See NKJV, NIV.) In any case,
God meant for them to take the Egyptian gold and silver
for use in His service, not for personal ornamentation.
Another time the Israelites captured much jewelry from
the Midianites, and again they offered it all to God
(Numbers 31:50-54).
In Gideon’s day, Ishmaelites and Midianites were dis-
tinguished from Israelites by their use of earrings and
other jewelry (Judges 8:24-27). This jewelry became a
snare for Gideon and his men. When they captured it in
war, he fashioned it into a gold ephod (sacred garment)
to which they offered idolatrous worship.
When Jezebel tried to seduce Jehu, she “tired her
head” (II Kings 9:30) or “adorned her head” (NKJV). In
light of the context, it is unlikely that she simply arranged
her hair in a modest manner. It means she arranged her
hair elaborately and apparently put ornaments on her
head or in her hair.
The adulterous woman in Jeremiah 4:30 used extrav-
agant clothing and ornaments of gold to attract her lovers.
The adulterous woman in Ezekiel 23:40 also allured her
lovers by ornaments. Her many lovers gave her bracelets
and crowns, but God warned that all her jewels would be
stripped away in judgment (Ezekiel 23:26, 42). Again, in
Hosea 2:13, God likened His unfaithful people to an adul-
terous woman who wore jewelry: “She decked herself with
her earrings and her jewels, and she went after her lovers,
and forgat me, saith the LORD.”
The Lord pronounced judgment upon the proud,
haughty, vain women of Jerusalem who gloried in their

171
ornamentation. “Because the daughters of Zion are
haughty, and walk with outstretched necks and wanton
eyes, walking and mincing as they go, making a jingling
with their feet, therefore the Lord will strike with a scab
the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the
LORD will uncover their secret parts. In that day the Lord
will take away the finery: the jingling anklets, the scarves,
and the crescents; the pendants, the bracelets, and the
veils; the headdresses, the leg ornaments, and the head-
bands; the perfume boxes, the charms, and the rings; the
nose jewels, the festal apparel, and the mantles; the outer
garments, the purses, and the mirrors; the fine linen, the
turbans, and the robes” (Isaiah 3:16-23, NKJV).
The perfume boxes, purses, and mirrors were usually
worn on the body as ornamentation. Most of the listed
items can be used only for ornamentation and so always
come under condemnation for their association with pride
and vanity. Some of them, such as the articles of clothing,
can be used innocently, but in this case they too were worn
with ostentation and pride. They come under the condem-
nation of this passage whenever they are worn with the
wrong spirit or with great extravagance, expense, and show.
The spirit of Esther stands in contrast to this. When a
woman was brought before the Persian king, she was
allowed access to anything she desired in order to beau-
tify herself (Esther 2:13). This included jewelry and cos-
metics, which ancient royal courts used. Esther, however,
desired and requested nothing, but used only what the
king’s eunuch (who had charge of her) selected (Esther
2:15). The Bible only records that she used oil of myrrh,
perfume, and other preparations to purify (beautify) the
skin (Esther 2:12).

172
 Application: Sex Distinction in Dress

In applying the foregoing scriptural concepts, we can

draw several important biblical principles and make prac-
tical applications for our day.
At least part of our daily attire must be exclusively
associated with our gender, providing an unmistakable
visual identification at first impression. Men should not
wear attire that is distinctively female, which for Western
clothing means dresses and skirts. Women should not
wear attire that is distinctively male, which for Western
clothing means trousers, slacks, or pants.
Different cultures have different types of clothing. If
clothing is modest and if there is a clear differentiation
between male and female, the precise style of clothing in
a particular culture is not important. Care should be
taken to dress appropriately for the culture and occasion.
For example, it may be proper for a Scotsman to wear a
kilt for a ceremonial occasion, but improper for an
American male to wear the same thing to the office. Inter-
estingly, priests in the Old Testament wore breeches or
trousers (Leviticus 6:10; 16:4), indicating that this has
been distinctively masculine attire in Judeo-Christian cul-
ture from the earliest times.

Application: Modesty of Dress

We seek to be decent, chaste, and proper in dress,

specifically avoiding immodest exposure of the body
before someone of the opposite sex (other than one’s
spouse). What is considered immodest? In answering this

173
question we must look to the biblical context, the purpose
behind modesty, our culture, and our motives.
If we take I Timothy 2:9 seriously, we must agree that
some clothing is immodest. Those articles of clothing
which are one step away from nudity—such as bikinis,
miniskirts, shorts, and halter tops—must be considered
immodest. Otherwise, no clothing could be immodest.
We must ask what practices of the time concerned God
enough for Him to inspire this passage. What clothing did
Paul have in mind when he warned against immodesty of
dress? In a day when women wore robes to the ankle, what
type of immodest dress existed? If Paul found immodest
clothing in an age characterized by greater modesty of
dress than our own, certainly he would consider many
styles of clothing today to be immodest. As Chapter 8 will
note, many women of the time tucked in their tunics above
the knee for convenience in certain activities, and the early
church fathers considered this immodest. God was con-
cerned about modesty of dress in a day when even expos-
ing the upper leg was considered immodest. In Isaiah
47:2-3 God considered baring the leg and uncovering the
thigh to be shameful exposure of nakedness. This gives us
a good idea as to what God would regard as the minimum
standard of modesty, regardless of culture.
The basic reason for modesty of dress is to subdue the
lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life.
The exposed body tends to arouse improper thoughts in
both wearer and onlooker. To implement the purpose
behind modest dress, the body should basically be cov-
ered, except for those parts which we must use openly for
normal living. This suggests that clothes should cover the
torso and upper limbs. Reasonable guidelines, then, would

174
be women’s dresses over the knee and sleeves to the
elbow. In addition, we should avoid low necklines, sleeve-
less dresses or shirts, very tight clothes, very thin clothes,
and slacks on women because they immodestly reveal the
feminine contours of upper leg, thigh, and hip. Likewise,
swimming in mixed company is immodest. Since the pri-
mary effect of makeup is to highlight sex appeal, we
reject makeup as immodest.
To some degree modesty is culturally relative. We
must certainly dress in a manner that would be consid-
ered modest for the occasion and in the judgment of our
culture. For example, 19th century society considered it
improper for a woman to expose any of her leg in public.
Applying principles of Christian liberty, a Christian
woman of that day should not have worn a knee-length
dress, for this would have brought reproach upon her and
her Lord. However, there must be a minimum of modesty
that is absolute. Otherwise, if society condoned total
nudity, Christians could walk around nude. If so, we could
delete I Timothy 2:9 from the Bible as irrelevant.
Finally, the heart must be modest and motives pure.
Conduct, gestures, gait, body language, and speech must
be modest. If a woman wants to, she can display her body
immodestly and act seductively even in the most modest
of dresses. We must never use dress to promote immod-
est conduct, and no degree of external modesty can cover
up an immodest, lustful spirit.
A sign posted in an Orthodox Jewish district of
Jerusalem provides an interesting definition of modesty
for women’s dress:
“Passage permitted ‘only’ to women dressed mod-
estly!

175
 Long dress, lower than knee length (no slacks).
Long sleeves, beyond elbow length.
Closed Neckline”
(National Geographic, July 1985, p. 30).

Application: Adornment

Christians should avoid outward adornment (decora-

tion or ornamentation). True adornment in the sight of
God and godly men is holiness of spirit, not physical
beauty. As part of Christian stewardship of the body, we
believe in being physically fit, neat, clean, and attractive.
We should not place undue emphasis on physical beauty,
but should accept whatever God has given us. We should
seek to present ourselves as best we can using natural
rather than artificial methods. We should avoid colored
makeup, tattoos, and ornamental jewelry because their
sole purpose is ornamentation of the body. We have seen
many Old Testament passages that associate jewelry and
especially makeup with evil. I Timothy 2:9 and I Peter 3:3
stand in direct opposition to gold, silver, and precious
stones for personal ornamentation; apparently they are
always excessive in appearance and cost.
Some minor aspects of ornamentation are allowable
since they do not highlight sexuality (as makeup does) or
extravagance (as jewelry does), are not condemned by
Scripture (as both makeup and jewelry are), and are con-
sidered standard attire. Examples are colored clothing,
ribbons, ties, and scarves.
We emphasize simplicity and functional use for
things which have a valid purpose other than ornamen-

176
tation such as hairstyles and clothes. We can try to be
attractive in these areas, but even here we must take care
not to be too elaborate and showy, for both Paul and
Peter warned against extravagant hair arrangement and
clothing.
Some things classified as jewelry actually have a valid
purpose other than adornment, such as watches. If their
primary purpose is functional use, not ornamentation,
nothing is wrong with using them in moderation. Some
things have both functional and ornamental use, such as
cuff links, tie clasps, tie bars, watch chains, and brooches.
We must carefully evaluate their use if we use them at all.
Moderation in cost is an important scriptural concept.
We reject extreme luxury and ostentation in all areas of
life. In accordance with the explicit teaching of I Timothy
2:9 and I Peter 3:3, we do not wear extremely expensive
or extravagant clothing. This is another reason why we do
not wear jewelry.
When does clothing, hair arrangement, and functional
jewelry become extravagant, excessively ornamental, or
unreasonably expensive? The answer may vary somewhat
depending on culture, society, station in life, and occa-
sion. Here are some questions to consider in making this
evaluation:
* What is my motive for wearing it? Do I wear it out
of pride, show, a desire to be noticed, a desire to provoke
envy?
* Is this wise stewardship on my part? How does it
compare with the time and money I spend for necessities,
for others, for God’s church?
* How do others view it? Do they see it as flaunting
wealth, showy, a manifestation of pride, or an object of

177
envy? Do they see it as inconsistent with the Bible’s stand
and my own stand against ornamentation in general?
* What would Jesus do? Would He wear it? Would He
spend His time and money in this fashion?

Rings

What about rings? Rings are undoubtedly a form of

jewelry. There seems to be no clear way to distinguish a
finger ring from an earring, a nose ring, or a bracelet. As
with other jewelry, the primary motivation for wearing
rings seems to be for ornamentation, show, and impress-
ing others. One possible exception might be wedding
rings, particularly simple wedding bands. Arguably, they
could have a functional use far more significant than any
ornamental use. However, many people use even wedding
rings to satisfy their desire for expensive, showy
ornamentation. Both toleration and caution are necessary
in this area.
We personally do not wear wedding rings because: (1)
They are uncomfortably close to other types of jewelry
that we avoid based on the New Testament prohibition
against wearing gold, pearls, and costly array. (2) We do
not wish to appear inconsistent in our stand against jew-
elry. (3) We do not wish to give others an excuse to wear
showy rings primarily for the sake of adornment. (4)
There is no evidence for them in the New Testament; in
fact, some maintain that they are pagan in origin. (5) As
a practical matter, in our society wedding rings do not sig-
nificantly deter advances by the opposite sex. Christian
conduct and deportment are far more effective. (6) We

178
desire to make a consecration to God in this area, after
Old Testament examples.

Objections to Deuteronomy 22:5

At this point, let us consider a number of objections

to the teaching on adornment and dress. Below are sev-
eral that have been raised.13
* “Deuteronomy 22:5 does not apply to us today.”
This objection points to other teachings in the same chap-
ter, such as the prohibition on plowing with an ox and a
donkey together (verse 10), the prohibition on mixing
wool and linen together in one garment (verse 11), and
the instruction to wear fringes on garments (verse 12). If
these do not apply, why should the prohibition of verse 5?
This argument is not valid because chapter 22 contains
laws against adultery (verse 22), rape (verses 23-27), and
incest (verse 30). Are these laws void? Obviously not.
The key to interpreting this chapter is to realize that
Christ’s death abolished the ceremonial law, but not the
moral law (Colossians 2:16-17); God’s moral law stands
forever. Verses 10-12 teach the principle of separation.
The Israelites fulfilled this ceremonial law physically, but
today we fulfill the principle spiritually. Verse 5, howev-
er, is manifestly part of the moral law: (1) God designed
it to prevent certain moral evils such as blurring of sex-
ual roles and homosexuality. (2) It enunciates the princi-
ple of distinction between male and female, taught by
nature as well as other scriptural passages. (3) The verse
itself says those who do the prohibited acts are “abomi-
nation unto the LORD thy God,” which means something

179
God detests or hates. God’s character never changes,
and neither does His love for righteousness or hatred of
sin. If He hated a certain practice in the Old Testament,
He hates it now.
* “Deuteronomy 22:5 was only given to oppose cultic
transvestitism (transvestite behavior associated with
pagan worship).” If so, that hardly commends the prac-
tice to us today. In fact, Satan incorporated it as part of
pagan worship because he knew it would violate God’s
law, contradict the natural order, and cause problems for
society.
Homosexuality and prostitution were associated with
pagan religions of that day, but was that the only reason
God condemned those practices? Using this objection, we
could condone these practices today. This objection also
ignores New Testament support for distinction of male
and female in appearance.
* “There was little difference between male and
female clothing in the Old Testament. In fact, men wore
skirts.” Deuteronomy 22:5 stands as evidence that there
was a significant difference. Men and women wore dif-
ferent types of robes and headgear, and women wore
veils. “Among the Hebrews neither sex was permitted by
Mosaic law to wear the same form of clothing as was
used by the other (Deuteronomy 22:5). A few articles of
female clothing carried somewhat the same name and
basic pattern, yet there was always sufficient difference
in embossing, embroidery, and needlework so that in
appearance the line of demarcation between men and
women could be readily detected.” 14 Even in modern
times Wight noted, “Among the Bedouin Arabs of
Palestine there is great care taken that either sex shall

180
not imitate the other in matters of dress.” 15
These differences were significant enough for one to
ascertain a person’s gender from far away, as the story of
Rebekah and Isaac indicates (Genesis 24:64-65). The
”skirts” of the KJV are “robes,” as both NKJV and NIV
translate.
* “Deuteronomy 22:5 really means a woman should
not wear a soldier’s clothing and vice versa.” This objec-
tion alleges that the Hebrew word for “man” in this verse
should be rendered “soldier.” The word is geber instead of
the more common word ish. However, no major transla-
tion has adopted this reading.
According to Gesenius’ Hebrew Lexicon, geber
means “a man . . . Specially—(a) opp. to a woman, a
male, Deuteronomy 22:5; Jeremiah 30:6; 31:22; and even
used of male offspring newly born; Job 3:3 . . . (b) opp.
to wife, a husband, Proverbs 6:34 . . . (e) a soldier . . .
Judges 5:30.” 16 Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old
Testament says, “The root meaning ‘to be strong’ is no
longer obvious in the usage of geber, since it is a syn-
onym of ish. . . . A geber denotes a ‘male,’ as an antonym
of a ‘woman.’” 17 It also says the word appears sixty times
in the Hebrew Old Testament. According to Strong’s Ex-
haustive Concordance, in none of these places is it trans-
lated as “soldier” in English. Even if this objection were
valid, why was it detestable for a soldier to wear feminine
attire? It could only be due to the larger principle of sex
distinction in dress.
* “Modern work and sports activities require women
to wear pants.” This statement is historically false; even
the pioneer women of the past were able to get their work
done in dresses. If women find themselves in an activity

181
so masculine that they are forced to wear pants, they
should re-evaluate their own sex role in life. In any event,
convenience is a poor excuse for violating the Word of
God.
Pants are definitely not required for modesty, for they
reveal the feminine outlines of leg, thigh, and hip. A girl
who always wears dresses can learn how to conduct her-
self modestly in most activities. Even in very strenuous
activities there are ways to protect both modesty and fem-
ininity. For example, a woman can wear a jump suit or a
ski suit under a skirt. In cold weather, women can dress
as warmly as men by using hose, stockings, leotards, long
skirts, or leg warmers.
* “Pants are made in women’s styles today, so they do
not violate Deuteronomy 22:5.” Even if we accepted this
objection, it would not permit women to wear many things
that they do such as men’s jeans and military fatigues. In
our culture pants have always been associated with men,
so that all forms of pants are still “that which pertaineth to
a man.” Accepting women’s pants would leave men with-
out any style of clothing that is uniquely male.
Furthermore, the ways in which women’s pants are distin-
guished from men’s pants are very minor. The first
impression, the silhouette, the view from a distance, the
overall picture is still the same. (It is no use responding
that a woman’s curves make the difference, because this
retort would concede that women’s pants are immodest!)
The Pulpit Commentary clearly states the teachings of
Deuteronomy 22:5 and dispels the foregoing objections:
“That which pertaineth to a man; literally, the apparatus
of a man, (including, not dress merely, but implements,
tools, weapons, and utensils). This is an ethical regulation

182
in the interests of morality. There is no reference . . . to
the practice of priests at heathen festivals of wearing
masks of their gods. Whatever tends to obliterate the dis-
tinction between the sexes tends to licentiousness; and
that the one sex should assume the dress of the other has
always been regarded as unnatural and indecent.” 18

Objections in Favor of Makeup

“The Bible speaks favorably of perfume in the Song of

Solomon. Using a pleasant smell is the same as using a
pleasant color in makeup.” This objection ignores the
evidence of Scripture itself. The Bible does mention per-
fumes favorably, but it always mentions makeup unfa-
vorably.
Furthermore, there is a qualitative difference between
smell and sight. The Bible contains strong warnings about
the lust of the eyes, but nowhere mentions the lust of the
nose. The Bible describes the eye as the light of the body,
but does not give a prominent role to the nose. Compared
to vision, smell plays a very minor part in sensory per-
ception and in stimulation of thought life. Perfume could
possibly play a small part in seduction (and should not be
so used), but it has only a fraction of the power that
immodest dress, makeup, and ornaments have to attract
attention, accentuate sensuality, and encourage lust.
Perfume has always been considered part of a chaste,
modest woman’s attire in a way that makeup has not. Per-
fume helps to mask, eliminate, and replace unpleasant
body odors caused by bacterial activity and perspiration.
The visual counterpart to this is not to apply colored

183
makeup, but to wash and cleanse the skin, using water,
soap, oil, and other cleansing preparations.
* “Our culture now accepts the use of makeup; the
negative connotations of makeup no longer exist.”
Perhaps society does not associate makeup with harlotry
as it used to, but does this mean God no longer thinks of
those associations? Are the illustrations of the prophets
no longer relevant? No matter how much society changes,
we must seek to please God rather than man. Also, socie-
ty’s acceptance does not change all the spiritual reason-
ing we have discussed. Makeup still highlights lust,
sensuality, vanity, and pride as much as it ever did. The
effects on the wearer and the observer are still as power-
ful as ever. It still teaches a distorted value system as
much as always.
* “The Old Testament descriptions of wicked women
who wore makeup also describe those women doing
acceptable things such as washing with water and wear-
ing colored clothing.” Many acceptable things can be done
by an evil person or can become evil only because of an
evil motive. However, makeup does not fall under this cat-
egory. The other things mentioned all have valid purposes
other than ornamentation or seduction, but makeup does
not. The other things are all mentioned favorably in other
passages of Scripture, but makeup is not.

Objections in Favor of Jewelry

* “Godly people in the Old Testament used jewelry.”

To a limited extent this is true; however, we must keep in
mind these points: (1) From Old Testament to New Testa-

184
ment God has progressively revealed more and more of
His perfect will for His people. Through the Holy Spirit,
we have power to live a holy life in a way that Old Testa-
ment saints did not. The inspired writings of Paul and
Peter supersede any contrary examples from the Old
Testament. (2) Even in the Old Testament God pointed to
a high standard in this area (Genesis 35:4; Exodus
33:4-6) and alluded to the dangers of jewelry (Isaiah
3:16-23; Jeremiah 4:30; Ezekiel 23:40). (3) God moved
on His people to dedicate to His service the jewelry they
acquired (Exodus 35:22; Numbers 31:50-54). (4) Heavy
use of jewelry seems to have been primarily associated
with heathen peoples (Numbers 31:50-54; Judges
8:24-27). (5) The few passages that do mention jewelry
in a favorable light are symbolic of blessings or spiritual
treasures and do not endorse personal ornamentation
(Proverbs 1:9; 25:12; Song of Solomon 5:14-15; Ezekiel
16:11-13; Malachi 3:17). (6) When godly people used
jewelry, there was usually an important functional value
other than adornment.
Here are some examples of Old Testament functional
use: (1) People in ancient times used seals or signet rings
to transact legal business (Genesis 41:42; Esther 8:2, 8;
Haggai 2:23; Luke 15:22). Judah’s “signet and bracelet”
was actually a seal with its cord (Genesis 38:18, NKJV
and NIV). (2) Crowns, chains, and bands (KJV “bracelet”)
were used to signify royalty or high official position
(Genesis 41:42; II Samuel 1:10; Daniel 5:29). Like the
signet, they conveyed legal authority. The high priest’s
use of precious stones had a similar function, with the
added dimension of worship (Exodus 28:17-38). (3)
Jewelry was used as a wedding token, with the bride and

185
groom adorning themselves for each other (Genesis
24:22, 47; Song of Solomon 1:10-17; Isaiah 61:10;
Jeremiah 2:32). (4) In ancient times when coinage was
rare, precious stones and metals were important means of
saving or giving something of monetary value (Job
42:11). We find only one clear exception to these cate-
gories: ornaments on clothing as a sign of luxury in Saul’s
reign (II Samuel 1:24-27).
Wight stated, “As a rule, Jewish men did not indulge
in extravagance of dress, and there was little ornamen-
tation among them. . . . Certain men wore a ring on their
right hand, or suspended by a cord or chain around the
neck. Actually this was the signet ring or seal, and served
as the personal signature of its owner, and so was not usu-
ally worn as an ornament.” 19 According to The Inter-
preter’s Dictionary of the Bible, finger rings were used to
signify rank and seal rings worn on a cord or on the hand
were used to seal documents.20 It says the ring worn by
the prodigal son had this same general meaning.
* “I Timothy 2:9 uses an idiomatic expression, which
does not mean to avoid all outward adorning, but only
to emphasize inward adorning more.” Under this view
Paul meant, “Do not adorn yourselves on the outside only,
but adorn yourselves inwardly also.” However, no major
version translates the passage in this way.
This is a devious interpretation, for it adds words to
the Bible, twisting them to mean the opposite of what
they literally say. Using this interpretation Romans
13:13-14 would mean, “Let us walk honestly, as in the
day; not in rioting and drunkenness only, not in chamber-
ing and wantonness only, not in strife and envying only,
But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ also.” I John 2:15

186
would mean, “Love not the world only, neither the things
that are in the world only.” I Timothy 3:8 would mean a
deacon could be doubletongued, given to much wine, and
greedy of filthy lucre as long as he was grave also.
In reality, I Timothy 2:9-10 describes two contrasting,
mutually incompatible lifestyles. To be modest, shame-
faced, and sober is the opposite of wearing gold, pearls,
elaborately ornamented hair, and costly clothing. Verse 8
teaches men to lift holy hands in prayer, without wrath or
doubting. It does not imply that wrath and doubting are
permissible if the men have holy hands too. Verse 9 draws
a parallel with verse 8 by saying “in like manner.” Verse 8
teaches men to put away certain unholy things and
acquire certain contrasting holy things, while verse 9
does the same for women.
* “I Peter 3:3 is not an absolute prohibition on wear-
ing of jewelry, for then it would prohibit all use of gold
and all wearing of clothes.” This verse tells women, “Your
beauty should not come from outward adornment, such
as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine
clothes” (NIV). The KJV says “putting on of apparel,” but
the NKJV corroborates the NIV by saying “putting on
fine apparel.” Interpreted this way, the passage parallels
I Timothy 2:9 exactly. Like that verse, it is an absolute
prohibition on elaborate hair arrangement, gold jewelry,
and extravagant clothing.
If we interpret I Peter 3:3 to refer to all hair arrange-
ments, all wearing of gold, and all wearing of clothing,
then obviously it is not an absolute prohibition. Even so,
it would prohibit the use of such things for adornment
and show. Clothing has many other uses besides adorn-
ment, such as modesty, warmth, and protection. Hair

187
arrangement also has other functions such as neatness
and convenience. Even gold itself or gold colored metal
can possibly have other functional uses such as in watches,
glasses, and teeth. However, gold earrings, nose rings,
necklaces, and so on can have no function other than
adornment. Even if I Peter 3:3 were only a prohibition on
the use of certain things for adornment, it would permit
functional use of clothing and gold metal but still forbid
the use of gold jewelry.
* “If Christians should not wear gold and jewels,
why did God make them? Why will they be part of the
New Jerusalem?” This objection misses the whole point
of our refusal to wear gold and jewelry. We recognize
gems and metals as beautiful things created by God for
our visual pleasure and for many practical uses. For
example, gold’s inertness and the diamond’s hardness
make them very valuable for many industrial uses. God
simply forbids us to use these things for personal adorn-
ment because of the many spiritual dangers to self and
others in this present evil world. These things can still be
used in God’s service and for our pleasure, particularly in
the life to come.
Chapter 8 will present historical teaching on the sub-
ject of adornment and dress and will conclude our discus-
sion of the subject.

188
 FOOTNOTES

1
Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, Vol. 14 of The Tyndale
New Testament Commentaries (1957), pp. 74-75.
2
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Charles Pfeiffer and Everett
Harrison (eds.) (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), p. 1448.
3
Fred Wight, Manners and Customs of Bible Lands (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1953), p. 100.
4
Rushdoony, p. 87.
5
Ibid., p. 435, quoting C. F. Keil and Delitzsch, Biblical Commen-
tary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), III, 409.
6
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 185.
7
“Dress,” The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Merrill
Tenney (ed.) (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967), p. 225.
8
Elizabeth Rice Handford, Your Clothes Say It For You (Mur-
freesboro, Tenn.: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1976), p. 88.
9
Ralph Woodrow, Women’s Adornment: What Does the Bible
Really Say? (Riverside, Cal.: By the author, 1976), p. 27.
10
Ibid., pp. 27, 35.
11
Handford, pp. 81-84.
12
John Leo, “The Comeback of Womanly Wiles,” Time Magazine,
January 30, 1984, p. 82.
13
Most of these objections can be found in Woodrow.
14
“Dress,” The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, p. 227.
15
Wight, p. 97.
16
William Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old
Testament Scriptures, Samuel Tregelles (trans.) (1847; rpt. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), p. 156.
17
Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, Merrill
Unger and William White (eds.) (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers,
1980), p. 241.
18
Spence and Exell (eds.), The Pulpit Commentary, V, 355.
19
Wight, p. 100.
20
“Dress and Ornaments,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the
Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), I, 871.

189
 8
HISTORICAL TEACHING
ON ADORNMENT
AND DRESS
“For after this manner in the old time the holy women
also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves” (I Peter 3:5).

Chapter 7 discussed the scriptural teaching on adorn-

ment and dress. This chapter will show that many leaders
throughout church history have firmly advocated biblical
standards in this area.

Clement of Alexandria

The ante-Nicene church fathers were forthright in

their teaching on adornment and dress. The writings of
Clement of Alexandria are surprisingly relevant to our
day. Most of the following excerpts are taken from his
book for new converts, The Instructor.

191
 Clement taught modesty of dress.1 “We [must] keep
pure from shameful deeds: on the one hand, from exhibit-
ing and exposing parts of the body which we ought not;
and on the other, from beholding what is forbidden. . . .
Let [women] be well clothed—without by raiment, within
by modesty.” He warned against extremely thin or tight
clothing. “Superfluous and diaphanous materials are the
proof of a weak mind, covering as they do the shame of
the body with a slender veil. For luxurious clothing, which
cannot conceal the shape of the body, is no more a cover-
ing. For such clothing, falling close to the body, takes its
form more easily, and adhering as it were to the flesh,
receives its shape, and marks out the woman’s figure, so
that the whole make of the body is visible to spectators.”
He felt that the proper degree of modesty for a woman in
his culture was to wear robes to the ankle and veils around
the face.
According to an editorial footnote, in Clement’s day
women frequently tucked up their tunics to give freedom
to the knee, and he warned against this practice. “For nei-
ther is it seemly for the clothes to be above the knee, as
they say was the case with the Lacedaemonian virgins;
nor is it becoming for any part of a woman to be exposed.
Though you may with great propriety use the language
addressed to him who said, ‘Your arm is beautiful; yes,
but it is not for the public gaze. Your thighs are beautiful;
but, was the reply, for my husband alone.’”
He rebuked women for going to the public baths. “For
there they are not ashamed to strip before spectators . . .
The baths are opened promiscuously to men and women;
and there they strip for licentious indulgence . . . Those
who have not become utterly destitute of modesty shut

192
out strangers; but bathe with their own servants, and
strip naked before their slaves . . . The ancient athletes,
ashamed to exhibit a man naked, preserved their modesty
by going through the contest in drawers; but these
women, divesting themselves of their modesty along with
their tunic, wish to appear beautiful, but contrary to their
wish are simply proved to be wicked.” According to the
editors, the reference to athletes comes from the secular
Greek historian Thucydides (i, 6), and it demonstrated
“the recent invasion of immodest exposure even among
athletes.”
Modesty must include behavior. Women “must as far
as possible, correct their gestures, looks, steps, and
speech. For they must not do as some, who . . . conduct
themselves in society as if on the stage, with voluptuous
movements, and gliding steps, and affected voices, cast-
ing languishing glances around, tricked out with the bait
of pleasure.”
Clement upheld the teaching of Deuteronomy 22:5. In
his day the problem was men wearing effeminate cloth-
ing.2 What reason is there in the law’s prohibiting a man
from ‘wearing woman’s clothing’? Is it not that it would
have us to be manly, and not to be effeminate neither in
person and actions, nor in thought and word? . . . We
ought not to call such as these men, but lewd wretches,
and effeminate, whose voices are feeble, and whose
clothes are womanish both in feel and dye. And such
creatures are manifestly shown to be what they are from
their external appearance, their clothes, shoes, form,
walk, cut of their hair, look. . . . For these, for the most
part, plucking out the rest of their hair, only dress that on
the head, all but binding their locks with fillets like

193
women. . . . A true gentleman must have no mark of effem-
inacy.”
Quoting I Timothy 2:9 and I Peter 3:3, Clement taught
against very costly clothing, jewelry, makeup, plucking
out the eyebrows (to paint them back on), elaborate hair
arrangement, false hair, and hair dye.3 In his day, dye for
clothing was very expensive and luxurious, so he recom-
mended that Christians wear simple, white clothing. In
opposing ornamentation, he specifically rejected head
crowns, headdresses, ornaments for the hand, earrings,
and finger rings. He did allow finger rings for two rea-
sons: (1) for a woman with an unsaved husband and (2)
as a seal or signet for conducting business but not for
ornamentation.
He wrote, “If, then, He takes away anxious care for
clothes and food, and superfluities in general, as unnec-
essary; what are we to imagine ought to be said of love of
ornament, and dyeing of wool, and variety of colours, and
fastidiousness about gems, and exquisite working of gold,
and still more, of artificial hair and wreathed curls; and
furthermore, of staining the eyes, and plucking out hairs,
and painting with rouge and white lead, and dyeing of the
hair, and the wicked arts that are employed in such decep-
tions? . . . It becomes us to rouse ourselves and haste to
that which is truly beautiful and comely, and desire to
grasp this alone, leaving the ornaments of earth to the
world, and bidding them farewell before we fall quite
asleep. . . . How much wiser to spend money on human
beings, than on jewels and gold! How much more useful
to acquire decorous friends, than lifeless ornaments! . . .
But the love of ornament, which is far from caring for
virtue, but claims the body for itself, when the love of the

194
beautiful has changed to empty show, is to be utterly
expelled. . . . But these women obscure true beauty, shad-
ing it with gold. . . . I am weary and vexed at enumerat-
ing the multitude of ornaments; and I am compelled to
wonder how those who bear such a burden are not wor-
ried to death. . . .
“But for those women who have been trained under
Christ, it is suitable to adorn themselves not with gold,
but with the Word, through whom alone the gold comes
to light. . . . It is suitable, therefore, for women who serve
Christ to adopt simplicity. . . . Modesty and chastity are
collars and necklaces; such are the chains which God
forges. . . . And let not their ears be pierced, contrary to
nature, in order to attach to them ear-rings and ear-drops.
For it is not right to force nature against her wishes. Nor
could there be, any better ornament for the ears than true
instruction, which finds its way naturally into the pas-
sages of hearing. . . .
“It is not, then, the aspect of the outward man, but the
soul that is to be decorated with the ornament of good-
ness; we may say also the flesh with the adornment of
temperance. . . . Those women who wear gold, occupying
themselves in curling at their locks, and engaged in
anointing their cheeks, painting their eyes, and dyeing
their hair, and practising the other pernicious arts of lux-
ury, decking the covering of flesh,—in truth, imitate the
Egyptians, In order to attract their infatuated lovers . . .
For love of display is not for a lady, but a courtesan. Such
women care little for keeping at home with their hus-
bands; but loosing their husbands’ purse-strings, they
spend its supplies on their lusts, that they may have many
witnesses of their seemingly fair appearance. . . .

195
 “The Instructor permits us, then, to use simple cloth-
ing. . . . Let the women wear a plain and becoming dress,
but softer than what is suitable for a man, yet not quite
immodest or entirely gone in luxury. And let the garments
be suited to age, person, figure, nature, pursuits.”

Tertullian

Another very relevant ante-Nicene writing is On the

Apparel of Women by Tertullian. Tertullian taught against
makeup, hair dye, elaborate hair arrangement, false hair,
extravagant clothing, and jewelry.4 He also warned
against men who adorned themselves.
“Perfect modesty will abstain from whatever tends to
sin, as well as from sin itself. . . . If secure ourselves, we
must not put temptation in the way of others.” He pointed
out that if a man who looks on a woman with lust is guilty
of sin, the woman who adorns herself in a lustprovoking
manner is not blameless.
Tertullian gave this response to women who wanted to
adorn themselves to please their husbands: “You will please
them in proportion as you take no care to please others . . .
No wife is ‘ugly’ to her own husband. She ‘pleased’ him
enough when she was selected (by him as his wife); whether
commended by form or by character. . . . Every husband is
the exactor of chastity; but beauty a believing (husband)
does not require, because we are not captivated by the
same graces which the Gentiles think (to be) graces; an
unbelieving one, on the other hand, ever regards with sus-
picion. . . . For whom, then, is it that you cherish your
beauty? If for a believer, he does not exact it: if for an

196
unbeliever, he does not believe in it unless it be artless.
“Why are you eager to please either one who is suspi-
cious, or else one who desires it not? . . .
“These suggestions are not made to you, of course,
to be developed into an entire crudity and wildness of
appearance; nor are we seeking to persuade you of the
good of squalor and slovenliness; but of the limit and
norm and just measure of cultivation of the person.
There must be no overstepping of that line to which sim-
ple and sufficient refinements limit their desires—that
line which is pleasing to God. For they who rub their
skin with medicaments, stain their cheeks with rouge,
make their eyes prominent with antimony, sin against
HIM. To them, I suppose, the plastic skill of God is dis-
pleasing! In their own persons, I suppose, they convict,
they censure, the Artificer of all things! For censure they
do when they amend, when they add to, (His work;) tak-
ing these their additions, of course, from the adversary
artificer. That adversary artificer is the devil. . . . What
ever is born is the work of God. What ever, then, is plas-
tered on (that), is the devil’s work. . . . How unworthy
the Christian name, to wear a fictitious face, (you,) on
whom simplicity in every form is enjoined!—to lie in
your appearance, (you,) to whom (lying) with the tongue
is not lawful!—to seek after what is another’s (you,) to
whom is delivered (the precept of) abstinence from what
is another’s—to practise adultery in your mien, (you,)
who make modesty your study! . . . (Take heed) that you
admit not to use meretricious and prostitutionary garbs
and garments. . . .
“How much more provocative of blasphemy is it that
you, who are called modesty’s priestesses, should appear

197
in public decked and painted out after the manner of the
immodest? Else, (if you do so,) what inferiority would the
poor unhappy victims of the public lusts have (beneath
you)? whom, albeit some laws were (formerly) wont to
restrain them from (the use of) matrimonial and matronly
decorations, now, at all events, the daily increasing
depravity of the age has raised so nearly to an equality
with all the most honourable women, that the difficulty is
to distinguish them. And yet, even the Scriptures suggest
(to us the reflection), that meretricious attractivenesses
of form are invariably conjoined with and appropriated to
bodily prostitution. . . .
“It is not enough that God know us to be chaste: we
must seem so before men. Especially in these times of
persecution we must inure our bodies to the hardship
which they may not improbably be called to suffer. . . . To
Christian modesty it is not enough to be so, but to seem
so too. . . . I know not whether the wrist that has been
wont to be surrounded with the palmleaf-like bracelet will
endure till it grow into the numb hardness of its own
chain! I know not whether the leg that has rejoiced in the
anklet will suffer itself to be squeezed into the gyve! I fear
the neck, beset with pearl and emerald nooses, will give
no room to the broadsword! . . . Let us abandon luxuries,
and we shall not regret them. . . . Let us cast away earthly
ornament if we desire heavenly. . . .
“The angels who are to carry us are (now) being
awaited. Do you go forth (to meet them) already arrayed
in the cosmetics and ornaments of prophets and apostles;
drawing your whiteness from simplicity, your ruddy hue
from modesty; painting your eyes with bashfulness, and
your mouth with silence; implanting in your ears the

198
words of God; fitting on your necks the yoke of Christ.
Submit your head to your husbands, and you will be
enough adorned. Busy your hands with spinning; keep
your feet at home; and you will ‘please’ better than (by
arraying yourselves) in gold. Clothe yourselves with the
silk of uprightness, the fine linen of holiness, the purple
of modesty. Thus painted, you will have God as your
Lover!”

Other Teaching in Early Church History

Tatian wrote against ornaments on the ground that

they lead to fornication.5
Commodianus wrote, “Thou wishest, O Christian
woman, that the matrons should be as the ladies of the
world. Thou surroundest thyself with gold. . . . Thou
affectest vanity with all the pomp of the devil. . . . And
moreover, with evil purposes, thou puttest on false
medicaments, on thy pure eyes the stibium, with painted
beauty, or thou dyest thy hair that it may be always
black. . . . But these things are not necessary for modest
women. . . . Do ye, O good matrons, flee from the adorn-
ment of vanity; such attire is fitting for women who haunt
the brothels. . . .
“It is not right in God that a faithful Christian woman
should be adorned. Dost thou seek to go forth after the
fashion of the Gentiles, O thou who art consecrated to
God? God’s heralds, crying aloud in the law, condemn
such to be unrighteous women, who in such wise adorn
themselves. Ye stain your hair; ye paint the opening of
your eyes with black; ye lift up your pretty hairs one by

199
one on your painted brow; ye anoint your cheeks with
some sort of ruddy colour laid on; and, moreover, ear-
rings hang down with very heavy weight. Ye bury your
neck with necklaces; with gems and gold ye bind hands
worthy of God with an evil presage. Why should I tell of
your dresses, or of the whole pomp of the devil? Ye are
rejecting the law when ye wish to please the world.” 6
Cyprian referred to Deuteronomy 22:5 in teaching
against effeminacy. “For since, in the law, men are for-
bidden to put on a woman’s garment, and those that
offend in this manner are judged accursed, how much
greater is the crime, not only to take women’s garments,
but also to express base and effeminate and luxurious
gestures.” 7
Cyprian also quoted I Timothy 2:9 and I Peter 3:3 in
opposition to immodest dress, makeup, and jewelry.8 “Has
God willed that wounds should be made in the ears,
wherewith infancy, as yet innocent, and unconscious of
worldly evil, may be put to pain, that subsequently from
the scars and holes of the ears precious beads may hang,
heavy, if not by their weight, still by the amount of their
cost? . . . I think that not virgins only and widows, but
married women also, and all of the sex alike, should be
admonished, that the work of God and His fashioning and
formation ought in no manner to be adulterated, either
with the application of yellow colour, or with black dust
or rouge, or with any kind of medicament which can cor-
rupt the native lineaments. . . . Does any one dare to alter
and to change what God has made? They are laying hands
on God when they try to re-form that which He formed,
and to transfigure it, not knowing that everything which
comes into being is God’s work, everything that is changed

200
is the devil’s. . . .
“Does she groan and lament who has time to put on
the clothing of precious apparel, and not to consider the
robe of Christ which she has lost; to receive valuable
ornaments and richly wrought necklaces, and not to
bewail the loss of divine and heavenly ornaments?
Although thou clothest thyself in foreign garments and
silken robes, thou art naked; although thou adornest thy-
self to excess both in pearls, and gems, and gold, yet with-
out the adornment of Christ thou art unsightly. And you
who stain your hair, now at least cease in the midst of sor-
rows; and you who paint the edges of our eyes with a line
drawn around them of black powder, now at least wash
your eyes with tears.”
In two works of questionable authorship but attrib-
uted to Gyprian, we find teaching against immodest expo-
sure of the body in athletic contests, immodesty of dress,
cosmetics, and jewelry.9
The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles addressed the
adornment of both men and women.10 It admonished
husbands not to adorn themselves “in such a manner as
may entice another woman to thee. . . . Neither do thou
wear over-fine garments to seduce any; neither do thou,
with an evil subtilty, affect over-fine stockings or shoes
for thy feet, but only such as suit the measures of
decency and usefulness. Neither do thou put a gold ring
upon thy fingers; for all these ornaments are the signs of
lasciviousness.” To wives it said, “Do not superadd orna-
ments to thy beauty, in order to please other men: nei-
ther affect to wear fine broidering, garments, or shoes,
to entice those who are allured by such things. For
although thou dost not these wicked things with design

201
of sinning thyself, but only for the sake of ornament and
beauty, yet wilt thou not so escape future punishment, as
having compelled another to look so hard at thee as to
lust after thee. . . . Do not paint thy face, which is God’s
workmanship; for there is no part of thee which wants
ornament, inasmuch as all things which God has made
are very good. But the lascivious addition adorning of
what is already good is an affront to the bounty of the
Creator.”
John Chrysostom explained that I Timothy 2:9 taught
women not to use outward ornaments but inward orna-
ments. He wrote, “Imitate not therefore the courtesan.” 11

Teaching in Later Church History

As Chapter 5 noted, many groups in later church his-

tory have emphasized simplicity and modesty of dress,
avoiding ornaments and luxury. These include the follow-
ing, listed according to the times when they emerged as
significant movements:
• Middle Ages: Waldensians, Humiliati, Hussites, fol-
lowers of Savonarola.
• Reformation (16th century): Anabaptists, Calvin-
ists, Reformed.
• 17th century: Puritans, Baptists, Quakers, Pietists.
• 18th century: Methodists.
• 19th century: Holiness movement.
• 20th century: Pentecostals, many fundamentalists.

202
 John Wesley

The teachings of John Wesley, founder of Methodism,

are particularly interesting. In “Advice to the People
Called Methodist with Regard to Dress,” he taught that
Christians should be neat but plain in dress.12 He admon-
ished, “(1) That your apparel be cheap, not expensive;
far cheaper than others in your circumstances wear, or
than you would wear, if you knew not God: (2) That it be
grave, not gay, airy, or showy; not in the point of the fash-
ion.” He quoted I Timothy 2:9-10 and I Peter 3:3-4, then
commented: “Nothing can be more express; the wearing
of gold, of precious stones, and of costly apparel, togeth-
er with curling of hair, is here forbidden by name. . . .
Whoever, therefore, says, ‘There is no harm in these
things,’ may as well say, ‘There is no harm in stealing or
adultery.’” Wesley also endorsed a tract that said, “Let
every one, when he appears in public, be decently
clothed, according to his age, and the custom of the place
where he lives.” 13
Wesley gave specific directions to insure that the
early Methodist societies adhered to these teachings on
dress. He said no Band-tickets (membership cards)
should be issued to people “till they have left off super-
fluous ornaments. . . . Let every Assistant read the
‘Thoughts on Dress’ at least once a year. . . . Be very
mild, but strict. . . . Give no ticket to any that wear
calashes, highheads, or enormous bonnets.” 14
Here are some excerpts from Wesley’s sermon “On
Dress,” which used I Peter 3:3-4 as its text and also cited
I Timothy 2:9-10. “Slovenliness is no part of religion. . . .
They [the texts] manifestly forbid ordinary Christians . . .

203
to be adorned with gold, or pearls, or costly apparel. But
why? . . . The first harm it does, is, it engenders pride,
and, where it is already, increases it. . . . The wearing gay
or costly apparel naturally tends to breed and to increase
vanity. By vanity I here mean, the love and desire of being
admired and praised. . . . The wearing of gay and costly
apparel naturally tends to beget anger, and every turbu-
lent and uneasy passion. . . . Gay and costly apparel
directly tends to create and inflame lust. . . . It has this
effect both on the wearer and the beholder. . . . The wear-
ing of costly apparel is directly opposite to the being
adorned with good works. . . . Every shilling which you
needlessly expend on your apparel is, in effect, stolen
from God and the poor! . . . The putting on of costly
apparel is directly opposite to what the Apostle terms,
‘the hidden man of the heart.’” 15
In another sermon Wesley gave advice to parents
about their children. “Instil diligently into them the love
of plain dress, and hatred of finery. Show them the reason
of your own plainness of dress, and show it is equally rea-
sonable for them.” 16

The 20th Century

Until the 20th century, Western society generally

upheld at least some aspects of propriety in dress. This
century introduced many practices that would have been
unthinkable in earlier times, such as extremely short skirts
(i.e., above the knee), women wearing trousers, shorts,
scanty swimwear, scanty sportswear, and unisex fashion.
Encyclopedia Britannica documents this development.17

204
 The major changes began to take place after World
War I. Extremely short skirts first appeared in 1925. In
1927 skirts were so short that women exposed their
knees when sitting. In 1930 skirts went back to mid-calf
or lower in length, but other changes occurred. “Women’s
sports clothes became more and more scanty, and it
became usual to play tennis in shorts or very short skirts,
without stockings. Swimsuits were extremely scanty. . . .
Trousers, in the form of slacks, were increasingly worn
for sports but not yet for shopping.”
In 1939, the year World War II began, short skirts
appeared again. During the war, “housewives as well as
factory workers took to slacks.”
In the 1960’s miniskirts, pants suits, hot pants, and
short shorts came into being. “Borrowing freely from the
opposite sex, unisex fashions came into vogue by the end
of the 1960’s. Women often adopted such masculine
attire as military surplus and work clothes and the stylish
male had long, hair, carried a pocketbook, wore jewelry,
and used a wide variety of cosmetics.”
We also note that the bikini received widespread
acceptance during the 1960’s, followed by the topless
bikini. Today, many places around the world permit nude
swimming in mixed company.
A recent Reader’s Digest article discussed the psycho-
logical and social need for a clear differentiation between
male and female.18 “There is compelling evidence that men
need . . . a clearly defined difference between the sexes.
Every human culture, until the late 20th century, has pro-
vided such a difference, creating an elaborate and often
arbitrary contrast between men’s and women’s activities,
dress, and behavior.” Just as society has accepted women

205
wearing men's clothing, so now it is apparently beginning
to accept men wearing women’s clothing. For example,
some prominent male entertainers routinely appear in
female dress and makeup.
Recently, a Pentecostal lady was hired to work at an
eating establishment and told to report for work in slacks.
When she declined to wear slacks, she was refused
employment. When contacted about this religious dis-
crimination, the manager defended his action by saying,
“Nowhere on her application did she specify that she
would not wear slacks.”
How far our society has gone! Should a Christian
woman have to inform every prospective employer that
she does not wear masculine clothing? Should the wear-
ing of masculine clothing be a prerequisite for a woman
to be employed? Will employers also insist that women
cut their hair and wear makeup? Will Christian men one
day have to tell job interviewers that they will not wear
dresses?
A few Christian groups are still determined to main-
tain scriptural holiness of dress. Outstanding examples in
the late 20th century include many in the following
groups:
* Anabaptists (Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites)
* Holiness groups (Wesleyan, Church of God, etc.)
* Independent Baptists and other fundamentalists
* Pentecostals (particularly United Pentecostals)
Independent Baptist Elizabeth Handford teaches: (1)
Women should not wear trousers or slacks of any kind.
(2) Attention should be given to modesty of dress. (3)
There should be no mixed swimming because of the
immodesty.

206
 Conclusion

Christendom has abandoned many godly standards of

dress once held by all churches and society as a whole. It
has departed from holiness of dress as taught by the
Bible and historic Christian movements. One by one,
even holiness movements have largely abandoned their
position on outward appearance. Historic Christian lead-
ers would stand aghast at our society’s acceptance of
immodesty of dress, lavish makeup, excessive ornamenta-
tion, and masculine clothing styles on females. These
things are not only accepted but even considered neces-
sary for proper attire.
This situation challenges holiness people to live in lit-
eral fulfillment of the Scriptures as never before. “Come
out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord”
(II Corinthians 6:17). “Be not conformed to this world”
(Romans 12:2). “Don’t let the world around you squeeze
you into its own mold” (Phillips). “But ye are a chosen
generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar
people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who
hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light”
(I Peter 2:9). ‘We are indeed a peculiar or unique people;
as the NKJV says, “His own special people.” This has
always been true spiritually, but now it is becoming more
and more evident outwardly as well. The challenge before
us is to maintain our unique God-given identity, refusing
to succumb to the pressures of this world.

207
 FOOTNOTES

1
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2.6-7, 2.11, 3.5 & 3.11,
ANF, II, 251-52, 265-66, 279 & 287.
2
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 3.3 & 3.11 and
Miscellanies, 2.18, ANF, II, 276-77, 289 & 365.
3
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2.8, 2.11-13, 3.1, 3.2 &
3.11, ANF, II, 256, 263-73, 284-86.
4
Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women, 2, ANF, IV, 18-25.
5
Tatian, Fragments, 6, ANF, II, 82.
6
Commodianus, The Instructions, 59-60, ANF, IV, 214-15.
7
Cyprian, Epistles, 60, ANF, V, 356.
8
Cyprian, Treatises, 2.8, 2.19 & 2.30, ANF, V, 432-35 & 445.
9
Cyprian (?), On the Public Shows, 8 and Of the Discipline and
Advantage of Chastity, 12, ANF, V, 578 & 591.
10
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 1.2 & 1.3, ANF, VII, 392 &
395.
11
Chrysostom, Homilies on Timothy, 8, The Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers [hereinafter NPNF], Philip Schaff and Henry Wace
(eds.) (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, rpt. 1976), 1st ser., XIII, 433-34.
12
Wesley, “Advice to the People Called Methodist with Regard to
Dress,” Works, XI, 466-69.
13
Wesley, “Thoughts on Dress,” Works, XI, 477-78.
14
Wesley, “Minutes of Several Conversations,” Works, VIII, 307.
15
Wesley, “On Dress,” Sermon 88, Works, VII, 16-22.
16
Wesley, “On Obedience to Parents,” Sermon 96, Works, VII, 106.
17
“Dress,” Encyclopedia Britannica, V, 1033-35.
18
Annie Gottlieb, “What Men Need From Women,” Reader’s
Digest, January 1984, p. 145.

208
 9
HAIR
“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man
have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman
have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given
her for a covering” (I Corinthians 11:14-15).

Biblical Foundation

I Corinthians 11:1-16 establishes that men should

have short hair but that women should have long, uncut
hair. We obey this teaching for the following reasons
derived from that passage: (1) It demonstrates the wife’s
submission to the husband. (2) It demonstrates the
church’s submission to Christ. (3) It is a sign to angels of
the Christian woman’s obedience to God. (4) It is a shame
for a man to pray with long hair or for a woman to pray
with short hair. (5) Nature itself teaches these principles.
(6) Long hair is a shame for a man but is a woman’s glory.
(7) This is one of God’s methods for maintaining a clear
distinction between male and female.

209
 In the Old Testament, God used abundant hair to sym-
bolize perfection, strength, glory, and separation for a
holy purpose. Cutting the hair off symbolized disgrace,
mourning, and glory departed. With this in mind, it is
easy to see how long hair on a woman fulfills all the objec-
tives described above.
In this chapter we address several important ques-
tions that have arisen with respect to hair.

I Corinthians 11: Long Hair as a Covering

Theologians have interpreted I Corinthians 11:1-16 in

one of two ways. First, some have understood the entire
passage to refer directly to hair. We basically presented
this point of view in In Search of Holiness. So did
Elizabeth Rice Handford in Your Clothes Say It For You,
teaching that women should have long, uncut hair while
men should have short hair. This is a respectable position
as demonstrated by a footnote in the New International
Version of the Bible, which offers the following alterna-
tive translation of verses 4-7:

“Every man who prays or prophesies with

long hair dishonors his head. And every woman
who prays or prophesies with no covering of hair
on her head dishonors her head—she is just like
one of the ‘shorn women.’ If a woman has no cov-
ering, let her be for now with short hair, but since
it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn
or shaved, she should grow it again. A man ought
not to have long hair. . . .

210
 I Corinthians 11: A Literal Veil?

The majority of scholars hold that verses 4-7 refer to

a literal veil or covering of cloth. In this section, let us
assume they are correct. If so, Paul was teaching Corin-
thian women to wear veils in public assemblies because
this was the proper dress for virtuous women in that cul-
ture. As one reference states, “The veil was the distinctive
female wearing apparel. . . . Prostitutes went unveiled.” 1
Therefore, the Christian women of Corinth were not sup-
posed to exercise their Christian liberty to flaunt local
custom and dress like prostitutes, adulterers, or un-
submissive women.
The wearing of literal veils does not apply to women
today unless their culture demands it for the sake of pro-
priety. However, Paul’s appeal in verses 13-16 to the uni-
versal, God-ordained principle of women having long
hair still stands. Even nature teaches that women should
wear a veil of long hair; therefore it was reasonable for
Paul to insist upon a veil of cloth as well. In establishing
the culturally relative rule regarding veils, he appealed
to the universal truth that women should have long
(uncut) hair.
Daniel Segraves takes this approach in Women’s
Hair—The Long and Short of It. This view is also repre-
sented in Good News for Modern Man (Today’s English
Version), verses 5-6 and 13-16, given below:

“And any woman who prays or speaks God’s

message in public worship with nothing on her
head disgraces her husband; there is no difference
between her and a woman whose head has been

211
 shaved. If the woman does not cover her head,
she might as well cut her hair. And since it is a
shameful thing for a woman to shave her head or
cut her hair, she should cover her head. . . . Judge
for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to
God in public worship with nothing on her head?
Why, nature itself teaches you that long hair is a
disgraceful thing for a man, but it is a woman’s
pride. Her long hair has been given her to serve
as a covering. But if anyone wants to argue about
it, all I have to say is that neither we nor the
churches, of God have any other custom in wor-
ship.”

Some people insist that women of all cultures today

must wear a veil of cloth. However, a literal translation of
the Greek indicates that long hair alone is a sufficient
covering as far as nature’s teaching is concerned. The In-
terlinear Greek-English New Testament states, “The long
hair instead of a veil has been given to her” (verse 15).

A Universal Teaching

Some teach that I Corinthians 11:1-16 relates only to

Corinthian culture and has no application today. How-
ever, Paul based his teaching on nature itself (I Corin-
thians 11:14). All churches in Paul’s day adhered to his
teaching on hair, regardless of cultural background.
Jewish, Greek, and Roman Christians all agreed on this
issue. This was not merely a local custom, but a univer-
sal practice in all the churches. “If anyone wants to be

212
contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor
do the churches of God” (I Corinthians 11:16, NIV). Even
if we interpret verses 4-7 as a discussion of literal veils in
Corinthian culture, we cannot relegate the teaching on
hair in verses 13-16 merely to Corinthian culture.
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary states, “Some say
that the custom was peculiar to Corinth, but Paul’s
words, neither the churches of God, argue against this
view. Still others insist that the custom is not to be
applied today. . . . It should be noted, however, that each
of the reasons given for the wearing of a veil is taken from
permanent facts, lasting as long as the present earthly
economy. . . . A final word: In the final analysis, the . . .
veil is not the important thing, but the subordination for
which it stands. The presence of both is ideal.” 2 To this
analysis, we add that the woman’s long hair is the cover-
ing or veil given by nature. Therefore, this passage
teaches both that the woman should submit to her hus-
band and to God and that she should have long hair as a
symbol of that submission.
Of course, we should emphasize the spiritual princi-
ples involved. It does little good for a woman to have
uncut hair if she is rebellious, contentious, or brazen. The
long hair itself will not make her holy in God’s sight. She
must have the proper attitude of which the long hair is a
symbol. However, she need not choose between attitude
and appearance. God desires for her to have holiness
both inwardly and outwardly. She should have a submis-
sive, modest spirit inwardly but also display it outwardly
by her actions and by the God-ordained symbol of long
hair.

213
 The Teaching of Nature

Although Paul appealed to the Corinthians’ judgment

and by implication to their culture, he appealed to nature
(and therefore to the God who established the natural
state) in order to teach long hair on women. Exactly how
does nature teach this?
Paul referred to the instinctive, universal knowledge of
the natural, God-given order of things. Rousas Rushdoony
quoted Charles Hodge with approval: “To a woman, how-
ever, in all ages and countries, long hair has been con-
sidered an ornament. It is given to her, Paul says, as a
covering or as a natural veil; and it is a glory to her
because it is a veil.” 3 The ancient society of Paul’s world
understood this principle of nature or else he would not
have written what he did. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary
states that women throughout biblical times wore the hair
long, basically uncut.4 According to The Zondervan Pic-
torial Bible Dictionary, “In NT times the length of the hair
was one mark of distinction between the sexes.” 5
Unfortunately, our society has so departed from godly
principles that this natural, instinctive teaching is no
longer part of our culture. Similarly, Paul appealed to
nature to teach against homosexuality and lesbianism
(Romans 1:26-31), but this teaching of nature is also
rapidly vanishing from modern consciousness.
Even today, however, there is at least one specific
way in which nature yet teaches us about hair. “Bald-
ness . . . is apparently inherited and is, in a small way, a
sign of masculinity, since the tendency does not manifest
itself, even though inherited, unless there is more than
a certain critical concentration of male sex hormone in

214
the blood. As a result, women rarely go bald, and men
who are castrated before adolescence apparently never
do.” 6 Thus, men who grow bald do so as a normal conse-
quence of being male, while women usually do not grow
bald except as the result of hormonal imbalance, illness,
or disease. In this way nature teaches us that little or no
hair on a man is an ordinary, normal occurrence, but that
little or no hair on a woman is unnatural and shameful.

The Teaching of Other Scriptural Passages

Since this teaching of nature was very evident to God’s

people in both Old Testament and New Testament times, it
is no surprise to find little direct teaching on the subject
in Scripture. Even in I Corinthians 11 Paul assumed that
everyone was aware of this basic teaching. Even so, other
biblical passages allude to this truth.
In the Old Testament God pronounced judgment upon
the haughty, bejeweled women of Judah. “Therefore the
LORD will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion;
the LORD will make their scalps bald” (Isaiah 3:17, NIV).
Instead of “well set hair” God would send them “baldness”
(Isaiah 3:24). By taking away their long hair God intended
to take away their womanly glory and to bring them
shame.
In Jeremiah 7:29 God said, “Cut off thine hair, O
Jerusalem, and cast it away, and take up a lamentation on
high places; for the LORD hath rejected and forsaken the
generation of his wrath.” This entire passage depicts
Jerusalem as a backslider (Jeremiah 8:5). Therefore, God
metaphorically commanded her to cut off her hair as a

215
symbol of shame, disgrace, lamentation, and mourning.
Cutting the hair did not represent a normal, godly action
here, but a shameful act of a backslidden people that God
had rejected and forsaken.
The New Testament shows that women of those days
had long hair. An unnamed woman washed the feet of
Jesus and wiped them with her hair (Luke 7:37-38). On
another occasion, Mary, the sister of Lazarus, anointed
Christ’s feet with costly ointment and wiped them with
her hair (John 11:2; 12:3). Certainly these women had
long hair to be able to do this. Peter and Paul both taught
against elaborate hair arrangements with ornaments
braided into the hair (I Timothy 2:9; I Peter 3:3). This
could have been a problem only if women had long hair.
Revelation 9:8 describes an army of demons that will
have “hair as the hair of women.” This description has
meaning only when we understand that the New
Testament expects women to have long hair and men to
have short hair.
In addition to these specific references, other passages
deal with the underlying principle of separation between
the sexes. It is an abomination to God for a man to wear
clothing that is distinctively feminine or for a woman to
wear clothing that is distinctively masculine (Deuteronomy
22:5). No effeminate man will inherit the kingdom of God
(I Corinthians 6:9-10). When I Corinthians 11 teaches that
there should be a clear distinction between male and
female with respect to hair, it does not establish a totally
new doctrine but simply applies an important principle
taught elsewhere in Scripture.
We should note that the Bible nowhere commands a
certain hairstyle, such as having hair worn up, although

216
many women throughout history have worn long hair up
as a matter of neatness and convenience.

Men’s Hair and the Nazarite Vow

The Nazarite vow prohibited the cutting of hair. Why
did God establish this vow for men since long hair is a
shame for them? Numbers 6:18 shows that the typical
male vow was temporary in nature. After the time of his
vow was completed, he shaved his head and offered the
hair as a peace offering.
The Bible records only two men who definitely had
life-long vows not to cut their hair—Samson and Samuel
(Judges 13:5; I Samuel 1:11). In addition, John the Bap-
tist was probably a Nazarite (Luke 1:15). In each of these
cases, the Nazarite did not choose this status for himself,
but God and his parents determined it before his birth.
The long hair was a sign that set him apart from the nor-
mal male in his society, and it probably served as a badge
of shame that he bore for God’s sake. Everyone in Israel
knew about the Nazarite vow, so his unique long hair was
not a sign of effeminacy as it would have been otherwise.
In view of the exceptional nature of these cases, we
cannot use them to justify a violation of I Corinthians
11:14, just as we cannot use Isaiah’s temporary naked-
ness (whether it was partial or total) or Christ’s shame on
the cross to justify immodesty of dress (Isaiah 20; Hebrews
12:2).

Miscellaneous Objections
In an attempt to avoid the teaching of Scripture on the

217
subject of hair, several objections have been offered,
which we state and answer below.7
* “Absalom had long hair.” Absalom is certainly a
poor example to follow since he was very ungodly and
died in rebellion against God’s anointed king, his own
father David. In fact, his hair apparently caused him to be
caught in the branches of a tree and thus captured and
killed (II Samuel 18:9). Also, we find that he did cut his
hair from time to time, at least once a year (II Samuel
14:26).
* “If long hair on a woman means uncut hair, then a
man’s hair is technically short if he cuts it just once in a
great while.” I Corinthians 11:5-6 indicates that if a
woman cuts her hair then it is the same as if she shaves it
totally. Since nature teaches that women should have long
hair, we should let nature determine the length, by allow-
ing the hair to grow freely. (This is what the Nazarite vow
required.) Any other definition of long hair for a woman
would be arbitrary, would not be of universal applicability,
and would be subject to uncertainty and abuse. Any other
definition could be altered inch by inch until it would have
no meaning at all. So, long hair for a woman must mean
uncut hair.
However, I Corinthians 11:14-15 indicates that a man
should have hair short enough to distinguish him clearly
from a woman. Therefore, it is not enough for a man to
cut his hair a few times in his life; his hair must be observ-
ably short. The precise length may change somewhat
from age to age and culture to culture. In ages past, when
all women had uncut hair and when modern barbers’
equipment was not available, men could wear their hair
somewhat longer and still not confuse the sexes. In our

218
day, however, most women wear shorter hair. Moreover, in
our culture long hair on men has been used to symbolize
rebellion against society and traditional morality. For
these reasons, it behooves Christian men today to wear
their hair noticeably and unquestionably short. The hair-
line is a good, natural guide to follow in deciding how
short to cut a man’s hair.
* “Some women cannot grow long hair.” I Corin-
thians 11 does not specify any dimensions for hair length.
The woman should let nature determine the length of the
hair. If she lets her hair grow freely, as the Nazarites did,
then God considers her hair to be long.
* “A woman’s hair is not really a covering.” This
statement directly contradicts Paul’s statement that a
woman’s hair is a covering or veil for her. He did not
mean for us to count the square inches of skin covered.
Instead, he meant that a woman’s long hair was a sym-
bolic covering which represented her submission to God
and to her husband. Obviously, long hair does not provide
the type of covering that literal clothing does, nor does it
replace the need for clothing. Rather it serves as a sym-
bolic veil or article of apparel.
* “The Israelites shaved the heads of captive women
according to Deuteronomy 21:10-14.” As in Jeremiah
7:29, this action does not characterize normal, godly
women but ungodly women. The shaving of the head took
away the heathen woman’s former glory, humbled and
shamed her, and prepared her for a month of mourning.
It symbolized total renunciation of her past identity so she
could become an Israelite and be eligible to marry an
Israelite. The implication is that after she became an
Israelite, her hair would not be shaved again.

219
 * “To shear means to cut the hair off totally.” To the
contrary, a study of standard dictionaries and lexicons
will show that the English verb “to shear” and the cor-
responding Greek verb keiro simply mean “to cut or to
cut off.” I Corinthians 11:5-6 specifically distinguishes
this word in meaning from the different word “to shave”
(Greek xurao).
* “In I Corinthians 11:1-16 Paul simply quoted a let-
ter from the Corinthians and did not himself teach this
as doctrine.” This objection twists the Scriptures to mean
exactly the opposite of what they plainly say. No rep-
utable translation of the Bible has followed this strange
and dangerous method of interpretation. If this view is
correct, Paul is guilty of writing a very confusing, incom-
prehensible passage and of failing to answer the Corin-
thians’ question adequately. Furthermore, how would we
explain all the other evidence from Scripture, nature, and
culture that women were expected to have long hair and
men short hair? How would we explain Paul’s statement
in verse 16 that the churches of God have no other cus-
tom than that which he has just described?

Teaching in Church History

With respect to men’s hair in early church history,

Rousas Rushdoony has stated, “Church councils very early
censured long hair in men as a mark of effeminacy, as had
the Romans before them. There is no evidence to support
the usual portrayal of Christ and the apostles as long-
haired men; the evidence of the age indicates very short
hair.” 8 We only need look at the sculpture and coinage of

220
that age to verify this statement.
Clement of Alexandria had much to say about hair in
The Instructor.9 He taught against elaborate braiding,
curling and dressing of the hair, elaborate headdresses,
dyeing the hair, and wearing false hair. He admonished
women to bind their hair simply and not to cut it, stating,
“God wishes women to . . . rejoice in their locks alone
growing spontaneously.” He told men not to adorn their
hair like women or to let it hang in long, womanish
ringlets. To avoid any womanly appearance, he recom-
mended that men shave their heads or at least keep the
hair very short. Because his culture considered a beard-
less man to be effeminate, he also counselled men to let
their beards grow or to shave them only partially.
Tertullian wrote in his treatise On the Apparel of
Women that women should not dye the hair, use wigs, or
arrange the hair elaborately.10 Tertullian agreed with
Scripture that it was a shame for a woman to have shaved
or shorn hair. He remarked, “Let the world, the rival of
God, see to it, if it asserts that close-cut hair is graceful
to a virgin in like manner as that flowing hair is to a
boy.” 11
The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles admonished
men, “Do not thou permit the hair of thy head to grow too
long, but rather cut it short . . . It is not lawful for thee, a
believer and a man of God, to permit the hair of thy head
to grow long, and to brush it up together, nor to suffer it
to spread abroad, nor to puff it up, nor by nice combing
and platting to make it curl and shine.” 12
John Chrysostom interpreted Paul’s teaching in I Corin-
thians 11 to refer to long hair. In a sermon on that chapter,
Chrysostom wrote that Paul “both affirms the covering and

221
the hair to be one, and also that she again who is shaven
is the same with her whose head is bare. . . . He signi-
fies that not at the time of prayer only but also continu-
ally, she ought to be covered. . . . But with regard to the
man . . . the wearing long hair he discourages at all
times.” 13 In the same sermon, Chrysostom compared
this teaching with Deuteronomy 22:5, noting that both
passages teach a distinction between male and female in
appearance.
Throughout the centuries, the question of women cut-
ting the hair was not a major issue because women tradi-
tionally have always had long hair. As the above writings
indicate, a greater historical problem has been men wear-
ing and fixing hair in a womanly fashion. Only in the 20th
century has society generally accepted the practice of
women cutting their hair. Even so, our society still has
some lingering distaste for a shaved or bald female head.
After World War II, many European communities took the
women who had collaborated and fraternized with the
Nazis and shaved their heads as a mark of shame.
Standard encyclopedias record few instances of
women cutting their hair in ages past. One exception is
that in ancient Egypt many women shaved their heads
and wore veils. In Judeo-Christian lands women wore
long hair until the 20th century. As the Encyclopedia
Britannica states, after World War I “hair was bobbed.”14
As women began to cut their hair, some conservative
Christian groups began to take a stand against it. Most of
the Holiness groups opposed it, although they have large-
ly relaxed their stand. Early Pentecostals generally
opposed it, as demonstrated by the position of the
Apostolic Faith and the United Pentecostal Church. Many

222
women in other Holiness or Pentecostal denominations
today still refuse to cut their hair, such as in the Church
of God (Cleveland, Tennessee). Many independent Bap-
tists and other fundamentalists also oppose it today, as
exemplified by Elizabeth Rice Handford.
We conclude that, regardless of the changing atti-
tudes of modern society, God still desires for men to have
short hair and women to have long, uncut hair.

FOOTNOTES

1
Wight, pp. 98-99.
2
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1248.
3
Rushdoony, p. 348, quoting Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the
First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), p.
213.
4
“Hair,” The Illustrated Bible DIctionary (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale
House, 1980), II, 600.
5
“Hair,” The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, p. 330.
6
Isaac Asimov, The Human Body (New York: The New American
Library, 1963), p. 273.
7
For a presentation of these objections, see Woodrow, pp. 50-54.
8
Rushdoony, p. 348.
9
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 3.2-3 & 11, ANF, II,
272-75 & 290.
10
Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women, 2.6-7, ANF, IV, 21-22.
11
Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins, 7, ANF, IV, 31.
12
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 1.2, ANF, VII, 392.
13
John Chrysostom, Homilies on I Corinthians, 26, NPNF, Ist
ser., XII, 152.
14
“Dress,” Encyclopedia Britannica, V, 1033.

223
 10
STEWARDSHIP
OF THE BODY
“If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God
destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye
are” (I Corinthians 3:17).

Biblical Foundation

The Bible places strong emphasis on the stewardship

of our physical bodies. Certainly I Corinthians 3:17
teaches us not to commit sin with our physical members,
but it also teaches us to care for our physical bodies,
which God designed, created, gave, and now indwells.
Specifically, we should not use anything that would phys-
ically defile or harm our bodies. Other passages reiterate
our responsibility to sanctify and protect the body as well
as the spirit.
“Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, accept-
able unto God, which is your reasonable service”

225
(Romans 12:1). “What? know ye not that your body is the
temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have
of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with
a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your
spirit, which are God’s” (I Corinthians 6:19-20). “Let us
cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit,
perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (II Corinthians
7:1). “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and
I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be pre-
served blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ” (I Thessalonians 5:23). Paul said, “I discipline my
body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have
preached to others, I myself should become disqualified”
(I Corinthians 9:27, NKJV).
Why so much emphasis on discipline of the body?
Here are several reasons: (1) Temperance must charac-
terize the whole man, in physical as well as spiritual
things. (2) Unrestrained indulgence even in physical
appetites can be sinful. (3) Overindulgence in physical
appetites makes it difficult to discipline ourselves spiritu-
ally and to curb lusts. (4) Overindulgence in physical
appetites makes us soft, lazy, and decadent, which in turn
makes us unable or unwilling to sacrifice, endure hard-
ship, and withstand persecution for Christ’s sake. (5)
Salvation extends to the whole man, providing physical as
well as spiritual healing, so God desires for us to protect
our physical as well as spiritual well-being.
As part of good stewardship of the body, we should be
temperate in our eating habits and avoid gluttony
(Deuteronomy 21:20; Proverbs 23:21; 25:16; Luke
21:34). Gluttony is sinful (Numbers 11:32-34).
The New Testament states that drunkenness is sin

226
(I Corinthians 6:10; Galatians 5:19-21). Other New Testa-
ment passages warn against getting drunk (Luke 21:34;
Romans 13:13; Ephesians 5:18; I Peter 4:3; I Timothy
3:3, 8; Titus 1:7; 2:3). Even moderate drinking affects the
brain and body. More importantly, it affects spirituality,
because it breaks down restraints placed by the Spirit and
the conscience against commission of sin. Anytime we
undermine the control of the Holy Spirit in this fashion,
the sinful nature will lead us into sin. The Bible’s disap-
proval of drunkenness applies to any form of intoxication,
whether caused by alcohol or other drugs, such as mari-
juana, cocaine, LSD, and heroin.
The New Testament teaches us not to allow ourselves
to come under the influence of a power other than God.
This principle excludes addiction as well as temporary
intoxication. “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield your-
selves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye
obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto
righteousness?” (Romans 6:16). “All things are lawful
for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any”
(I Corinthians 6:12). Since the dietary laws of Moses,
with their designation of unclean foods and drinks, do not
apply to Christians, all foods are permissible. But the
Christian will not use any substance that will be intoxi-
cating or addictive.
Finally, Christians must avoid anything that has the
appearance of evil (I Thessalonians 5:22). We must avoid
eating or drinking anything that could become a stum-
bling block to others or set a bad example for them
(Romans 14:21).
In applying these biblical principles, we avoid all use
of tobacco because it is harmful to the body, physically

227
defiling, and addictive. We abstain from alcoholic bever-
ages and other intoxicating drugs because of the harm to
the body, intoxicating effects, danger of addiction, stum-
bling block to others, and detriment to society as a whole.
An analysis of the four principles of Christian liberty
given in Chapter 4 demonstrates that we should avoid
alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and drugs: (1) We do not
glorify God by using them. (2) They are detrimental phys-
ically, mentally, and spiritually. (3) They have great power
to gain mastery over us. (4) Our use of them will be a
stumbling block to many others who have had or will have
trouble with them.
This chapter presents some recent evidence on these
substances.

Alcohol

“Churches are Slow to Respond in the Fight Against

Alcoholism,” Christianity Today, November 11, 1983.
Alcohol is a factor in the majority of all deaths caused by
falls, drownings, fire accidents, and spouse beatings. In
addition, it is a factor in one half of all traffic fatalities.
The cost of alcohol abuse in medical bills, property dam-
age, and time lost from work is estimated at $100 billion
per year in the U.S. Alcohol causes between 50,000 and
200,000 deaths per year in the U.S.
The statistics for automobile fatalities only include
deaths caused by drivers who are drunk by law. If the sta-
tistics included all victims of accidents involving a drink-
ing driver, many researchers believe we would find that
almost 90% of traffic fatalities are related to alcohol use.

228
 About 50,000 U.S. servicemen died during the course
of the entire Vietnam war, which caused massive social
unrest, protest, and rebellion. Yet very few people in our
society seem concerned over the evils of alcohol. Many of
the same people who protest against war and social injus-
tice personally contribute to the alcohol-fueled slaughter
that is endemic to our society.
According to a column in the Clarion-Ledger, Jackson,
Mississippi, January 15, 1984, page 13E, “Alcohol or other
drugs are a factor in 80% of crimes in general.”

Tobacco

“Report from the Surgeon General,” Time, March 8,

1982. The U.S. Surgeon-General described smoking as
the chief preventable cause of death. Smoking is now
responsible for 340,000 deaths annually in the U.S., cost-
ing $13 billion a year in health care and $25 billion in lost
production and wages.
“Can Nicotine Help Smokers Quit?” Reader’s Digest,
February, 1981. The National Institute on Drug Abuse
said, “Cigarette smoking is an addiction [and] . . . should
be viewed as a disease.” One prominent doctor called it
“probably the most addictive and dependence-producing
form of behavior known to man.”

Marijuana

“Marijuana Alert II: More of the Grim Story,” Reader’s

Digest, November, 1980. Marijuana has been shown to

229
damage almost every human organ and system tested.
This article documents damage to the lungs, heart, and
immune system.
“Another Sort of Smoke,” Time, March 8, 1982. The
Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences
has issued a report documenting the following conse-
quences of marijuana use: adverse behavioral effects,
heart and lung damage, impairment of reproductive and
immune systems.

Prescription Drugs
“Danger! Prescription Drug Abuse,” Reader’s Digest,
April, 1980. Millions of Americans are addicted to com-
monly prescribed medications, such as tranquilizers.
Usually this results from overuse or failure to follow pre-
scription directions.
Drugs such as valium are a major problem today, even
among conservative Christians. We do not oppose an
occasional, moderate use of prescription drugs for medi-
cinal purposes. However, our stand against intoxication
causes us to oppose a degree of use so great as to distort
the user’s thinking and consciousness over an extended
period of time. Likewise, our stand against addiction
causes us to oppose long term use that results in depen-
dency, either physically or psychologically.

Caffeine
“All About Caffeine,” Reader’s Digest, January, 1983.
Recent studies have basically acquitted caffeine of charges
that it is physically dangerous. With the exception of

230
pregnant women and people with special health prob-
lems, coffee drinkers incur little or no health risk from
caffeine. Therefore, total abstention from caffeinated sub-
stances such as coffee, chocolate, tea, and colas does not
seem to be necessary in most cases.
However, caffeine is a stimulant, and it is very possi-
ble to develop a dependency on or addiction to caffeine.
Some people get a headache if they do not get their morn-
ing coffee or midmorning cola. Some cannot seem to start
their day without coffee, while others cannot fast without
coffee. These are symptoms of caffeine addiction. If we
are true to scriptural principles, we will break any addic-
tion of this kind. This suggests that we should use caf-
feinated substances only occasionally or in moderation.
For some, the only way to avoid this problem may be total
abstinence.

Objections to Total Abstinence

Many people today dispute our conclusion that Chris-

tians should abstain totally from alcoholic beverages. Let
us analyze some of the most popular objections.
* “People in the Old Testament drank alcoholic bev-
erages.” This is true, but we must remember that God
calls Spirit-filled believers today to a higher standard of
perfection. The Bible records the progressive revelation
of God’s perfect will for the human race and the pro-
gressive instruction of His people. The New Testament
teaches a deeper life of holiness in other areas as well,
such as polygamy, divorce, and warfare.
Even the Old Testament indicates that God desired to

231
lead mankind to a higher standard. It contains many
examples of sin caused by alcohol (Genesis 9:20-25;
19:32-38), and many passages warn of the evils of alco-
hol (Proverbs 20:1; 21:17; 23:29-35; Isaiah 5:11; 28:7;
Hosea 4:11; Habakkuk 2:15). Under the old covenant
alcoholic beverages were not for Nazarites, kings,
princes, ministering priests, and other specially called
people (Leviticus 10:8-10; Numbers 6:3; Judges 13:7;
Proverbs 31:4-5; Ezekiel 44:21; Luke 1:15). Since every
Christian is a separated person, king, and priest, this
principle should apply to us all.
* “The Old Testament describes wine as a blessing.
The answer to the preceding objection is relevant here
also. In addition, we must remember that the Hebrew
words for wine could apply either to unfermented or fer-
mented juice from the grape. They could apply to juice in
any stage of fermentation, including drinks with such a
low alcoholic content as to be considered non-alcoholic
under modern legal classifications. Most Old Testament
occurrences of the word wine are translated from one of
two Hebrew words, yayin and tiyrosh. Yayin ordinarily
refers to fermented grape juice, although in some con-
texts it clearly means unfermented juice (Isaiah 16:10;
Jeremiah 48:33). Tiyrosh usually refers to fresh, unfer-
mented grape juice (Isaiah 65:8). It is the word used in
the phrase “corn and wine,” which refers to blessings and
prosperity (Genesis 27:28; Deuteronomy 7:13). It is the
word used of the grape juice to be given in tithes
(Deuteronomy 12:17; 14:23). This usage of the word
wine is not unknown even in modern English. An
American company has advertised “nonalcoholic wine,”
wine with 99.5% of its alcoholic content removed.

232
 * “The New Testament records the use of wine. Jesus
was called a winebibber, He turned water into wine, He
used wine at the Last Supper, and Paul advised Timothy
to drink wine.” Although the New Testament does record
some use of vine, we must not conclude that it necessar-
ily endorses strong alcoholic beverages. The Greek word
for wine is oinos. It usually refers to fermented juice, but
sometimes it refers to unfermented juice (Matthew 9:17;
Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37). The Septuagint (a Greek transla-
tion of the Old Testament before the time of Christ) used
oinos to translate tiyrosh, meaning fresh, unfermented
grape juice.1
In New Testament times unfermented juice was a
common drink, and fermented juice was often heavily
diluted with water so that it was not intoxicating. “Before
NT times, the Hellenistic practice of mixing it [wine] with
water was common in Palestine. Wine was a disinfectant
(Luke 10:34) and medicine (I Timothy 5:23). . . . Means
for preserving grape-juice were well known,” including
one ancient method for preserving juice in an unfer-
mented state for a period of one year.2
“The wines of antiquity were more like sirups; many
of them were not intoxicant; many more intoxicant in a
small degree; and all of them, as a rule, taken only when
largely diluted with water. They contained, even undi-
luted, but 4 or 5 percent of alcohol.” 3
In view of these facts, we are persuaded that Jesus
did not drink or create a strongly intoxicating beverage.
The God who warned of the evils of alcohol did not set a
bad example for us. The God who condemned drunken-
ness as sin and who tempts no man to sin did not provide
an opportunity for men to get drunk at the wedding feast

233
in Cana. Presumably the Creator created a new sub-
stance (unfermented), not a partially decayed substance
(fermented). It was the best wine at the feast, not
because it was the most intoxicating but because it was
the best tasting.
Paul did not advise Timothy to drink a strong alco-
holic beverage for his weak stomach, but advised him to
use wine for medicinal purposes or to use strengthening
juice instead of unsanitary local water.
Significantly, the Bible does not say Jesus used wine
at the Last Supper but “the fruit of the vine.” As The
Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary notes, this “may be
a studied avoidance of the term wine, indicating that the
drink was unfermented, as the bread was unleavened.
Whatever use Jesus or others made of wine is no proof
that its use in our tense age is wise. The Bible gives more
space to the dangers than to the benefit of wine.” 4
Interestingly, the scoffers on the Day of Pentecost
described the Spirit-filled disciples as being drunk on
gleukos, which means new wine or sweet wine (Acts
2:13). This word normally means unfermented juice.
Perhaps the onlookers sarcastically alluded to the disci-
ples’ reputation for abstention, which was apparently vio-
lated. The usage “may imply that the disciples, known to
drink only unfermented grape juice, in that exuberant
enthusiasm appeared intoxicated.” 5

Teaching in Early Church History

The early church fathers spoke out against gluttonous

eating. Hermas warned Christians to avoid “the richest

234
delicacies, and drunken revels, and divers luxuries” and
to restrain themselves from “unlawful revelling, from
wicked luxury, from indulgence in many kinds of foods
and the extravagance of riches.” 6
Clement of Alexandria taught Christians to eat simply,
for health and strength rather than for sensuous pleasure
and luxury. “The Instructor enjoins us to eat that we may
live. . . . We are not . . . to abstain wholly from various
kinds of food, but only are not to be taken up about them.
We are to partake of what is set before us, as becomes a
Christian, out of respect to him who has invited us, by a
harmless and moderate participation in the social meet-
ing; regarding the sumptuousness of what is put on the
table as a matter of indifference, despising the dainties,
as after a little destined to perish. . . .
“How senseless to besmear their hands with the con-
diments, and to be constantly reaching to the sauce,
cramming themselves immoderately and shamelessly,
not like people tasting, but ravenously seizing! For you
may see such people, liker swine or dogs for gluttony
than men, in such a hurry to feed themselves full, that
both jaws are stuffed out at once, the veins about the
face raised, and besides, the perspiration running all
over, as they are tightened with their insatiable greed,
and panting with their excess. . . . Excess, which in all
things is an evil, is very highly reprehensible in the mat-
ter of food. . . . From all slavish habits and excess we
must abstain.” 7
The Greek and Latin cultures of the early church
fathers regarded wine as the everyday mealtime beverage
and often did not clearly distinguish between unferment-
ed and fermented juice. Aside from wine, practically the

235
only other beverages were milk, which the Greeks regarded
as barbaric, and water, which was often unsanitary. Under
these circumstances, the early church fathers usually
praised total abstinence but allowed some drinking of
wine under very controlled conditions. They did bar vint-
ners (wine merchants) from baptism until they forsook
their profession.8
Tatian taught that wine was not to be drunk at all.9
Clement of Alexandria recommended total absti-
nence. He allowed a small amount of wine to be drunk
for certain purposes, but even then recommended that it
be diluted with much water and warned against any
intoxication. “I therefore admire those who have adopted
an austere life, and who are fond of water, the medicine
of temperance, and flee as far as possible from wine,
shunning it as they would the danger of fire. . . . For
hence wild impulses and burning lusts and fiery habits
are kindled. . . . And we must, as far as possible, try to
quench the impulses of youth by removing the Bacchic fuel
of the threatened danger. . . . And in the case of grown-up
people, let those with whom it agrees sometimes partake of
dinner, tasting bread only, and let them abstain wholly from
drink. . . . And if thirst come on, let the appetite be satis-
fied with a little water. . . . Towards evening, about sup-
per-time, wine may be used . . . but even then it must only
be a little wine that is to be used. . . . And it is best to mix
the wine with as much water as possible. . . . For if He
made water wine at the marriage, He did not give per-
mission to get drunk. . . . It is agreeable, therefore, to
drink on account of the cold of winter, till the numbness
is dispelled from those who are subject to feel it; and on
other occasions as a medicine for the intestines. For, as

236
we are to use food to satisfy hunger, so also are we to use
drink to satisfy thirst, taking the most careful precautions
against a slip.”10
Tertullian regarded abstinence from wine as highly
honorable. He interpreted Paul’s advice to Timothy as
follows: Out of devotion to God (not a legalistic rule)
Timothy did not drink wine, and Paul recommended
such abstinence as worthy. In this particular case, how-
ever, he advised Timothy to make an exception on a
ground of necessity, namely to use a little wine for med-
icinal purposes on account of his stomach and his con-
stant weakness.11
Cyprian mentioned some who used water alone, even
abstaining from unfermented grape juice and even using
water for the eucharist. He indicated that this was a com-
mon practice, in earlier times and referred to it sym-
pathetically, but taught that a mixture of wine and water
should be used for the eucharist.12
The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles states, “Let a
bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who indulges himself in
dice or drinking, either leave off those practices, or let
him be deprived.” 13

Teaching in Later Church History

Many later Christian leaders and groups have spoken

out against gluttony and intemperance in eating, including
the Anabaptists, John Calvin, the Puritans, the Pietists,
John Wesley, and the Methodists.
Most conservative Christian leaders have recom-
mended total abstention from alcohol or at least extreme

237
caution in its use. Various Christian groups have advocat-
ed total abstention from alcohol, including the Anabaptists,
the Puritans, John Wesley and the Methodists, many Bap-
tists, the Holiness denominations, and the Pentecostals.
Christian groups in America spearheaded a movement
in the 19th century to ban all alcoholic beverages. The
temperance movement became so strong that 1919 the
United States amended its Constitution to ban the manu-
facture, sale, transportation, importation or exportation
of intoxicating liquors. This social experiment was a fail-
ure, for unregenerate man can never be legislated into
holiness, and Prohibition was repealed in 1933.
The use of tobacco was introduced to the world by
early American settlers, who learned it from the Indians.
From the beginning many Christian groups opposed its
use, including many Anabaptist groups, Wesley and the
Methodists, many Baptists, the Holiness denominations,
and the Pentecostals.
John Wesley opposed all use of things harmful to the
body unless prescribed by a doctor for medicinal pur-
poses. He taught against the use of tobacco as well as
drinking, buying, or selling intoxicating liquors. He
advised, “Use no tobacco. . . . It is an uncleanly and
unwholesome self-indulgence; and the more customary it
is, the more resolutely should you break off from every
degree of that evil custom. . . . Use no snuff. . . . Touch
no dram [a small drink of alcohol].” 14
Conservative Presbyterian and Methodist mis-
sionaries of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s taught
against smoking and drinking. As a result, even
non-Christian Koreans have traditionally perceived the
Christian lifestyle to be incompatible with these practices.

238
Unfortunately, this is now changing due to the influx of
smoking and drinking missionaries in recent years.
As late as 1952, the General Conference of the
Methodist Church (representing over 9,000,000 American
members at the time) passed the following resolutions:
“Among the confused moral judgments of our age
with respect to drinking and the liquor traffic, The
Methodist Church lifts the clear voice of the Christian
conscience. . . . The use of alcoholic beverages impairs
the functions of the body and mind. It slows perception
and judgment. It delays reaction. It not only impairs phys-
ical health but more important, impairs the tenderness of
conscience. It deteriorates character. We are stewards of
our bodies. We are stewards of an ability to think straight.
Anything which blights and destroys human personality is
fundamentally opposed to the gospel of Christ. We there-
fore stand for the Christian principle of total abstinence
from the use of alcoholic beverages of any kind. Our peo-
ple should regard abstinence as an essential part of wit-
ness to the faith we profess and as evidence of loyalty to
the high ideals for which the Church stands. The use of
alcoholic beverages violates the Christian principle that
we are each our brother’s keeper. We are stewards of our
influence upon others. . . .
“It is recommended that no member be nominated for
or appointed to any official position in the church or
church school who is not a morally disciplined person,
with special reference to total abstinence from alcoholic
beverages. . . .
“We issue our solemn warning to youth . . . and urge
them to abstain from the use of tobacco in all its forms.” 15
Anyone who desired to be licensed as a local preacher

239
or recognized as a traveling preacher was required to
abstain totally from tobacco.16 No one was qualified to be
even a church board member unless he abstained totally
from alcohol.17
One of the largest groups today to practice total
abstention from alcoholic beverages is the Salvation
Army.
In 1984 the 17,000 delegates to the annual meeting of
the Southern Baptist Convention voted to oppose the per-
sonal use of tobacco in any form, to encourage tobacco
farmers to switch to other crops, and to support absti-
nence from the use of alcohol.18

Conclusion

In conclusion, we have the support both of Scripture

and of historic Christian movements when we advocate
total abstinence from the drinking of alcoholic beverages
and the use of tobacco in any form. In view of the many
documented evils of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco and their
devastating impact on modern society, this is the wisest,
safest, and holiest course of action for Christians to take.

240
 FOOTNOTES
1
Joseph Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
(1885; rpt. Grand Rapids: Zondervan), p. 442.
2
“Wine,” The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, p. 895.
3
William Smith, “Wine,” A Dictionary of the Bible (Mclean, Va.:
MacDonald Publishing Co., n.d.), p. 747.
4
“Wine,” The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, p. 895.
5
Ibid., p. 894.
6
Hermas, The Shepherd, 2.6-8, ANF, II, 24-25.
7
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2.1, ANF, II, 237-40.
8
Rushdoony, p. 757.
9
Tatian, Fragments, 10, ANF, II, 82.
10
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2.2, ANF, II, 242-46.
11
Tertullian, On Fasting, 9, ANF, IV, 108.
12
Cyprian, Epistles, 62, ANF, V, 360-63.
13
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 8.67.42, ANF, VII, 502.
14
John Wesley, “To Mr. S., at Armagh,” Letter 211, Works, XII,
248.
15
Doctrines and Discipline of The Methodist Church 1952,
secs. 2022-25, pp. 639-43.
16
Ibid., secs. 304(4) & 321, pp. 105 & 110.
17
Ibid., sec. 207, pp. 79-80.
18
Ron Lee, “A Southern Baptist Battle Rages On,” Christianity
Today, July 13, 1984, p. 33.

241
 11
THE SANCTITY
OF MARRIAGE
“Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed unde-
filed: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge”
(Hebrews 13:4).
“Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry
another, committeth adultery against her” (Mark 10:11).

Biblical Foundation

Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman.

A fully valid marriage must involve these elements:
mutual consent, commitment to a life-long relationship,
public (legal) witness and recognition, and sexual union.
There must be a public leaving, a cleaving, and a
physical union (Genesis 2:24). Since God gave authority
to civil government for society’s regulation and benefit
(Romans 13:1-7), the civil law’s requirements should be
fulfilled.
Sexual union consummates a marriage (Genesis 2:24),

243
but sexual union alone does not create a marriage (Exo-
dus 22:16-17). The Bible teaches lifelong, monogamous
marriage between a man and a woman. It condemns all
extra-marital sexual relationships such as fornication, adul-
tery, homosexuality, incest, and bestiality (Exodus 20:14;
Leviticus 18; 20:10-21; Deuteronomy 22:20-30; Romans
1:24-27; I Corinthians 6:9-18; Galatians 5:19-21).
The Bible condemns all lustful thoughts and actions
(Matthew 5:28; Mark 7:21-23; Colossians 3:5; I Thessalo-
nians 4:3-7). For this reason, the unmarried should avoid
“necking or petting,” which means anything beyond a
kiss. Even the kiss should be reserved for a meaningful
relationship built on friendship and respect; it is not
appropriate in casual relationships, or whenever the pri-
mary motive is sensual gratification. (For further discus-
sion, see Dating Tips by Nathanael Pugh.)
This chapter discusses Christian marriage, the sanc-
tity of the sexual union in marriage, and the biblical
teaching against divorce.

The Problem Today

The U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee

on Children, Youth and Families reported these statistics
relative to the U.S.: 1
* Approximately 12.5 million children live with their
mothers only, due to an increase in divorces and
out-of-wedlock births.
* In 1980 there were 666,000 births out of wedlock,
or one in every five births. This compared to
142,000 in 1950.

244
 * There are 5.87 million families headed by a woman.
* Over 20% of all children do not live in a two-parent
family.
No wonder we have severe problems with poverty,
juvenile delinquency, immorality, homosexuality, crime,
and mental problems! Millions of children do not grow up
in the family unit that God designed. We must uphold the
Christian family and Christian marriage.

The Christian Husband

Christian marriage is a voluntary, cooperative part-

nership characterized by mutual love, respect, and car-
ing. The husband is the family head—the family’s chief
representative—even as Adam was the head of the human
race. Eve sinned first, but Adam’s sin represented the
entire human family (Romans 5:12-19).
In any unit, one person must have ultimate respon-
sibility and authority, and God chose the man to fulfill
this role. This is apparent because God created man first
and then created woman from man’s side to be his
helper (Genesis 2:15-24). “The head of the woman is the
man. . . . For the man is not of the woman; but the woman
of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman;
but the woman for the man” (I Corinthians 11:3, 8-9).
The husband has no right to be dictatorial, or to dis-
regard the wishes of his wife. He has no right to abuse
her—psychologically, verbally, or physically. At the least,
both husband and wife owe each other the same
consideration they owe everyone else. They must bear the
fruit of the Spirit, “with all lowliness and meekness, with

245
longsuffering, forbearing one another in love,” and “in
honour preferring one another” (Ephesians 4:2; Romans
12:10). As Christians, husbands and wives have a respon-
sibility to “submit to one another out of reverence for
Christ” (Ephesians 5:21, NIV), not to antagonize, criti-
cize, attack, abuse, ignore, or lord it over one another.
Major decisions in the marriage must be made on a
cooperative, mutually agreeable basis, but in situations
where someone must assume final authority and respon-
sibility, the husband should do so. He should be the spir-
itual leader. He should bear the primary burden of
providing for the necessities of the family. He is respon-
sible to protect and shelter the family from want and from
worry. “But if any provide not for his own, and specially
for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and
is worse than an infidel” (I Timothy 5:8). God places a
heavy responsibility upon the husband and gives him a
corresponding authority to fulfill his obligations.
Both husband and wife are equally important to the
relationship and to each other. The views and contribu-
tions of both are of equal worth. After establishing that
the husband is the head, Paul was careful to insist upon
an equality of personhood: “Nevertheless neither is the
man without the woman, neither the woman without the
man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even
so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God”
(I Corinthians 11:11-12).
Therefore, the husband must respect, honor, cherish
and protect his wife, regarding her as a partner and
coheir, not as a servant, child, or inferior person. He must
recognize that she is physically (not mentally or spiritu-
ally) weaker and make allowances for that. He must be

246
sensitive to her needs, desires, and feelings. If he does not
treat his wife with proper consideration, care, and
respect, his relationship with God will suffer. “Likewise,
ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge,
giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel,
and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your
prayers be not hindered” (I Peter 3:7).
The husband must genuinely love his wife and give
himself sacrificially for her. “Husbands, love your wives,
even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for
it. . . . So ought men to love their wives as their own bod-
ies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. . . . Let every
one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself”
(Ephesians 5:25, 28, 33). “Husbands, love your wives,
and be not bitter against them” (Colossians 3:19). This
leaves no room for the husband to make selfish demands
on the wife or to make arbitrary decisions based on his
wishes alone. He must seek to please and benefit his wife
as much as he would his own body.

The Christian Wife

In turn, the wife should love her husband and submit

to his leadership. This does not mean servitude or lack
of freedom to participate in making decisions, but it
means to defer to the husband’s final authority. “Wives,
submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the
Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as
Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of
the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ,
so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing”

247
(Ephesians 5:22-24). “Wives, submit yourselves unto your
own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord” (Colossians 3:18).
The wife should love her husband and children. She
has an important responsibility to oversee the operation of
the household. “I will therefore that the younger women
marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion
to the adversary to speak reproachfully” (I Timothy 5:14).
“Teach the young women to be sober, to love their hus-
bands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keep-
ers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that
the word of God be not blasphemed” (Titus 2:4-5). In par-
ticular, Paul wrote that Christian women are not to abuse
their new-found status in Christ to neglect family respon-
sibilities, disrupt the home, rebel against the husband’s
leadership, and so be a poor witness to the unsaved.
The wife has great responsibility and authority second
only to the husband. She is to guide and keep the home.
The description of the virtuous woman in Proverbs
31:10-31 demonstrates how lofty a godly wife’s status
really is: she has the confidence of her husband, she has
charge of various domestic responsibilities such as food
and clothing, her words are full of wisdom and kindness,
and she receives praise from children, husband, and the
community. She has considerable discretion in family
business and investment; in this passage she purchases a
piece of land on her own, plants a vineyard, manufactures
various items for sale, and actually manages the house-
hold.
Although the husband is the ultimate head of the fam-
ily, the wife can and should have many areas of authority
and discretion under his overall leadership. Her work and
efforts can be just as valuable to the family as the hus-

248
band’s. Her advice can be just as wise and her viewpoints
just as worthy as that of the husband.
We should note that the wife need never submit to the
husband’s authority to the extent of violating her per-
sonal ethics, morality, convictions, or salvation. The gen-
eral principle still stands: “We ought to obey God rather
than men” (Acts 5:29). Neither must a wife submit to con-
stant verbal or physical abuse, because we have already
seen that the husband does not have the right to inflict
such. If a woman has an unsaved husband, she should still
submit to his family leadership, but the way to win him is
to live a pure life before him without compromising her
holiness. “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your
husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word,
they may be won over without talk by the behavior of
their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of
your lives” (I Peter 3:1-2, NIV).
As for the status, rights, and privileges of a human
being and a Christian there is no difference between man
and woman. “There is neither male nor female: for ye are
all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
Indeed, the Early Church placed high value on the
contribution of women to gospel work. The New Testa-
ment describes women who prophesied often (Acts 21:9),
were fellow laborers with Paul in the gospel (Philippians
4:3), and were possibly apostles (Romans 16:7). Women
prayed and prophesied (any anointed speaking) in church
services (Acts 2:17-18; I Corinthians 11:5; 14:31). Paul
described a woman named Phebe as a “servant” of the
church at Cenchrea (Romans 16:1). Apparently she was a
leader there, probably a deaconness since the Greek word
diakonos is elsewhere translated as “deacon” (Philippians

249
1:1; I Timothy 3:8). Priscilla was an equal partner with
her husband Aquila in teaching the Word of God to
Apollos the preacher and in working with Paul the apos-
tle (Acts 18:1-3, 18, 26). However, women could not
interrupt public meetings by asking questions aloud (as
men were privileged to do in ancient times), but had to
ask their husbands privately at home (I Corinthians
14:33-35). Likewise, women could not have the supreme
position of teaching doctrine or exercising authority over
men, but exercised their rights to prophesy, teach, or pray
under the authority of men (I Timothy 2:11-12).
Understanding the biblical roles that husband and
wife should have is the key to a successful, happy mar-
riage. When the husband acts like Christ—loving his wife,
sacrificing his all for her, and gently leading her to future
happiness—and when the wife acts like the church—liv-
ing to please her husband, submitting to his leadership,
and helping him accomplish his tasks—then the marriage
will be a success.

The Sexual Relationship within Marriage

The sexual relationship is a very important compo-

nent of marriage. Not only does it provide for propaga-
tion of the human race, but it is a vital part of the
physical, mental, and spiritual union of husband and wife.
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh”
(Genesis 2:24). In fact, God intends for this kind of inti-
mate union to occur only within marriage. “What? know
ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for

250
two, saith he, shall be one flesh. . . . Flee fornication”
(I Corinthians 6:16, 18).
A stable, lasting marriage forms the ideal environ-
ment for successful childrearing and is the basic building
block of family, church, and society. Therefore, God
designed sex not merely for procreation but as a means
of uniting husband and wife and maintaining them in an
intimate, permanent relationship for their own and their
children’s benefit.
Some think sex is strictly for procreation and husband
and wife should not allow sex for any other reason. Usu-
ally, these people see sex as somehow sinful or dirty and
the sexual drive as part of the sinful nature. However,
Hebrews 13:4 directly contradicts this view, saying, “Mar-
riage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled.”
Several Old Testament passages describe with approval
the sexual relationship within marriage (Proverbs
5:15-19; Song of Solomon 1:13-17; 2:3-6) and the physi-
cal attraction between married lovers (Song of Solomon
4:1-7; 5:10-16; 7:1-13). Although many use Song of
Solomon for typological teaching, we must first under-
stand its literal meaning—which is an affirmation of love,
sex, and fidelity within marriage—before we can proceed
to typology. The book clearly extols sex only within mar-
riage (Song of Solomon 4:10-12; 8:8-10).
Paul recommended the single life, since a single per-
son has less distractions in serving God (I Corinthians
7:1, 7-8, 32-35). However, he gave this advice particu-
larly in view of the unsettled conditions of his time (“the
present distress”), including persecution (I Corinthians
7:26). Since not everyone has the special “gift” required
to remain single, he recommended marriage in order to

251
avoid fornication (I Corinthians 7:2, 7-9).
Paul recognized the importance of sex in the total
marriage relationship. He taught that married couples
must fulfill each other’s sexual needs and should not
deprive each other of this privilege except by mutual con-
sent for a limited time of prayer and fasting (I Corinthians
7:3-5). (For further discussion of the sexual union in mar-
riage, see The Act of Marriage by Tim and Beverly
LaHaye and Sexual Happiness in Marriage by Herbert
Miles.)
We should briefly note that, while the Bible does not
specifically discuss masturbation, it is definitely sinful if
associated with lustful fantasies. In marriage, it does not
serve either valid purpose of sex (procreation and union)
and can defraud or deprive spouses of their conjugal
rights. Basically the sexual relationship is a matter to be
decided between husband and wife alone. The Old Testa-
ment did place ceremonial regulations on the relationship
(Leviticus 18:19), although a few passages indicate a
moral dimension may be involved (Leviticus 20:18; Ezekiel
18:6; 22:10). Spouses should not participate in anything
deemed by either one to be degrading, unclean, or unnat-
ural. No one should violate, or ask a spouse to violate, con-
science in these matters. As we have seen, full mutual
enjoyment is a normal, natural part of the relationship.

Birth Control

Since procreation is not the only valid purpose for sex

within marriage, birth control is not inherently wrong. We
find no scriptural prohibition on family planning or birth

252
control. However, we should avoid any method that delib-
erately aborts life after conception. (See Chapter 12.)
In opposition to birth control, some cite God’s com-
mand to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth. God gave
this command to the human race as a whole after Crea-
tion and again after the Flood. It is not an absolute order
to every individual, for then everyone would have an
obligation to marry, contrary to Matthew 19:10-12 and
I Corinthians 7. The human race has more than fulfilled
this command; indeed as stewards over God’s earth we
now must deal with the drastic problems caused by over-
population. In a day when the conversion rate does not
keep pace with the birth rate, we have a spiritual incen-
tive to support birth control worldwide. Children are a
blessing and a gift from God, but God does not require
every family to have the maximum number of children
physically possible, especially when this would limit
effective service to God in many ways.
The story of Onan in Genesis 38:7-10 does not teach
anything about birth control or a particular sexual prac-
tice as such. Onan married his deceased brother’s widow,
but selfishly refused to beget a child to perpetuate the
dead man’s name. (See Deuteronomy 25:5-9.) Onan’s sin
was not a particular form of birth control as such, but his
rebellion against God’s will.

Divorce: Old Testament Teaching

When God instituted marriage He intended for hus-

band and wife to unite inseparably for as long as they
both lived (Genesis 2:23-24). He regards divorce as a

253
treacherous breaking of the marriage covenant. “Another
thing you do: You flood the LORD’s altar with tears. You
weep and wail because he no longer pays attention to
your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your
hands. You ask, ‘Why?’ It is because the LORD is acting as
the witness between you and the wife of your youth,
because you have broken faith with her, though she is
your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. Has not
the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his.
And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So
guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with
the wife of your youth. ‘I hate divorce,’ says the LORD God
of Israel . . . So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not
break faith” (Malachi 2:13-16, NIV).
God recognized divorce in the Old Testament
(Deuteronomy 24:1-4), but only because of the hardness
of people’s hearts (Matthew 19:8; Mark 10:5). Actually,
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 did not explicitly grant a right to
divorce, but simply established regulations for an existing
human practice. As the NKJV and NIV make clear, it
taught: if a man divorces his wife and if she marries
another man and if he divorces her, then it is an abomina-
tion for her to remarry her first husband. God did not
want the divorce laws to allow, in effect, a legal affair.
When divorce and remarriage occurred, He still wanted
to retain as much of the original design for marriage as
possible.
God sought to regulate and place restraints upon
what people would do, even when they violated His plan.
He permitted the lesser of two evils for a society that
could not and would not live up to His moral law. Since
some would abandon their spouses regardless of what

254
God wanted, it was well to establish legal protection for
the deserted spouse. Since some would persist in adulter-
ous affairs, it was better for society to allow divorce and
remarriage than to condone those affairs. Of course, God
does not plan for these problems to exist within the
Spirit-filled church today, as we see in the teaching of the
New Testament.

Divorce: The Teaching of Jesus

The Pharisees tested Jesus by asking Him if divorce

was lawful (Mark 10:2). Jesus explained that Moses per-
mitted divorce only because of the hardness of their
hearts, but that from the beginning divorce was not God’s
plan (Mark 10:3-8). He concluded, “What therefore God
hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mark
10:9).
God instituted marriage and ordained civil authority,
so all valid marriages are a joining by God (unless the
civil law allows marriages that do not meet the biblical
definition of marriage, such as homosexual or incestuous
marriage). Some claim the right to divorce if they con-
clude a marriage was not God’s perfect will, but the con-
text of Mark 10:9 excludes this interpretation. God’s way
of joining husband and wife is by legal and sexual union.
In elaborating on the permanent nature of marriage,
Jesus taught, “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” (Mark 10:11-12).
“Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another,

255
committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is
put away from her husband committeth adultery” (Luke
16:18). This strict teaching surprised the disciples, and at
first they did not see how men could live up to God’s ideal
(Matthew 19:10).
We should understand Christ’s teaching against
divorce as a statement of principle. In some situations,
the sinful lifestyle and behavior of an unbelieving spouse
will make it impossible to uphold God’s ideal. Separation
or even legal divorce may become necessary to protect
the Christian from a morally degrading lifestyle, physical
abuse, or legal liability. The New Testament recognizes
that separation will occur in some cases, although it does
not grant an automatic right to remarry in such cases
(I Corinthians 7:11).
The fundamental principle for God’s people today,
then, is that marriage is binding until death (Romans
7:1-3). If separation or divorce occurs, Christians are
given only two options: remain unmarried or be recon-
ciled (I Corinthians 7:10-11).

The “Exception” Clause

Today many people are more interested in possible

exceptions to God’s prohibition on divorce than to the
actual prohibition. Their interest centers on the “excep-
tion” clause, which only Matthew records. “Whosoever
shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornica-
tion, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall
marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Mat-
thew 5:32). “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it

256
be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth
adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth
commit adultery” (Matthew 19:9).
Below are four prominent explanations of the “excep-
tion” clause.
* One view is that God allows divorce only on the
grounds of betrothal (pre-marital) infidelity. According
to Jewish custom of that day, the two parties were legally
bound to each other at a betrothal (engagement) cere-
mony, but the betrothal contract specified a time lapse
before they actually consummated the marriage (Deuter-
onomy 20:7). Only a legal divorce could break the
betrothal contract. A subsequent marriage would not be
adulterous because the first marriage was never actually
consummated. For example, Joseph planned to divorce
Mary during their betrothal, due to her pregnancy
(Matthew 1:18-19).
* A second view is that fornication here specifically
means incestuous marriage as defined and prohibited
by Leviticus 18. It certainly has this meaning in I Corin-
thians 5:1. Arguably, this is what it means in Acts 15,
where the church was not defining or altering moral law
but listing four legal regulations still binding upon Gentile
Christians. It seems that they took these prohibitions
from Leviticus 17:1-18:18. That passage forbids (in this
order): (1) sacrificing to false gods and devils, (2) eating
blood, (3) eating an animal not butchered in a way that its
blood would drain out, and (4) twenty types of incest.
Acts 15:29 instructs Christians to abstain from (in this
order): (1) food offered to idols, (2) blood, (3) things
strangled, and (4) fornication. If God does not recognize
an incestuous marriage as legitimate, its vows cannot be

257
binding. Thus, John preached that Herod’s marriage to
his brother’s wife was continuing sin and illegality, not
just one act of adultery (Mark 6:17-18).
These first two views both emphasize several points:
(1) The word fornication seems to be used in a strict
sense and distinguished from the word adultery in the
same verse. (2) Only Matthew—the gospel written for
Jews—records the exception clause, so possibly it
involves Jewish custom and law. The Roman reader of
Mark or the Greek reader of Luke would not be aware of
the exception. (3) One should interpret the clause in light
of Christ’s strict teachings in Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18,
and even Matthew 19:6.
* A third view is that the “innocent” party can
divorce and remarry in cases of marital infidelity. If
Jesus used the word fornication in a general, non-tech-
nical sense here, then it does indeed mean all sexual sin.
Sexual acts that break the marriage vow—whether
homosexual, incestuous, or adulterous—could be the
basis of an exception to Christ’s general teaching against
divorce and remarriage.
* A fourth view is that God allows divorce for mari-
tal infidelity but does not allow remarriage. This view
also understands fornication to mean all sexual sin, but
seeks to reconcile the exception clause with the rest of the
Bible by allowing divorce but not remarriage. Proponents
emphasize that the exception clause only modifies the
verb put away and not the verb marry. Furthermore,
Matthew 5:32 may mean that if a man divorces his wife he
causes her to commit adultery upon remarriage, unless he
divorces her for marital infidelity. In this case he does not
cause her to commit adultery because she has already
done so.
258
 The Restrictive Nature of the “Exception” Clause
Regardless of which interpretation one accepts, we
must recognize the restrictive nature of the exception
clause. To demonstrate this point, in the following discus-
sion we will assume the most expansive interpretation;
namely, that one can divorce and remarry on the ground
of marital infidelity.
First, there is no right to a second marriage just
because the first is unsatisfactory, unhappy, a mistake, or
even a disaster. One person’s misfortune or sin may cause
a seemingly unfair hardship on another, but this is true in
many other unalterable situations, such as a parent-child
relationship. The exception clause does not allow divorce
when one spouse becomes severely handicapped, con-
tracts a fatal disease, or goes insane. Nor does it allow
divorce and remarriage on grounds of cruelty, alcoholism
or criminality, although separation or divorce may be nec-
essary in some such cases. “Incompatibility,” “falling out
of love,” and “spiritual adultery” are not grounds for
divorce.
Marriage is a lifelong commitment that a couple must
carefully consider in advance. Once they make this com-
mitment, they must work to maintain the marriage even if
the initial infatuation or romance disappears. If they fall
out of love, they must learn to fall back in love like they
did the first time—and they can.
Second, God calls the Christian to a life of forgiveness
(Matthew 18:21-22; Luke 17:3-4). Our emphasis must be
on repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Even in the
Old Testament, God showed His higher plan: leaving the
door of reconciliation open (Hosea 1-3). Hosea stayed true
to his wife through years of desertion and unfaithfulness;

259
when her lovers finally abandoned her he accepted her
back. Through this God showed Israel that He, too, would
remain faithful to His covenant despite Israel’s spiritual
adultery.
In one modern case, a husband backslid, divorced his
wife, and led a deeply sinful life, but she remained unmar-
ried. Several years later, the husband repented and remar-
ried his wife, and together they have worked faithfully for
God.
Third, even if fornication means marital infidelity, in
light of Christ’s teaching on forgiveness, it may not refer
to a single act of infidelity but to a permanent, unrepent-
ant lifestyle of unfaithfulness with no realistic chance of
reconciliation at any time.
Fourth, we cannot determine the “innocent” party by
a mechanical application of rules. In one case, a husband
deliberately arranged temptations for his wife to commit
adultery. Is he “innocent” and free to remarry in the sight
of God? Who actually broke the marriage vow first? In
another case, a husband so alienated, abused, and
ignored his wife that she finally ran off with another man.
Is the husband free to remarry? Seldom is there a case in
which one party is totally innocent of contributing to the
destruction of a marriage.
What options does the “guilty” party have after a
divorce? If he repents, God will certainly forgive him of
the adultery and divorce, but God will not forgive him in
advance for an unscriptural remarriage. Forgiveness of
sin does not wipe out a valid marriage or any other con-
tract, nor does it grant an indulgence for future sin.
If his former spouse is unmarried, his only options
are to remain single or to be reconciled. If his former

260
spouse has remarried, there are two possible lines of
thought. If this dissolves the marriage scripturally for
both parties, then the “guilty” party could remarry after
genuine repentance. On the other hand, it may be that
God releases the “innocent” but not the “guilty” party
from the marriage vow. If so, the “guilty” would never be
free to remarry.
Should a single Christian who divorced before con-
version be treated differently from one who divorced after
conversion? On the one hand, the divorced convert has
received forgiveness of past sin, is a new creature in
Christ, and has begun a new life. On the other hand, con-
version does not automatically erase all his previous con-
tracts and obligations.
“Judgment begins at the house of God,” but when read
in context that statement means God judges the righteous
first, i.e., in this life. In other words, if God hates evil so
much that He even judges the righteous in this life when
they sin, how much more will he punish sinners in the
end? “For the time has come for judgment to begin at the
house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be
the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? ‘If
the righteous one is scarcely saved, where will the ungod-
ly and the sinner appear?’” (I Peter 4:17-18, NKJV).
I Corinthians 7:20 says, “Each one should remain in the
situation which he was in when God called him” (NIV).
Does this apply here? If so, should one view the convert
as single (free to many) or wrongly divorced (not free)?

Divorce: The Teaching of Paul

The Corinthians wrote to Paul asking for his views on

261
whether it was good to marry or not (I Corinthians 7:1).
Paul answered that it was good not to marry but also
good to marry, especially since marriage helps one avoid
the sin of fornication (I Corinthians 7:1-2).
To married people, Paul emphasized Christ’s teach-
ings against divorce and remarriage. “And unto the mar-
ried I command, yet not I, but the Lord, let not the wife
depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her
remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and
let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest
speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that
believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let
him not put her away. And the woman which hath an hus-
band that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with
her, let her not leave him. . . . But if the unbelieving
depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under
bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save
thy husband? or how knowest thou, 0 man, whether thou
shalt save thy wife? . . . The wife is bound by the law as
long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead,
she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in
the Lord” (I Corinthians 7:10-13; 15-16, 39).
Paul upheld the marriage vow between a believer and
an unbeliever, but taught that a Christian is not bound to
an unbelieving spouse if the unbeliever insists on depart-
ing. Some teach that a Christian can divorce a spouse
who is spiritually “dead,” i.e. dead in sin, but Paul rejected
that view. Furthermore, what happens if the spouse
becomes “alive” through later repentance? Some teach
that Paul gave a new ground for divorce and remarriage,
namely desertion. However, he apparently taught freedom

262
to separate (with no obligation to follow the departed
spouse), not freedom to remarry beyond what Christ
allowed. The context indicates that the options upon sep-
aration are to remain unmarried or be reconciled (I Cor-
inthians 7:11, 39). Paul simply applied Christ’s teachings
on divorce to the case of an unsaved spouse, which Christ
did not specifically address, but he did not alter Christ's
teachings.
I Corinthians 7:27-28 says, “Art thou bound unto a
wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife?
seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not
sinned.” This last statement applies to an unmarried per-
son or one loosed from marriage by the spouse’s death
(as in verse 39). It does not apply to a divorced person,
for then it would apply equally to the “guilty” as well as
the “innocent” party. It does not relate to divorced people
but to the general question under discussion in the chap-
ter, namely, whether it is good and right for a Christian to
marry. “Because of the present crisis, I think that it is
good for you to remain as you are. Are you married? Do
not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a
wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned” (I Corin-
thians 7:26-28, NIV).

Remarriage

A Christian widow or widower may remarry, as long

as the new spouse is also a Christian (I Corinthians 7:39).
If a marriage never possessed all the essential ele-
ments—mutual consent, legal witness and recognition, and
sexual consummation—then it is not a genuine marriage.

263
It can be annulled—declared null and void—and each
party is then free to marry someone else.
Although God opposes divorce and remarriage, He
apparently recognizes the legal fact of a second marriage
and considers it binding (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). Jesus
recognized (but did not approve) the situation of the
Samaritan woman at the well. She had had five legal hus-
bands but at that time had no husband, only an unmarried
companion (John 4:17-18). He did not say she still had
one husband and had had five unmarried companions.
Jesus acknowledged man’s power (but not his right) to
split what God had joined in marriage (Mark 10:9).
Even though it is a sin to divorce and remarry, when
a remarriage occurs God holds the partners to their new
vows. If they repent of the sin of breaking their original
vows, it is not continuing immorality for them to stay
together. In fact, it is immoral for them to break the new
vows. Otherwise, a remarried person could have an affair
with his or her original spouse and be blameless. It is an
abomination before the Lord for a divorced and remar-
ried spouse ever to return to the first spouse
(Deuteronomy 24:3-4).
What should someone do if he has divorced and
remarried against the will of God? He has entered two
lifelong vows, and it is impossible to fulfill both. Further-
more, he has already broken the first covenant beyond
repair. Therefore, he must repent of his sin in destroying
the first covenant. Then, he must keep the second
covenant, which God recognizes.

264
 Conclusion Regarding Divorce and Remarriage

The discussion of Mark 10:11-12 in The Tyndale New

Testament Commentaries contains a thought-provoking
summary of the biblical teaching: “The Lord, it is note-
worthy, assumes as a matter of course that a divorced
party will, in either case, remarry, and such remarriage is
branded as plain adultery. Perhaps . . . this is the link
between Paul’s words (I Corinthians vii. 15) and this
Gospel passage. Separation of the two parties is seen as
a last resort, but remarriage does not seem to be con-
templated. It is true that some commentators see a
deeper meaning in ‘not under bondage’ of the Pauline
passage, and thus think it permits remarriage, but that
would be in direct contradiction to I Corinthians vii. 11,
and it is a fundamental principle of biblical exegesis that
no one scripture may be expounded in such a way that it
is contradictory to another. The so-called ‘Matthean
exception’ (‘saving for the cause of fornication,’ v. 32,
and ‘except it be for fornication,’ xix. 9, lit. ‘except
because of immorality’), whatever its exact meaning, has
no certain reference to remarriage, although certain
Protestant divines have so used it.” 2
As a minister, I have made a personal decision not to
perform a marriage ceremony where one party has a
divorced spouse still living, for the following reasons.
* Divorce is not God’s perfect will, but at most would
be allowed only due to man’s sin.
* I do not wish to glamorize remarriage and establish
it as a model for others to follow. If the church does not
send forth a clear message on this subject, the divorce
epidemic that is sweeping our society will overwhelm the

265
church also.
* I do not feel competent to judge the “innocence” of
someone in such a situation; this is between the individual
person and God.
* There is no universal “right” to married life as many
think today. When questioned about the strictness of His
teaching on divorce, Jesus said some people were celi-
bate for the sake of the kingdom of God (Matthew
19:10-12). Paul taught that the single life was preferable
in many situations and that it was a gift (I Corinthians
7:7, 26). A single person can live a happy, fulfilled life in
the perfect will of God.
* God desires for reconciliation to occur, and I do not
want to be the instrument for barring this possibility.
* I hesitate to base such an important decision on one
debated interpretation of one clause, when so many other
passages speak out strongly against divorce.
* If I officially approve of one remarriage, I may open
the door to a host of more questionable exceptions. It will
be impossible to explain to everyone’s satisfaction my
approval in one case but disapproval in another. Even-
tually, the integrity of the scriptural teaching against
divorce may suffer.
After taking into consideration all the scriptural
teachings, if someone concludes he or she has a right to
remarry, I recommend a private, civil ceremony. In this
way, the church will publicly uphold God’s original inten-
tion for the institution of marriage.
I recommend that church leaders avoid remarriage
after divorce. In addition to all the reasons given above,
the Bible sets a higher standard for leadership: (1) No
priest in the Old Testament could marry a divorced

266
woman. “Neither shall they take a woman put away from
her husband: for he is holy unto his God” (Leviticus
21:7). (2) Bishops, deacons, and elders are to be the hus-
band of one wife, blameless, and of good report (I Timo-
thy 3:1-12; Titus 1:6). The Early Church did not condone
anyone in polygamy, so the requirement of one wife prob-
ably excluded from leadership those with multiple mar-
riages in sequence. (3) Ministers must be role models and
examples to the saints (I Peter 5:3). If a minister remar-
ries under circumstances he deems appropriate, saints
will see this as justification for remarriage under more
questionable circumstances.

Teaching in Church History

Historic Christendom has strongly opposed fornica-

tion, adultery, and homosexuality. The early church
fathers stood firm on these issues, even though ancient
societies generally accepted such practices as religious
prostitution and homosexuality. Tertullian wrote, “The
Christian confines himself to the female sex. . . . The
Christian husband has nothing to do with any but his own
wife.” 3 Athenagoras wrote against the immorality of the
pagans, describing them as those “who have set up a mar-
ket for fornication, and established infamous resorts for
the young for every kind of vile pleasure,—who do not
abstain even from males, males with males committing
shocking abominations, outraging all the noblest and
comeliest bodies in all sorts of ways, so dishonouring the
fair workmanship of God . . . adulterers and paederasts.” 4
We find other early condemnations of homosexuality in

267
Justin, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and
the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles.5 In addition,
Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Lactantius, and
the Constitutions specifically condemned effeminate
behavior and dress in men.6
Until the 20th century no major Christian group has
challenged these moral teachings. Those who advocate
situation ethics teach that adultery, fornication, and even
prostitution are morally justifiable under some cir-
cumstances. Some Protestant denominations have
ordained avowed homosexuals to the ministry. One
Methodist bishop recently appointed a homosexual to a
pastoral position. When some protested, the denomina-
tion ruled that it had no disciplinary law prohibiting such
an action. As of this writing the National Council of
Churches is seriously considering the admittance of a
predominately homosexual denomination, the Metropoli-
tan Community Church.
Early church fathers condemned birth control, but
directed this against couples who refused to have any
children at all.7 The Roman Catholic Church opposes any
artificial means of birth control, on the ground that sex is
for procreation. Protestants generally allow birth control,
and often highly recommend it in view of present day
problems caused by overpopulation.
Ancient church leaders of the first few centuries
opposed divorce and remarriage. In this they had an ally
in traditional Roman culture of earlier times. “In ancient
Rome divorce was regarded as dishonorable, and there-
fore undesirable. For five hundred and twenty years it was
boasted that divorce was unknown in Rome.” 8 The church
fathers basically allowed divorce but not remarriage for

268
the “innocent” party. “In East and West alike, in the ear-
lier period . . . the Fathers were strong in their denuncia-
tions of re-marriage, even in the case of an innocent
partner.” 9
The Shepherd of Hermas, which was extremely pop-
ular among second century Christians, gave this direc-
tion in a case where the wife continues to commit
adultery and is unrepentant: “The husband should put
her away, and remain by himself. But if he puts his wife
away and marry another, he also commits adultery. . . . In
case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the
husband ought not to marry another, when his wife has
been put away.” 10
Athenagoras wrote, “A second marriage is only a spe-
cious adultery.” 11
Tertullian also taught that a second marriage was
adultery. He stated, “Heretics do away with marriage, psy-
chics [the carnal] accumulate them. The former marry
not even once; the latter not only once. . . . We admit one
marriage, just as we do one God.” 12 According to Ter-
tullian, “Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not to be
bound” (I Corinthians 7:27) referred to those who were
loosed from their spouses by death (as I Corinthians
7:39). Thus when Paul said “If thou marry, thou hast not
sinned” (I Corinthians 7:28) he did not mean the divorced
could remarry, “inasmuch as to the divorced he would
grant no permission to marry.” 13 The Montanists, whom
Tertullian joined, eventually forbade all second mar-
riages, even remarriage of widows.14
The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles taught that
a minister could not marry a divorced person.15 One of
its canons, which most scholars think dates from a very

269
early time, states, “If a layman divorces his own wife, and
takes another, or one divorced by another, let him be
suspended.” 16
The Roman Catholic Church officially forbids divorce
and remarriage. However, it has allowed large loopholes
to develop by granting annulments in cases where mar-
riages were actually consummated and maintained for
years.
Protestants generally have adhered to the third view
of the exception clause as described above. “The Protes-
tant and Reforming divines held that divorce with the per-
mission of re-marriage was justified in the case of
adultery.” 17 However, many conservatives oppose remar-
riage of either party, particularly for the ministry. The
Evangelical Free Church recently reaffirmed this position
as did The Divorce Myth by J. Carl Laney of Western
Conservative Baptist Seminary. Laney and Charles C.
Ryrie interpret the exception clause to refer to incest (the
second view above), and F. F. Bruce has commended this
view as probable. Bill Gothard and J. Dwight Pentecost
teach that the clause refers to betrothal unfaithfulness
(the first view above).
One non-Pentecostal researcher described the general
position of Pentecostals: “As far as divorce is concerned,
the letter of the New Testament is strictly observed.
Originally divorce and remarriage were rejected. But at
the present day this practice has been somewhat relaxed.
Divorce in the case of adultery and remarriage of the inno-
cent party is possible in the older denominations. . . . In
the groups in which a high dignitary of the group con-
cerned obtained a divorce and remarried, these regula-
tions have been lifted altogether.” 18

270
 The Assemblies of God takes the position that the
scriptural ground for divorce is habitual marital unfaith-
fulness but disapproves of ministers remarrying (similar
to the fourth view above). No one can obtain ministerial
license with the Assemblies of God if he is remarried with
a former companion still living, even if his divorce and
remarriage occurred before conversion.
The Articles of Faith of the United Pentecostal Church
cite Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 with this commentary: “When
this sin has been committed, the innocent party may be
free to remarry only in the Lord. Our desire being to raise
a higher standard for the ministry, we recommend that
ministers do not marry again.” 19 The General Constitution
of the UPC interprets “fornication” in the cited verses to
mean “fornication or adultery.” 20

Divorce Today

Well into the 20th century, U.S. law frowned upon

divorce, generally allowing it only upon proof of adultery,
extreme cruelty, or desertion. In 1966 New York and
California became the first states to make divorce avail-
able when “irreconcilable differences” exist.21 Today, for
all practical purposes, divorce is available on demand.
In fact, divorce is now almost as common as mar-
riage, and most people enter marriage with the idea that
divorce is an acceptable solution to marital difficulties. In
1920 the U.S. divorce to marriage ratio was 1 to 7; in
1960 it was 1 to 4; and in 1972 it was 1 to 3. By 1977
there was one divorce for every two marriages. In 1978
alone there were 1,130,000 divorces.22

271
 Most Protestants have abandoned any attempt to
adhere to a literal interpretation of the exception clause
and will accept divorce and remarriage for most marital
conflicts and difficulties. Roman Catholics officially
oppose divorce, but in practice many Catholics accept it.
The Catholic Church is under strong pressure to relax its
antidivorce law, and it already grants annulments to
almost anyone who can afford the complicated church
legal procedures.
In view of this, it is imperative that Christians stand
firmly against the pressures of an ungodly society.
Regardless of our precise interpretation of the exception
clause, we must recognize its essentially limited, restric-
tive nature. The central thrust of the Bible message on
divorce is that it is not the will of God. Rather than seek-
ing ways to justify divorce we should seek ways to over-
come difficulties and effect reconciliation.
What can ministers do to combat the rising divorce
rate? As preventive medicine, they must teach biblical
concepts of marriage and emphasize the lifelong commit-
ment to building and maintaining a marriage. They should
also teach proper respect for the single life, establishing
that single person can live a happy, successful, fulfilled
life and can serve the Lord in ways that would be more
difficult for a married person. It is much better to live a
single life than to make a mistake in choosing a mate or
to marry against the will of God as stated in Scripture.
Furthermore, they should not perform a marriage cere-
mony if either party believes that divorce would be an
acceptable way of settling conflict. By word and action,
they must lift high God’s ideal of marriage and stress the
sanctity and inviolability of the marriage vow.

272
 FOOTNOTES

1
Parade Magazine, September 11, 1983, p. 10.
2
Alan Cole, The Gospel According to St. Mark, Vol. II of The Tyn-
dale New Testament Commentaries (1961), pp. 158-59.
3
Tertullian, Apology, 46.10, ANF, III, 51.
4
Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, 34, ANF, II, 147.
5
See ANF, I, 172; II, 89, 147, 261; V, 278.
6
See ANF, II, 75, 266, 289; V, 277.
7
Bainton, p, 56.
8
“Marriage (Christian),” Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics,
James Hastings, et al (eds.) (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1951), VIII, 434.
9
Ibid., VIII, 439.
10
Hermas, The Shepherd, 2.4.1, ANF, II, 21.
11
Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, 33, ANF, II, 146.
12
Tertullian, On Monogamy, 1, ANF, IV, 59.
13
Ibid., 11, ANF, II, 68.
14
“Marriage (Christian),” Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics,
VIII, 439.
15
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 6.3.17, ANF, VII, 457.
16
Ibid., 8.47.48, ANF, VII, 503.
17
“Marriage (Christian),” Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics,
VIII, 439.
18
Hollenweger, pp. 403-404.
19
Manual, United Pentecostal Church International (1984),
pp. 24-25.
20
Ibid., p. 39.
21
“The Sexual Revolution of the Twentieth Century,” Christianity
Today, November 11, 1983, p. 29.
22
The statistics in this paragraph come from J. Carl Laney, The
Divorce Myth (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1981), p. 12.

273
 12
THE SANCTITY OF
HUMAN LIFE
“Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy
5:17).
“Abstain . . . from blood” (Acts 15:29).

Biblical Foundation

The Bible affirms the sanctity of human life in strong

terms. When one person kills another he violates God’s
law and destroys God’s image-creature (Genesis 9:5-6).
Furthermore, the killer destroys the victim’s future poten-
tial, including the possibility of future salvation in the
case of an unsaved person.
The Law prohibited all murder (Exodus 20:13), and
the New Testament affirms this teaching (Matthew
15:18-20; Galatians 5:19-21; James 2:11; I Peter 4:15).
By extension this forbids violence and aggression. John
the Baptist told repentant soldiers, “Do violence to no

275
man” (Luke 3:14). He who hates is a murderer and does
not have eternal life (I John 3:14-15).
Jesus went beyond the Law in teaching nonviolence
and no retaliation. “Ye have heard that it hath been said,
An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto
you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. . . . Ye
have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love
your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them
that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use
you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:38-39, 43-44). (See
also Romans 12:19; I Peter 3:9.)
The Jerusalem Council admonished Gentile Christians
to abstain from blood (Acts 15:29). If Acts 15 teaches us
not to eat blood because it symbolizes life (Leviticus
17:10-11), surely it also teaches us to abstain from actual
bloodshed (taking of human life).
The New Testament thus leads us to reject the killing
of human beings under all circumstances, even in war-
fare, self-defense, and suicide. In addition, the Bible indi-
cates that God considers the child in the womb to be a
human life; therefore we reject abortion since it is a form
of murder.

Killing in Warfare and Self Defense

Many biblical examples specifically indicate that God

does not will for a Christian to take the life of another per-
son, even in warfare or self-defense. When Peter began to
use his sword in an attempt to defend the Lord from cap-

276
ture, Jesus said to him, “Put up again thy sword into his
place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the
sword” (Matthew 26:52). (See also Revelation 13:10.) In
calling the rich to repentance, James noted, “Ye have con-
demned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you”
(James 5:6).
The New Testament admonishes us to pay taxes, to
submit to governmental authority, and to pray for civil
leaders (Romans 13:1-7; I Timothy 2:1-3; Titus 3:1; I Peter
2:13-17), but it does not tell us to bear arms to support the
government. Although the Roman Empire was a pagan
government and a foreign dictatorship, Jesus did not
endorse Jewish rebellion against it, but taught submis-
sion to civil government (Matthew 5:40-41; 17:24-27;
22:17-21). When slaves converted to Christianity, Paul
and Peter did not condone rebellion against their masters
but taught them to serve their masters, even harsh
masters, as they would the Lord (Ephesians 6:5; I Peter
2:18-21).
When Christians were persecuted, they did not
respond violently. Stephen did not throw stones back at
his murderers, but prayed, “Lord, lay not this sin to their
charge” (Acts 7:60). The Christians did not storm the
prison where Peter was, but prayed for God to deliver
him. Paul endured numerous imprisonments, five scourg-
ings, three beatings, and a stoning without retaliating
violently.
The New Testament teaches that each individual is of
infinite value, that God is no respecter of persons, and
that society should conform to the will of God. These prin-
ciples certainly exclude any form of dictatorship, tyr-
anny, persecution, or slavery. However, when Christians

277
actually faced such situations, God never willed for them
to respond with physical violence, rebellion, or bloodshed.
It is difficult to justify any killing in view of Christ’s
admonitions not to be violent, not to retaliate, not to seek
revenge, to love enemies, and to pray for persecutors.
Some say His teaching relates only to personal not social
situations, but how can a person separate personal
morality from social responsibility? At the minimum, one
cannot morally justify all wars simply because the govern-
ment prosecutes them. How can a Christian participate in
the massacre of innocent people, a war of conquest, an
unprovoked nuclear attack, a war of revenge, or a war to
maintain an oppressive dictatorship?
If we affirm that some wars are just, how can a Chris-
tian know when a war is justifiable, especially in light of
governmental deception and the individual’s limited
information? In World War II, most Nazi soldiers thought
they were defending their homeland, race, and culture
against enemies that would destroy them if they were not
destroyed first. They usually did not know of the atroci-
ties committed by their own government. If we justify an
individual’s participation in killing simply because it
seems justifiable based on his limited knowledge, then
almost every soldier in every war is blameless. Even most
Nazi and Communist soldiers have sincerely believed
their cause was right. The only way for an individual to
know with certainty that a war is just is if he fights for a
theocracy, a government with God as the Commander-
in-Chief. No such government exists today or will exist
until Christ returns to earth, and at that time God Himself
will do all the fighting necessary.
If it is right for a Christian to kill for country, then is

278
it right for a Christian to lie, steal, become a prostitute,
worship idols or commit any other violation of God’s
moral law for country? Are we adrift on a sea of moral rel-
ativism and situation ethics, in which we base moral deci-
sions on an individual’s subjective utilitarian analysis or
an unchristian government’s proclamations?
When we make the decision to take a human life, we
are making an exception to God’s Word because we do
not think it will work in our particular situation. However,
God’s moral law always brings the best results when
viewed from an eternal perspective.
We deplore the militaristic spirit often associated with
conservative religious movements today. We must not
equate Christianity with carnal warfare, or patriotism
with bloodshed. Even if we think some wars are justifiable
or even if we appreciate the positive benefits of some
wars, we must emphasize that war is essentially evil. It is
a scourge of mankind. We must never glorify war. If our
world were Christian, there would be no war, and if our
nation were Christian, God could protect us without war.

Israel’s Wars

Why did God allow and even command the Israelites

to destroy their enemies in the Old Testament? First, the
Old Testament Israelites did not have the Holy Ghost bap-
tism with its overcoming power, nor did they have a com-
plete understanding of God’s perfect will in this area. God
worked with them on the level they had attained.
Even in the Old Testament it seems that God pre-
ferred to do all the fighting. When the Egyptians pursued

279
the Israelites, Moses proclaimed, “Fear ye not, stand
still, and see the salvation of the LORD . . . The LORD shall
fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace” (Exodus
14:13-14). God miraculously delivered Elisha from the
Syrian army (II Kings 6:13-23) and miraculously deliv-
ered Samaria from the Syrian army (II Kings 7:6-7).
Likewise, God sent an angel to defeat the Assyrian army
singlehandedly (II Kings 19:35). When Jehoshaphat
appointed singers to praise the Lord and the beauty of
holiness before the army, God miraculously ambushed
the enemy, apparently using angelic hosts (II Chronicles
20:20-25). Perhaps God would have done this more had
Israel trusted Him fully and understood His perfect will.
God refused to let David build the temple because he
was a man of war and had shed blood (I Chronicles
28:3).
In the New Testament, Christ specifically went beyond
the Old Testament revelation on this subject, calling us to
a higher personal morality. Just after implementing this
higher teaching, Christ said, “Be ye therefore perfect”
(Matthew 5:48). This parallels God’s progressively
stricter dealings from Old to New Testament in other
areas such as incest, polygamy, and divorce.
Second, God used Israel as a unique theocratic instru-
ment for several reasons which do not apply today: to
bring judgment upon ungodly nations, to teach that the
penalty for sin is death, and to protect His chosen nation
so that His plan of salvation would survive. “The Canaan-
ites against whom Israel waged war were under judicial
sentence of death by God. They were spiritually and
morally degenerate. . . . Thus, God ordered all the
Canaanites to be killed. . . . both because they were under

280
God’s death sentence, and to avoid the contamination of
Israel.” 1
Today, God no longer deals primarily with nations but
with individuals. He reserves judgment and tells His peo-
ple not to judge others. We call this the age of grace,
because God has revealed grace, mercy, and longsuffer-
ing in a greater measure than ever before and because He
does not execute judgment speedily as usually occurred
under the Law.
God’s chosen people are not a physically unique
nation which He must protect against enemy nations.
God’s salvation plan no longer depends upon a physical
nation. Our weapons are not physical, but spiritual. The
Israelites were physically separated from the world by
diet, farming practices, and keeping of the Sabbath, but
we are spiritually separated from the world. The
Israelites fought the world physically, but we fight the
world spiritually. “For though we walk in the flesh, we do
not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare
are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling
down of strong holds)” (II Corinthians 10:3-4). “For we
wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against princi-
palities, against powers, against the rulers of the dark-
ness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high
places” (Ephesians 6:12).

Defense of Country

If everyone believed that all wars are wrong, how

would his country defend itself from attack? This objec-
tion ignores Christ’s teaching that the true church would

281
be a relatively small, persecuted minority in this world,
composed of the few who follow the narrow way rather
than the many who follow the broad path. Jesus said that
His church would not be part of the world system. “They
are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (John
17:14, 16). “My kingdom is not of this world: if my king-
dom were of this world, then would my servants fight”
(John 18:36). We are aliens and strangers in this world,
with our first allegiance to a heavenly country (Hebrews
11:13-16).
If patriotism justifies killing, then two Spirit-filled
members of the same “holy nation” (I Peter 2:9) could jus-
tifiably kill each other in a war between their respective
earthly nations!
If the world did convert to apostolic Christianity there
would be no war. In the unlikely event that one nation so
converted while its enemies did not, that nation would
have greater protection by prayer and faith in God than
by faith in its own carnal weapons. If God allowed an
aggressor to attack a genuinely Christian nation, it would
be better to submit to dictatorship or to resist nonvio-
lently than to cause the destruction of thousands of peo-
ple. This is effectively what Jesus and Paul taught by
saying it was better to live under a dictatorial or enslav-
ing condition instead of rebelling. Even advocates of just
war agree that this is true in some cases. “Allowing evil
aggression would be better than total annihilation.” 2
God can use the non-Christian society to further His
will and to protect His people. Thus, God may allow a
nation to go to war and win so that His purpose will be
accomplished. However, this does not mean He desires
for His church to take part in the killing. In the Old Testa-

282
ment God allowed the Assyrians to chastise Israel, but
then punished them for their own aggression (Isaiah
8:1-7; 10:12-27). God can channel ungodly actions into
furthering His plans, but if the nation turns to Him He can
achieve the same results in a better way.
There are many ways to serve one’s country well with-
out participating in killing. The Bible teaches us to pay
taxes and to pray for governmental leaders. Our prayers
can be very effective weapons for justice and righteous-
ness. We can also contribute to the strength of our coun-
try by working diligently and by helping those less
fortunate than we are. In fact, the Bible commands both
(Ephesians 6:5-7; I Thessalonians 4:11; James 1:27;
2:15-17). Finally, even in the armed forces there are many
legitimate, noncombatant jobs such as medical assistant,
quartermaster, chaplain’s assistant, and clerk. Even in
combat, the medic can be just as courageous in saving life
as others are in destroying life.

Defense of Self and Family

How should we defend ourselves or our families

against murderous attacks? John Yoder’s book, What
Would You Do?, lists the options available to the Chris-
tian who is committed to pacifism: martyrdom, divine
intervention, ruse, nonlethal violence, or moral disarm-
ing. This last category includes such things as showing
respect, showing love, or asserting moral authority, which
often so affect the attacker that he changes his mind.
Yoder gave six actual case studies, ranging from war-
time to a prison riot to a mugging, in which nonviolent

283
methods stopped a lethal attack.
We do not interpret Christ’s teaching to mean we
must passively, idly watch while an attacker seriously
injures or kills someone. Under some circumstances, it
would be appropriate to use the minimum force neces-
sary to halt, ward off, or incapacitate the attacker. The
motivation in such a case must not be hatred, retaliation,
revenge, desire to harm, or desire to fight, but simply
protection against harm. Under no circumstances, how-
ever, should we deliberately seek to kill the attacker. We
can seek to prevent evil, but not at the expense of
performing an equal or greater evil. It is essentially wrong
to use physical force except in cases of extreme necessity,
and then not to the point of taking a life.
From a spiritual perspective, the Christian should not
fear death. It would be better for the Christian to die and
be with the Lord than for his attacker to die and be for-
ever lost. Jesus and Stephen set the example by praying
for their murderers. Through their courageous deaths
onlookers such as the Roman centurion and (as some
scholars propose) Saul of Tarsus came to a knowledge of
the truth.
In the vast majority of self defense situations, we
would not face the choice of killing or being killed. We
must trust God to keep us from or to protect us in the
extremely rare cases of this nature. Moreover, we must
use prudence and not place ourselves in situations where
we might be forced to make this decision.

Bearing Arms
If we reject deadly force as an option, then the bear-

284
ing of arms becomes problematic. It could reflect a funda-
mental lack of faith in God’s protective power (Job
1:9-12; 2:6) and the protective ministry of angels (Psalm
34:7; 91:11). If God prohibits killing, what is the purpose
of carrying a deadly weapon? In a time of crisis, can we
trust ourselves not to use it lethally? If a potential victim
produces a weapon, he forces the attacker to act violently
and often places himself in greater danger. Furthermore,
these weapons kill many more people in accidents and
arguments than in self-defense situations.
Why did Jesus tell His disciples on one occasion to
carry swords? (Luke 22:35-38). After the Last Supper,
Jesus gave new instructions to His disciples relative to the
preaching of the gospel. Earlier in His ministry, He had
sent them out without purse (money) or bag (supply of
food), telling them to depend upon the hospitality of the
people. Now, however, He told them to take purse, bag,
and sword. Possibly, He meant for them to take swords for
protection against wild beasts and robbers (to frighten off
or ward off the latter, not to kill them).
More probably, His allusion to the sword was
metaphoric. In other words, He was warning that they
would no longer enjoy a hearty welcome in every place,
but would face bitter opposition. Therefore, they should
learn to provide for themselves and to brace themselves
spiritually against attack and persecution.
Upon hearing this, the disciples found two swords
and brought them to Christ. He told them, “It is enough.”
Two swords are not adequate for twelve men. Apparently,
the disciples failed to understand Christ’s real meaning
at that time. When He saw them bringing two literal
swords, He decided to drop the subject. This view receives

285
support from Christ’s admonition to Peter a short time
later. When Peter actually tried to use one of these swords
in Christ’s defense, He forbade him with words that
denounce all killing. Furthermore, never again do we hear
of the disciples resisting violence with violence, although
they were subjected to violence many times.

Capital Punishment

Does not the Bible teach capital punishment? The Old

Testament did establish capital punishment for many sins.
One key passage says, “Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for
tooth” (Exodus 21:23-24).
Jesus specifically superseded this passage, however.
If we use Old Testament precedent to justify our
participation in capital punishment, we must support cap-
ital punishment for crimes such as adultery, breaking the
Sabbath, false prophecy, rebellion against parents, glut-
tony, drunkenness, and negligent manslaughter (Exodus
21:28-29; Numbers 15:32-36; Deuteronomy 13:1-5;
21:18-21; 22:22). Likewise, the church would have to
pass judgment, and individual members would have to
cast stones at the criminal. However, Jesus specifically
superseded this practice by refusing to condemn the
woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11).
Like just war, capital punishment could only work per-
fectly in a theocracy. God’s purpose under the law was to
demonstrate that the penalty for sin is death. Now that He
has established this principle, He grants a greater mea-
sure of mercy and time to repent. Christians cannot par-
ticipate in capital punishment today, for then they would

286
pass judgment before God has done so and cut off mercy
before God desires to do so. How ironic it would be to
promote capital punishment and prison ministry at the
same time!
The civil government bears the sword as a servant of
God in maintaining order, exacting vengeance and caus-
ing the evildoer to fear (Romans 13:4). This implies cap-
ital punishment, although it may simply mean the use of
physical force or restraint to maintain order. Apparently,
the civil government can impose capital punishment for
some offenses. God uses the ungodly society as an instru-
ment to bring judgment upon ungodly lawbreakers.
However, this does not mean He desires for His people to
perform executions, for Christians are warned not to take
vengeance (Romans 12:19).
A Christian should refuse to condemn a person to
death as juror, judge, or executioner. To be logically con-
sistent, if one will participate in the sentencing process,
he should be willing to perform the execution. However,
in light of Christ’s teachings, this is not a proper role for
a Christian.

Abortion and the Scriptures

One can view abortion in one of three ways: (1) The

unborn child is a human being with a right to life. (2) The
unborn child is a potential human life; we must protect it
unless more significant harm will be done to an actual
human life. (3) The unborn child is not a human life, so
deliberate abortion is morally acceptable.
It appears that God Himself views the unborn child as

287
a human being. Psalm 139:13-16 plainly teaches that God
creates, cares for, and makes plans for the child in the
womb. “For You have formed my inward parts; You have
covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I
am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your
works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was
not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skill-
fully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes
saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book
they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as
yet there were none of them” (NKJV).
God fashions and forms the unborn child (Job
10:8-12; 31:15). God made plans for both Isaiah and
Jeremiah while they were yet in the womb (Isaiah 49:1-5;
Jeremiah 1:5). The Holy Ghost moved upon John the
Baptist while he was in the womb (Luke 1:41, 44).
The law imposed a penalty for those who hurt the
unborn child: “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child,
so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no lasting harm
follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the
woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as
the judges determine. But if any lasting harm follows,
then you shall give life for life” (Exodus 21:22-23, NKJV).
According to Genesis 9:6, God forbids the killing of
man because He made man in His image. Doctors have no
difficulty in identifying the unborn child as human; it
shares the image of God with the rest of humanity. Con-
sequently, killing this child violates God’s law.
When does the child become human? When does it
become a soul? Many alternatives have been proposed:
conception, implantation (when the fertilized egg attaches
to the wall of the womb), forty days, quickening (when

288
the mother first feels movement), viability (when it
becomes capable of surviving outside the womb), birth,
or ten days after birth.
Since God treats the unborn child as human, we can
eliminate birth as the time when life begins. Adam
became a living soul when he breathed the breath of life,
but God uniquely created Adam and Eve as adults while
creating everyone else in the womb. Moreover, the
unborn child does “breathe” amniotic fluid.
Conception is the most clearly defined point for the
unborn child to receive its spiritual identity. Scripture in-
dicates that the child inherits its sinful human nature at
conception. “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin
did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5). The Spirit of
God caused the conception of Jesus in the womb of a vir-
gin (Matthew 1:18, 20). Specifically because of this
miraculous conception, the child was God with us, the
Son of God, and the only begotten of the Father (Isaiah
7:14; Luke 1:35; John 1:14). The Son of Mary received
the nature of deity at conception; the Incarnation took
place at that time.
All alternatives other than conception are highly arbi-
trary, incapable of clear determination, and without bibli-
cal support. Modern technology has pushed the point of
detection of movement and the point of viability to earlier
times than ever before. In view of the extreme uncertain-
ty and lack of biblical evidence associated with the other
alternatives, we cannot afford to act upon them. This
means we should avoid abortion at every stage, including
birth control methods that do not prevent conception but
only prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. This would
include some types of birth control pills (the mini-pill)

289
and the interuterine device (IUD).
We conclude from Scripture that the unborn child is a
human being with a right to life as great as our own.

Medical Evidence on the Unborn Child

The scientific evidence supports our conclusion.

(See Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life
before Birth.3) Here are some key facts relative to the
development of the unborn baby, taken from When You
Were Formed in Secret by Gary Bergel with remarks by
C. Everett Koop M.D.4 (Koop has since served as Surgeon
General of the U.S.) It is significant to note how much
development takes place in the first few weeks, before the
mother even knows she is pregnant.
Week 1: The fertilized egg attaches to the wall of the
womb.
Week 2: The tiny organism begins to send hormonal
signals to the mother.
Week 3: The heart begins beating. The brain begins to
form and soon sends impulses throughout the body. If it
were outside the womb, it would be legally alive.
Week 4: Legs and arms form.
Month 2: The inner ear forms. Feeble body move-
ments can be recorded. The fetus swims and responds to
touch. All this indicates that the nervous system has
developed to the point that the baby can experience
pain.
Month 3: The baby sleeps and wakes. He “breathes,”
drinks, and excretes amniotic fluid. He can distinguish
tastes. The vocal cords are complete; he could cry if he

290
had air. The fingerprints are complete, giving a unique
legal identity.
Month 4: Facial features are distinct. The baby usually
begins to suck his thumb.
Months 5-6: The baby hiccups, kicks, punches, and
recognizes his mother’s voice. He has a favorite position
in which to settle.
Months 7-9: By this time, the baby has full use of
sight, hearing, taste, and touch. He has experienced his
own motions, waking and sleeping, and secretions. He
relates to the moods and emotions of his mother. Before
he ever leaves the womb he has already experienced a
wide range of human activities and stored them in his
brain for assistance in facing the future.

Abortion Methods

Five methods of abortion are currently in use in

America.5 The first two account for over 95% of all abor-
tions.
(1) Dilatation and Curettage (D & C). The abortion-
ist uses a curette, a tiny hoe-like instrument, to scrape the
wall of the womb. This cuts the baby’s body into pieces.
Nurses reassemble the body parts to make certain that
nothing remains in the womb.
(2) Suction. The abortionist uses a suction tube to
suck the baby into a jar, again tearing the body into
pieces. At a recent Right to Life Convention, Dr. Bernard
Nathanson, a former abortionist, showed a movie of this
method. The film used new sonographic techniques and
showed “the outline of the child in the womb thrashing to

291
resist the suction device before it tears off the head.” 6
(3) Salt Poisoning. The abortionist uses a long needle
to inject a strong salt solution directly into the amniotic
fluid. The baby swallows and “breathes” the salt, which
poisons and burns him. About a day later the dead, shriv-
eled baby is expelled from the womb. Occasionally, babies
survive this process and are born alive with a grotesque
physical appearance.
(4) Hysterotomy or Caesarean Section. This method
is most used in the last three months. The abortionist
removes the baby surgically, just as in a Caesarean birth,
except that the baby dies.
(5) Prostaglandin Chemicals. The abortionist applies
hormone-like compounds to the muscle of the womb
which cause intense contractions that push out the baby
prematurely.
When these last two methods are used, the baby will
occasionally be born alive, to the dismay of all concerned.
It thereby obtains a legal right to life, although it usually
receives minimal medical help and soon dies. In some
such cases, abortionists have killed the baby by total
neglect or by a direct act, even though this is legally
manslaughter or murder. The doctor can legally kill the
baby while holding it in the womb; it is illegal for him to
kill it once it is outside the womb.

Are Some Abortions Justifiable?

Reasons often given for justifying abortion include

preserving the mother’s life, the expectation of a defec-
tive child, rape, and incest. However, these account for

292
only 3% of all abortions; the other 97% occur for matters
of convenience and economy.7 Pro-abortionists justify the
97% by arguing: (1) a woman should have absolute con-
trol over her body and (2) everyone will suffer if a child
comes into a family that is emotionally and financially
unprepared for it. However, the time to consider these
things is when deciding to marry and to engage in sexual
activity. The solution is birth control, not abortion. The
mother voluntarily subordinates certain of her rights to
those of her child when she allows herself to become
pregnant. Adoption is always available for those who do
not want the child. The real issue is convenience; the
mother does not want to undergo the remaining months
of her pregnancy. Surely, matters of convenience cannot
take precedence over human life. If this reason justifies
abortion, what prevents it from justifying infanticide as
well?
What if the child will probably be physically or men-
tally handicapped? We must affirm that all human life is
worth living. Handicapped persons can enjoy life as much
as anyone else. Otherwise, this reasoning would justify
killing of handicapped adults. Once conception occurs,
the decision is not ours but God’s. Many times, doctors
significantly overestimate the health problems of the
unborn child. Clan we afford to abort this life with its
unknown potential when nature has not chosen to do so
by miscarriage?
What about cases of rape and incest? These are very
difficult situations, but if the unborn child is actually a
human being, can we kill it because of its father’s sin?
If the rape victim reports immediately to a doctor she
can almost certainly prevent pregnancy. Can we kill the

293
unborn baby because its mother was ignorant and failed
to take proper action? The child is a result of sin, but can
we kill children conceived out of wedlock on the same
basis? The rape victim does not deserve what has hap-
pened to her, but can we ease her situation by killing an
innocent third party? Suppose a married woman is raped
by a man of a different race and conceives as a result.
Suppose she thinks the child is a product of her marriage,
but at birth discovers it is not. If we can justify abortion
for rape, can we justify infanticide in this situation? In
view of all these moral difficulties, it seems advisable for
a victim of rape or incest to have her child and give it up
for adoption rather than to have an abortion.
Finally, can we allow abortion to save the mother’s
life? First, we should rely on the general will of God to
heal and to help the holy woman in childbirth (I Timothy
2:15). If the mother’s life is actually at stake, however,
the doctor should perhaps take the baby early. In this
case, the intent is not to kill either mother or child but to
save the life of both if possible. Even if the child dies,
this is no more than what would happen to the mother
otherwise. The choice is not between killing and not
killing, but between letting one person die and letting
two people die.
This situation is unique to pregnancy, because in no
other case are the physical lives of two people inextrica-
bly intertwined in this manner. In our day, many promi-
nent doctors maintain that, given the advances of modern
medicine, it is never necessary to perform an abortion
because of complications of pregnancy.8

294
 Teaching in Church History: War

Roland Bainton remarked that “no Christian writer

prior to the time of Constantine approved of Christian
participation in warfare. . . . The primary reason for the
objection to participation in warfare was the aversion to
bloodshed. . . . Bloodshed was abhorred by the Church.
Therefore, of course, gladiatorial combats were con-
demned and the Christians could not witness them. Chris-
tians could assume no magisterial post that carried with
it the possibility of passing a sentence of death.” 9 Kenneth
Latourette affirmed that no Christian writing of the first
three centuries condoned participation in war.10
Tertullian said that God “puts His interdict on every
sort of man-killing by that one summary precept, ‘Thou
shalt not kill.’” 11 Specifically, he concluded that warfare
was not proper at all for Christians. He asked, “Shall it be
held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the
Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by
the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the bat-
tle when it does not become him even to sue at law?” 12
The Canons of Hippolytus stated, “It is not meet
for Christians to bear arms.” 13 Hippolytus claimed
apostolic tradition in opposition to all killing. For con-
verts he said, “A soldier of the civil authority must be
taught not to kill men and refuse to do so if he is com-
manded, and to refuse to take an oath; if he is unwill-
ing to comply, he must be rejected. A military commander
or civic magistrate that wears the purple must resign or
be rejected.” 14
The pagan Celsus charged Christians with undermin-
ing the state because they abstained from war. Origen did

295
not deny this charge of pacifism, but argued that if every-
one became Christians war would become unnecessary.
“If all the Romans . . . embrace the Christian faith, they
will, when they pray, overcome their enemies; or rather,
they will not war at all, being guarded by that divine
power which promised to save five entire cities for the
sake of fifty just persons. . . . When God gives to the
tempter permission to persecute us, then we suffer per-
secution; and when God wishes us to be free from suf-
fering, even in the midst of a world that hates us, we
enjoy a wonderful peace, trusting in the protection of
Him who said, ‘Be of good cheer, I have overcome the
world.’” 15
Celsus urged Christians to help the king by going to
war. Origen replied that Christians fight spiritually for the
king through prayer. “And as we by our prayers vanquish
all demons who stir up war, and lead to the violation of
oaths, and disturb the peace, we in this way are much
more helpful to the kings than those who go into the field
to fight for them. . . . We do not indeed fight under him,
although he require it; but we fight on his behalf, forming
a special army—an army of piety—by offering our
prayers to God.” 16
Lactantius wrote, “For when God forbids us to kill, He
not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not
even allowed by the public laws, but He warns us against
the commission of those things which are esteemed law-
ful among men. Thus [it is not] lawful for a just man to
engage in warfare. . . . Therefore, with regard to this pre-
cept of God, there ought to be no exception at all; but that
it is always unlawful to put to death a man.” 17
In the Middle Ages, the Waldensians opposed all tak-

296
ing of human life. During the Reformation, the Anabap-
tists even rejected military service on the ground that all
taking of human life is sinful. Thus the Mennonites and
the Hutterites today are pacifists. The Quakers likewise
are pacifists. The early Pentecostals were pacifists, with
many rejecting all military service. The Assemblies of
God originally discouraged military service, but now
leaves the decision to the individual. The United
Pentecostal Church does not oppose noncombatant mili-
tary service, but does oppose all killing.
The Articles of Faith of the UPC state, “We believe and
interpret, [the Bible] to mean Christians shall not shed
blood nor take human life. Therefore we propose to fulfill
all the obligations of loyal citizens, but are constrained to
declare against participating in combatant service in war,
armed insurrection, property destruction, aiding or abet-
ting in or the actual destruction of human life. . . . We
believe that we can be consistent in serving our Govern-
ment in certain noncombatant capacities, but not in the
bearing of arms.” 18

Teaching in Church History: Abortion

Latourette noted that the early church fathers univer-

sally condemned abortion.19
Athenagorus wrote, “Those women who use drugs to
bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an
account to God for the abortion . . . [We] regard the very
foetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an
object of God’s care.” 20
Pagans accused Christians of killing and eating chil-

297
dren in secret rites. Tertullian countered, “Murder being
once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the foe-
tus in the womb. . . . To hinder a birth is merely a speed-
ier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away
a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the
birth. . . . Blush for your vile ways before the Christians,
who have not even the blood of animals at their meals of
simple and natural food; who abstain from things stran-
gled. . . . You tempt Christians with sausages of blood,
just because you are perfectly aware that the thing by
which you thus try to get them to transgress they hold
unlawful. And how unreasonable it is to believe that
those, of whom you are convinced that they regard with
horror the idea of tasting the blood of oxen, are eager
after the blood of men.” 21
Minucius Felix wrote, “There are some women who,
by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source
of the future man in their very bowels, and thus commit
a parricide [murder of a relative] before they bring
forth. . . . To us it is not lawful either to see or to hear of
homicide; and so much do we shrink from human blood,
that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in
our food.” 22
The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles say, “Thou
shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that
which is begotten.” 23
The Roman Catholic Church today strongly opposes
abortion, even in cases of rape, danger to the mother’s
life, and malformation of the unborn. Most liberal Prot-
estant churches allow it, while conservative Protestants
still oppose the practice.
Abortion was illegal throughout most of the history of

298
the United States. In 1967 Colorado became the first state
to make abortion on demand legal in cases of grave dan-
ger to the mother’s physical or mental health, rape, incest,
or likelihood of severe deformity.24 In 1973 the Supreme
Court struck down all laws that severely restricted abor-
tion. In 1974, the first full year of legalized abortion,
almost 900,000 abortions took place in the U.S.25
According to U.S. News & World Report, over 1,500,000
legal abortions were performed in 1980. Literally millions
of unborn children die from abortions. Statistically, the
most dangerous place for a child is its mother’s womb.

Conclusion

In many ways our society is losing its sense of the

sanctity of human life. Abortion is now commonplace.
People have smothered or starved aborted babies who
continued to live outside the womb. Warfare is endemic
to our planet. Violence is a favorite topic for television
and movies, and audiences love it. The news media rou-
tinely portray brutal scenes of war, terrorism, crime, and
accidents. Many theologians advocate violent rebellion
and terrorism as valid methods of achieving greater social
justice and democracy. Most countries use murder to
quell political dissent and accept aggressive war as part
of international politics. In general, our world accepts
violence and bloodshed as legitimate means to publicize
issues, resolve differences of opinion, and assert rights.
Recently there have been many specific indications of
the decreasing value society places on human life. In
Bloomington, Indiana, “a baby with Down’s syndrome

299
was starved to death in a hospital after doctors, parents,
and a state court agreed that no treatment should be
given.” 26 A victim of cerebral palsy sued to force health
care workers to let her commit suicide by starvation; for-
tunately, the court refused her. A U.S. governor discussed
the duty of the elderly to die and relieve the next genera-
tion of the costly burden of care. The World Council of
Churches has provided financial support for “liberation”
armies committed to violence. A Nobel prize winner advo-
cates that infants not be declared human until several
days after birth so that those with defects can be legally
killed. The Humanist Manifesto recognizes the right to
commit suicide.
We wonder how the Nazis could have murdered six
million Jews and how a nation of civilized, “Christian”
people could have allowed such crimes to occur. Yet by
desensitizing ourselves to violence and killing, we are
conditioning ourselves to the point where our society
could accept such crimes on a similar scale. Already we
have accepted the killing of more than one million unborn
babies per year. Will this philosophy spread to justify
infanticide, euthanasia (“mercy killing”), killing of the
handicapped, killing of the aged, or assisting someone
who wishes to commit suicide? Where will it end?
What would the man Jesus do? Would Christ perform
an abortion? Would Christ cut up an unborn child and
throw it in a trash can? Would Christ shoot to kill a mug-
ger? Would Christ be a sniper in the army? Would Christ
plant a minefield? Would Christ flip the switch on an elec-
tric chair? Would Christ be a member of a firing squad? If
He would not, then neither can we. The Christian solution
is to affirm the sanctity of the individual human life to

300
such an extent that we will not deliberately take a human
life for any reason.

FOOTNOTES
1
Rushdoony, p. 279.
2
Norman Geisler, Ethics: Issues and Alternatives (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1971), p. 176.
3
Landrum Shettles, M.D. and Daniel Rorvick, Rites of Life: The
Scientific Evidence for Life before Birth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1983).
4
Gary Bergel with C. Everett Koop, Abortion in America and
When You Were Formed in Secret (Elyria, Ohio: Intercessors for
America, 1980).
5
Ibid., p. II-4.
6
Joseph Sobran, “Burden of proof is now on abortionists,”
Jackson Daily News, June 22, 1984, p. 10A.

301
 7
Bergel, p. II-7.
8
William Nolen, M.D., The Baby in the Bottle (New York: Coward,
McCann & Geoghegan, 1978), pp. 35, 57.
9
Bainton, pp. 50-54.
10
Latourette, I, 242-243.
11
Tertullian, The Shows, 2, ANF, III, 80.
12
Tertullian, The Chaplet [On the Crown], 11, ANF, III, 99.
13
“Heads of the Canons of Abulides or Hippolytus,” ANF, V, 256.
14
Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition, in Bainton, p. 152.
15
Origen, Against Celsus, 70, ANF, IV, 666.
16
Ibid., 75, ANF, IV, 668.
17
Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 6.22, ANF, VII, 187.
18
Manual, United Pentecostal Church International (1984), p. 24.
19
Latourette, I, 248.
20
Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, 35, ANF, II, 147.
21
Tertullian, Apology, 9, ANF, III, 25.
22
Minucius Felix, The Octavius, 30, ANF, IV, 192.
23
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 7.3, ANF, VII, 466.
24
“The Sexual Revolution of the Twentieth Century,” Christianity
Today, November 11, 1983, p. 29.
25
Donald Shoemaker, Abortion, The Bible, and the Christian
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), p. 9.
26
“Koop’s Compromise: A Step Toward Protecting the Baby Does
of the Future,” Christianity Today, February 1984, p. 44.

302
 13
ASTROLOGY
“Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dis-
mayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dis-
mayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain”
(Jeremiah 10:2-3).

Definition
Astrology is “divination that treats of the supposed
influences of the stars upon human affairs and of foretell-
ing terrestrial events by their positions and aspects.” 1
Divination is “the art or practice that seeks to foretell or
foresee future events or discover hidden knowledge usu.
by means of augury or by . . . supernatural powers.”
Sorcery is “the use of power gained from the assistance
or control of evil spirits esp. for divining,” while witch-
craft is “an act or instance of employing sorcery.”

Scriptural Teaching Against Astrology

The Bible opposes all forms of witchcraft, sorcery,

303
and magic, which by definition include fortunetelling and
divination. (By magic we mean heathen and demonic
practices, not sleight of hand, optical illusions, or other
tricks presented merely for entertainment.) This scrip-
tural prohibition includes astrology, since astrology is a
type of divination.
Witchcraft is a work of the flesh that leads to damna-
tion (Galatians 5:19-21). All sorcerers shall have their part
in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). Paul cast out an evil
spirit of divination that possessed a woman in Philippi,
and the preaching of the gospel inspired the burning of
many occult books in Ephesus (Acts 16:16-18; 19:18-20).
Deuteronomy 18:9-12 says, “When you enter the land
the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate
the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be
found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in
the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets
omens, engages in witchcraft, or cast spells, or who is a
medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone
who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and
because of these detestable practices the LORD your God
will drive out those nations before you” (NIV).
In Jeremiah 10 the LORD told His people not to learn
the ways of heathen nations. Specifically, He instructed
Israel not to pay any attention to astrological signs in the
sky or to worship idols.
In Isaiah 47, God condemned all forms of witchcraft,
explicitly including astrological prediction. This chapter
describes the fall of Babylon, a city noted for its
astrologers, magicians, and soothsayers. “You have trust-
ed in your wickedness and have said, ‘No one sees me.’
Your wisdom and knowledge mislead you when you say to

304
yourself, ‘I am, and there is none besides me.’ Disaster
will come upon you, and you will not know how to con-
jure it away. A calamity will fall upon you that you cannot
ward off with a ransom; a catastrophe you cannot foresee
will suddenly come upon you. Keep on, then, with your
magic spells and with your many sorceries, which you
have labored at since childhood. Perhaps you will suc-
ceed, perhaps you will cause terror. All the counsel you
have received has only worn you out! Let your astrologers
come forward, those stargazers who make predictions
month by month, let them save you from what is coming
upon you. Surely they are like stubble; the fire will burn
them up. They cannot even save themselves from the
power of the flame. Here are no coals to warm anyone;
here is no fire to sit by. That is all they can do for you—
these you have labored with and trafficked with since
childhood. Each of them goes on in his error; there is not
one that can save you” (Isaiah 47:10-15, NIV).
The Book of Daniel also shows the bankruptcy of
these Babylonian occult practices. The astrologers, magi-
cians, and soothsayers could not understand or reveal
God’s truth to the Babylonian king (Daniel 2:27; 5:15).
Job proclaimed his innocence of sun and moon wor-
ship (Job 31:26). King Josiah of Judah eliminated the
worship of the sun, moon, constellations, planets, and
stars (II Kings 23:5). One of Israel’s sins was the worship
of stars (Amos 5:26; Acts 7:43).

False Science

Astrology is based on a false understanding of the

305
universe from the perspective of true science, as the
following points demonstrate.
* The whole system assumes that the sun circles the
earth. Predictions are based on the star constellations
that appear in the path of the sun as it supposedly travels
around the earth. However, we now know that the earth
revolves around the sun and that the sun does not actu-
ally travel from one constellation to the other.
* The earth wobbles unevenly as it spins on its axis.
Therefore, in our day the sun appears to enter each con-
stellation one month earlier than it did when the astro-
logical charts were invented centuries ago. Even if
astrology were valid, one’s horoscope would be one
month earlier than astrologers say. Yet people claim to see
great truth in the horoscopes assigned to them.
* Thousands of stars have been discovered since
astrology was invented, yet astrology does not consider
their possible influences.
* For many weeks of the year no constellations
appear north of the Arctic Circle. Do Scandinavians,
Eskimos, and Siberians born under these circumstance
not have a horoscope?
* Different religions have contradictory astrological
systems. Which system is correct, the one used in the
West, the one used in the Far East, or yet another?
* The primary force by which one body in space acts
upon another is gravity. Yet the sun and moon’s gravita-
tional pull on the earth each outweighs by far that of all
stars and planets combined.
* Astrology is based on the moment of birth. Does
this mean a mother can change her child’s personality by
choosing a Caesarean birth? Why would not the moment

306
of conception be more significant than the moment of
birth? (Of course, this would put astrologers out of business
since no one can determine the moment of conception.)
* Astrology does not know that the earth is a sphere
instead of a flat surface. Two persons may be born at the
same time but in opposite hemispheres under totally dif-
ferent astronomical conditions.
In view of astrology’s faulty scientific basis, how can
some find great predictive value in it? Most are gullible
and deceived. Astrology’s descriptions are so general that
someone who wants to believe in them can usually find a
resemblance to real life. Moreover, astrology can be a
self-fulfilling prophecy. If someone believes his horoscope
he will act accordingly. His attitude towards himself and
the world around him will significantly influence his ac-
tions and others’ reactions to him.
When astrologers have predicted specific events, they
have often been wrong. Even the most famous diviners of
today have made many documented predictions that
failed to come to pass. In general, their predictions are no
more accurate than any educated guesswork. According
to the Bible, if a prophecy fails to come to pass, then the
prophet is false (Deuteronomy 18:20-22). We must also
recognize that some astrologers and fortunetellers oper-
ate with satanic powers (Acts 16:16-19).

There is No “Godly” Astrology

Some claim that there is a true or godly astrology and

a false or satanic astrology. However, the scriptural ref-
erences we have given link all astrology with evil and

307
prohibit all astrological speculation or prediction.
Nowhere does the Bible associate astrology with God. We
cannot trace the origin of any astrological system to God
but only to pagan religions.
God made the sun, moon, and stars as lights, as rulers
over night and day, and for signs, seasons, days, and years
(Genesis 1:14-18). They are rulers over night and day
because they bring light into an otherwise dark world.
They are for signs because they serve as navigational aids
and location finders. They are for seasons, days, and
years because they determine and display the progression
of days, months, seasons of the year, and years. There is
no astrological significance to these functions.
Psalm 19:1 states, “The heavens declare the glory of
God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.” This
psalm speaks of God’s creative power as displayed in
nature. Through the testimony of creation itself we can
know that God exists and we can learn much about His
character and power. “For since the creation of the world
His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even His eternal power and
Godhead” (Romans 1:20, NKJV). Psalm 19:1 and Romans
1:20 express the same basic truth, and it would be a
distortion of the Bible message to say the former verse
supports astrology.
Deborah’s song of victory stated that the stars in
heaven fought against the enemy general Sisera (Judges
5:20). We believe this is an example of a poetic figure of
speech. If Deborah believed it literally, then the Bible
records it as her belief but not as God’s truth. Some think
this passage actually refers to angelic warfare.
The Star of Bethlehem did not involve the use of mag-

308
ical astrology. The wise men from the East were probably
acquainted with astrology, but the Star of Bethlehem
stood out as distinct from any system of astrology known
to man. If they were observing the heavens for astrologi-
cal reasons, they immediately recognized that this star
was an exceptional one and followed it precisely because
it did not fit into any pagan system. God did not use an
astrological sign, but used an unusual astronomical event
to attract their attention, just as He has used other forces
in nature such as earthquakes, wind, and fire. Just as His
use of fire at Mount Sinai does not endorse fire worship,
so His use of the star does not endorse astrology.
It is dangerous to use astrology in an attempt to fur-
ther the claims of Christianity or to predict the future. We
must base all doctrine and prophecy solely on the written
Word of God. Use of the false claims of astrology can only
serve to discredit Christianity.
For example, a few years ago some borrowed the
astrological belief that we would enter into a new age
when all the planets were in alignment. They predicted all
sorts of tumultuous events based on the gravitational pull
of the aligned planets, but true scientists accurately pre-
dicted that no such events would occur simply because the
combined pull of all the planets is insignificant compared
to that of the sun and moon on the earth. Of course, the
time for this event has come and gone, and “Christian”
astrology has failed once again.
In some cases, Christians have actually used astrology
to assist them in understanding personalities and in coun-
selling. All such efforts are futile, because both science
and Scripture testify that there is no truth to astrology.
Furthermore, by using a satanic tool such as astrology,

309
these people have actually allowed themselves to come
under Satan’s influence. We can cite examples of Chris-
tians who have been led into the occult and who have
transformed themselves into cultists because of their
superstitious interest in and involvement with astrology.

Teaching in Church History

The ante-Nicene fathers were strong in their denun-
ciation of astrology and all other forms of magic. The
Didache says, “My child, be not an observer of omens,
since it leadeth the way to idolatry, neither an enchanter,
nor an astrologer.” 2
Hippolytus devoted Book IV of his work The Refuta-
tion of All Heresies to disproving the false claims of
astrology. He called it an “art of divination” and an “impo-
tent . . . system.” 3 He said that according to apostolic tra-
dition no magician, enchanter, astrologer, diviner, or
soothsayer could maintain his occupation and be a
Christian.4
Tertullian also wrote against astrology.5
Lactantius said that astrology, soothsaying, divination,
necromancy, and magic were all inventions of devils.6
The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles admonished
Christians to avoid all heathen “enchantments, observa-
tions of omens, soothsayings, purgations, divinations,
observations of birds; their necromancies and invoca-
tions.” 7 Furthermore, no Christian could be “a magician,
an enchanter, an astrologer, a diviner, an user of magic
verses, a juggler, a mountebank, one that makes amulets,
a charmer, a soothsayer, a fortune-teller, an observer of
palmistry.” 8

310
 Conclusion

In conclusion, the Bible teaches that we should avoid

all witchcraft and divination, including all forms of astrol-
ogy. We must not attempt to find God’s truth by using a
heathen practice. If we want to know God’s truth, let us
go to His Word! If we seek insight to help plan our lives,
or to counsel others, let us ask wisdom of God, who will
give liberally to all who ask in faith (James 1:5-6). If we
are curious about the future, let us place our faith in God
and the Word of God.

FOOTNOTES

1
The definitions in this paragraph come from Webster’s Third
New International Dictionary of the English Language, pp. 135,
663, 2174, 2625.
2
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 3.4, ANF, VII, 378.
3
Hippolytus, The Refutation of All Heresies, 4.27, ANF, V, 34.
4
Bainton, p. 152.
5
Tertullian, On Idolatry, 9, ANF, III, 65.
6
Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 2.17, ANF, VII, 65.
7
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 2.7.62, ANF, VII, 424.
8
Ibid., 8.4.32, ANF, VII, 495.

311
 14
WORLDLY
AMUSEMENTS
“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the
world” (I John 2:15).
“For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish,
disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and plea-
sures” (Titus 3:3).

Scriptural Concepts

There is nothing wrong with pleasure in itself. God

desires for us to enjoy life, and He is not displeased with
an activity simply because it brings physical, mental, and
emotional pleasure. After all, He designed our capacity
for pleasure, and He Himself takes pleasure in His crea-
tion. Christ came that we might have abundant life, in the
present and throughout eternity (John 10:10).
The Bible stands firmly, however, against pleasures and
amusements associated with worldly lusts and attitudes.

313
According to Christ’s parable of the sower, many who ini-
tially accept the Word eventually have their spiritual life
choked out by thorns, which are the “cares and riches and
pleasures of this life” (Luke 8:14). The Bible warns
against all forms of worldliness (Romans 12:2; James 4:4;
I John 2:15-16). Moses chose not to “enjoy the pleasures
of sin for a season” but rather to identify with the people
of God and to inherit eternal riches (Hebrews 11:24-26).
Paul remarked that before our conversion we were fool-
ish, disobedient, and deceived, serving worldly lusts and
pleasures (Titus 3:3). He compared the Christian life to
that of a disciplined soldier who refuses to become
involved in civilian (worldly) affairs. “Endure hardness, as
a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No man that warreth
entangleth himself with the affairs of this life” (II Timothy
2:3-4). From these passages, it is evident that some plea-
sures are not conducive to Christian living and can in fact
be sinful.
As Titus 3:3 suggests, any amusement that would
become our master or that would interfere with our rela-
tionship to God is wrong. In general, we must not submit
our minds or bodies to anything that will be addictive or
will bring us under its power (Romans 6:16; I Corinthians
6:12). All too often the spirit of pleasure so captivates
people that they neglect their relationship with God,
prayer, church attendance, Bible reading, witnessing, and
working for God. We must never let enticing pleasures
distort our spiritual priorities or rob us of all our available
time. We must always place God first in our lives, fol-
lowed by family and church. We should redeem the
time—make the most of every opportunity—because the
days are evil (Ephesians 5:16; Colossians 4:5).

314
 Paul warned that in the last days men would be
“lovers of their own selves” and “lovers of pleasures more
than lovers of God” (II Timothy 3:2, 4). In Noah’s day,
people were so busy eating, drinking, marrying, and giv-
ing in marriage that they were oblivious to the message of
judgment, and the same is true prior to the second com-
ing of Christ (Matthew 24:37-39). At some point, even
participation in permissible activities becomes excessive
and displeasing to God.

Worldly Appearance

For convenience of analysis, we will discuss worldli-

ness in three categories. First, some things should be
avoided because of their worldly appearance or associa-
tion. “Abstain from all appearance of evil” (I Thessalonians
5:22). There may be nothing inherently wrong with a cer-
tain activity, but because of its worldly appearance,
connotation, or impression it should be avoided. The
world says, “I will do what I want regardless of what any-
one else thinks.” Even Christians are prone to think, “As
long as I know I am not sinning I do not care what any-
one else thinks.” However, we must not only be right but
also appear right in the sight of everyone. “Be careful to
do what is right in the eyes of everybody” (Romans 12:17,
NIV). “For we are taking pains to do what is right, not
only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men”
(II Corinthians 8:21, NIV). We are stewards of our fellow
Christian and our fellow man; it is important that we do
nothing to offend them needlessly or to cause them to
stumble. (See Chapter 4.)

315
 Worldly Atmosphere

Second, some things are detrimental to Christian living

because an excessively worldly atmosphere or environ-
ment surrounds them, even though the activities them-
selves are acceptable. A basic principle of Christian liberty
is to avoid activities that become detrimental or get the
mastery over us, even if they are morally neutral in them-
selves (I Corinthians 6:12; 10:23). Harmless activities
become harmful when conducted in an openly sinful
atmosphere. The biblical injunctions to avoid worldliness
certainly direct us not to congregate habitually in such an
environment. Perhaps Psalm 1:1 has a literal application
here: “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of
the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth
in the seat of the scornful.” (See Psalm 26:4-5.)
A worldly atmosphere might include things such as
gambling, cursing, smoking, drinking, extreme rivalry,
violence, gossip, immodest dress, “petting or necking,”
lewd language, lewd activities, and immoral music. Of
course, the Christian will face these things to some
degree simply by living in this world. It is impossible to
avoid all worldly influences. At some point, however, a
place becomes so saturated with some or all of these evils
that the only Christian response is to avoid it totally. In
making this decision, the Christian must evaluate specific
activities in light of the particular local situation.

Inherently Worldly Amusements

Finally, certain activities are excessively worldly in

316
themselves, and must always be shunned. “And have no
fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but
rather reprove them” (Ephesians 5:11). For example,
among other things, we must shun revellings (or rioting)
and banquetings (Romans 13:13; Galatians 5:21; I Peter
4:3). The NKJV calls them revelries and drinking parties,
while the NIV calls them orgies and carousing. In many
cases, even though there may be no explicit scriptural
prohibition against an activity as we know it, an applica-
tion of scriptural principles shows it to be inimical to
Christian values.

Practical Application

The proper role of the church is not merely to forbid

leisure activities indiscriminately, but to establish whole-
some alternatives compatible with Christianity. We are
not bound by externally imposed regulations, but we
choose to exercise our Christian liberty to enjoy activities
edifying to the whole man rather than those detrimental
to the spiritual man. We believe in enjoying Christianity
and enjoying life—and we do! We starve the lusts and
desires of the sinful nature, but we are able to enjoy life
as a whole person. The man bound by sin does things that
his inner, moral self hates (Romans 7:15), but with God’s
Spirit in control, we can do everything we want to do and
lead happy, fulfilled, successful lives.
The places and events that are excessively worldly
may vary depending upon time, culture, and locale. We
cannot resolve these issues by a universal, legalistic list of
do’s and don’ts, but at some point we must judge whether

317
certain activities sponsored by the world are corrupted by
the spirit of the world. We must let the Spirit, the Word,
conscience, and godly leadership warn us of situations
that are incompatible with a separated, holy lifestyle
because of their worldliness.
Innocent activities become detrimental when taken
to excess. They become wrong for us when we allow
them to dominate our thinking and time, taking us total-
ly away from spiritual things. In recent years, video
games have shown their potential to become addictive.
Some people become so preoccupied with sports and
follow sports events so closely that they are caught up in
the spirit of them. It is possible to participate so much
in any recreational activity—such as hunting, fishing,
sports, and hobbies—that there is no time left for God.
Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with these
things in their proper place.
As a modern example of worldly appearance, we do
not use regular playing cards, not because there is any-
thing wrong with the cards themselves but because of
their strong association with gambling. As another exam-
ple, sometimes one office worker will volunteer to buy
snacks for everyone. Occasionally, someone will give him
money to buy a pack of cigarettes. If a Christian accepts
the money and purchases cigarettes, he will give the
wrong impression to a casual observer; in this manner he
will devalue his witness in the office.
As examples of worldly atmosphere, we have
personally avoided certain of the following events and
places: musical concerts, office parties, large sports
activities organized by the world, fairs, pool halls, bowl-
ing alleys, and skating rinks. We have even avoided some

318
eating establishments characterized by extreme worldli-
ness in music, dress, language, clientele, and total atmos-
phere. This is not to say that, regardless of
circumstances, we would always shun the above activities
or all places where such activities are conducted. We rec-
ognize that these activities can be perfectly wholesome if
conducted in the proper atmosphere and place
As examples of modern amusements inherently
worldly under all circumstances, we can cite gambling,
modern dancing, listening to hard rock music, attending
movies, and participating in the occult.
Chapters 14 and 15 of In Search of Holiness specifi-
cally discussed the problems with worldly music, dancing,
worldly sports, worldly games, and occult practices.

Gambling

Christians have historically opposed gambling

because it violates many scriptural principles. First, it
manifests covetousness or greed. It is motivated by a
desire to get something for nothing. Covetousness or
greed is a form of idolatry, with materialism as its god
(Colossians 3:5). The Christian should not seek or expect
something for nothing, but should earn what he gets (if
he is capable of working). “If any would not work, neither
should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk
among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busy-
bodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort
by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work,
and eat their own bread” (II Thessalonians 3:10-12). (See
Ephesians 4:28.)

319
 Gambling violates the principle of love towards oth-
ers, because the gambler seeks to gain at the expense of
others without providing anything in return. Often gam-
bling hurts those who can least afford it. However,
Christian love seeks not its own (I Corinthians 13:5). “Let
no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being”
(I Corinthians 10:24, NKJV).
Gambling is poor stewardship. God has given us
everything we possess; we are only stewards of His
wealth (Luke 16:10-12; I Peter 4:10). He will require an
accounting from us for how we use what He has entrusted
to our care. Gambling takes these resources and puts
them at an unnecessary, artificial risk for the sake of
momentary pleasure. Furthermore, in organized gam-
bling the odds are always against the individual gambler,
making it that much worse of an investment.
Gambling causes many other violations of scriptural
principles, such as falling under the control of an addictive
drive (Romans 6:16; I Corinthians 6:12), failure to pay
debts (Romans 13:8), and failure to provide adequately
for one’s household (I Timothy 5:8). Furthermore, gam-
bling is inevitably associated with cheating, violence, and
organized crime. It is evil by association if nothing else.
For these reasons, we personally avoid all forms of
gambling, including betting, lotteries, and raffles.
In 1952, the Methodist Church passed this resolution
concerning gambling: “Gambling is a menace to business
integrity; it breeds crime and is destructive of the inter-
ests of good government. . . . We strongly urge all of our
churches to abstain from the use of raffles, lotteries, and
other forms of games of chance in the raising of money
for the purposes of the church.” 1 We concur. If a church

320
wishes to raise money, let it ask for gifts or let it organize
fundraisers to sell goods and services. We should not
appeal to greed in order to raise money for God. We
should not use a form of gambling, thereby lending legit-
imacy to an evil practice.
Christianity Today, an evangelical magazine, recently
editorialized against gambling as a means of government
fundraising. It stated, “The fundamental Christian objec-
tion to gambling is that it represents a denial of the God
of providence. It replaces him with the universe of pure
chance and a dependence on blind luck. Of course,
Christians have to take risks. Every businessman does
this daily as a necessary part of his business. Insurance is
a risk, but it is not a gambling because at its basis it is a
sharing of burdens. Gambling is an artificially contrived
risk, taken for selfish gain at another’s expense, with no
constructive product or social good as its goal.” 2

Rice’s “Amusements for Christians”

It is instructive to see how fundamentalist John R.

Rice discussed modern amusements in a practical way.
Below are conclusions found in his 1955 booklet,
Amusements for Christians.
* Christians should not dance because dancing
arouses lust and passion. This does not apply to noncon-
tact folk dancing or to an individual spontaneous dance
for joy as described in the Bible.
* Hollywood movies are wrong because of their con-
tent, but there is nothing wrong with the technological
device itself.

321
 * Any game regularly used for gambling, such as
bridge or regular playing cards, should be avoided because
of the appearance of evil and the offense it could cause.
* Sports can be either good or bad, depending upon
the atmosphere and type of crowd. Some things that
would make a sports event excessively worldly are drink-
ing, foul language, immodest dress, gambling, and
unchristian attitudes.
* Secular music can be either wholesome or unwhole-
some depending upon the content of the songs.
* Indoor games such as checkers and chess are good.
* Tennis is good if players wear modest dress and if
women do not wear slacks or shorts.
* Skating and bowling are good in themselves, but
the environment can be detrimental. Here are some prob-
lems often associated with skating rinks and bowling
alleys: indecent dress, bad language, drinking, “necking,”
and poor reputation in the community.
* Swimming is wholesome, but there should be no
mixed swimming because of immodest exposure of the
body.
* The modern circus and the opera are usually not
objectionable, but Christians should be sensitive to the
dictates of conscience.
* Plays and novels must be evaluated individually,
depending on their content.

Teaching in Church History

Many today would regard our self disciplined approach

to amusements as too narrow and restrictive. In this

322
regard, it is very instructive to see how Christian groups
of ages past handled these and similar amusements.
Early Christians avoided pagan festivals and public
amusements because of the pagan beliefs, pagan prac-
tices, and immorality associated with them.3 The editors
of The Ante-Nicene Fathers remarked, “Let us note that
the whole spirit of antiquity is opposed to worldliness. It
reflects the precept, ‘Be not conformed to this world’ and
in nothing more emphatically than in hostility to theatri-
cal amusements.” 4
In particular, Tertullian wrote in The Shows that Chris-
tians should not attend the circus, theater, combats, race-
course, or amphitheater (public games).5 These included
gladiatorial combats, wild beast combats, chariot racing,
boxing, wrestling, and gymnastics. Here are the reasons
he gave: these events were filled with idolatry, blasphemy
of God’s name, lust of pleasure, rivalry, rage, bitterness,
wrath, grief, passionate excitement, passionate desire,
betting, cursing, immodest exposure of the body, vio-
lence, and bloodshed. He said there could be a lust of
pleasure just as there is a lust of money, food, power, or
glory. Instead of participating in these worldly pleasures,
Tertullian recommended that Christians look forward to
the New Jerusalem, where there would be eternal, joyous
celebrations worthy of participation.
Clement of Alexandria opposed public spectacles, the
racecourse, and the theater.6 He disapproved of these
public entertainments because of the confusion, lust,
gossip, base actions, riots, and cruelty associated with
them.
Hippolytus stated that according to apostolic tradition
the following professions were off limits to Christians:

323
actor, pantomimist, charioteer, frequenter of races, gladi-
ator, trainer of gladiators, huntsman (in wild beast
shows), anyone else connected with these shows, and
official in charge of gladiatorial exhibitions.7
The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles banned these
occupations: anyone associated with the theater, chario-
teer, dueller, racer, player for prizes, Olympic gamester,
musician at the games, ticket seller for the theater, and
dancingmaster.8
Minucius Felix wrote, “We therefore, who are esti-
mated by our character and our modesty, reasonably
abstain from evil pleasures, and from . . . pomps and exhi-
bitions.” 9
Under the heading, “That Worldly Things are Abso-
lutely to be Avoided” we find these comments of Com-
modianus: “If certain teachers, while looking for your
gifts or fearing your persons, relax individual things to
you, not only do I . . . grieve, but I am compelled to speak
the truth. Thou art going to vain shows with the crowd of
the evil one, where Satan is at work in the circus with din.
Thou persuadest thyself that everything that shall please
thee is lawful. . . . Dost thou wish to see the former things
which thou has renounced? . . . Love not the world, nor
its contents.” 10
Lactantius wrote, “All shows are to be avoided, that
we may be able to maintain a tranquil state of mind. We
must renounce hurtful pleasures, lest, charmed by
pestilential sweetness, we fall into the snares of death.” 11
Other early Christian writings that oppose the public
games include Tatian’s Address to the Greeks (specifically
gladiator fights and boxing), On the Public Shows attrib-
uted to Cyprian, and the writings of Chrysostom (specifi-

324
cally horse racing).12
The Puritans shut down the theater, horse races,
cockfights, wrestling matches, and bear or bull baiting
when they came to power in England. We should note that
although we share some holiness teachings with the
Puritans, we reject two concepts often associated with
them. First, we do not consider an amusement to be
wrong simply because it is entertaining, pleasurable, or
light. Second, we do not seek to legislate holiness or
impose our lifestyle upon secular society (except to regu-
late or ban practices that victimize others).
John Wesley thought fairs were sinful.
Justin Martyr wrote against music that provoked lust-
ful movements.13 Clement of Alexandria said, “Let amatory
songs be banished far away. . . . For temperate harmonies
are to be admitted; but we are to banish as far as possible
from our robust mind those liquid harmonies, which,
through pernicious arts in the modulations of tones, train
to effeminacy and scurrility. . . . Chromatic harmonies are
therefore to be abandoned to immodest revels, and to
florid and meretricious music.” 14 We have also found refer-
ences to worldly music in the writings of Commodianus
and in a work attributed to Hippolytus.15
With respect to gambling Clement of Alexandria
wrote, “The game of dice is to be prohibited, and the pur-
suit of gain, especially by dicing, which many keenly fol-
low.” 16 In our brief research, we have also found specific
teachings against gambling by Tertullian, the Constitu-
tions of the Holy Apostles, Savonarola, Hussites, Calvin,
Puritans, Pietists, Quakers, Methodists, Holiness groups,
Baptists, other conservative evangelicals, and Pente-
costals.17 In the early 20th century gambling was illegal

325
in most states of the U.S.
We have found specific teachings against dancing by
Clement of Alexandria, Commodianus, a work attributed
to Hippolytus, the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles,
Waldensians, Hussites, Anabaptists, Calvin, Puritans,
Wesley and Methodists, Holiness groups, many Baptists,
and Pentecostals.18

Conclusion

In sum, many people throughout history who were

concerned with holiness of life rejected various forms of
worldly amusements, including worldly spectator sports,
some other public entertainments, immoral music, gam-
bling, and dancing. This should encourage us today to
discriminate carefully between amusements that are
wholesome and those that are detrimental to our spiritual
lives.
Pulpit Helps (March, 1984, page 1) gave this sum-
marization by an unknown author: “I should refrain from a
pastime (1) if it violates another’s conscience, (2) if it does
harm to my own well being, (3) if it has the appearance of
evil, (4) if it offends others whose opinions I value, (5) if it
leads in the direction of sin, (6) if it reflects unfavorably
upon my Christian profession, (7) if it lessens respect for
parents, school, or church, (8) if it hazards my health, (9)
if it encourages habits which tend to hamper my efficiency.
“I may indulge in a pastime (1) if it invigorates the
mind, rests and restores the body, (2) if it gives pleasure
and profit and no regret, (3) if it meets the approval of
the best people, (4) if it cultivates the better emotions,

326
(5) if it brings me into pleasant contact with good people,
(6) if it stimulates wholesome attitudes, (7) if it tends to
make other people happier.”
We can summarize this chapter and indeed this book
in one thought: the essence of true holiness is to be
Christlike, to live as He lived and, in any given situation,
to act as He would act. In fact, holiness means allowing
the Holy Spirit of Christ to live in us and rule our lives.

FOOTNOTES

1
Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Church 1952, sec.
2025, p. 642.
2
Kenneth Kantzer, “Gambling: Everyone’s a Loser,” Christianity
Today, November 25, 1983, p. 13.
3
Durant, III, 598; Latourette, I, 81-82, 239, 244-245; Schaff, II,
153-155.
4
ANF, V, 595.
5
Tertullian, The Shows, ANF, III, 79-91.
6
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, XI, ANF, 284-290.
7
Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition, quoted in Bainton, p. 152.
8
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 8.4.32, ANF, VII, 495.
9
Minucius Felix, The Octavius, 37, ANF, IV, 196.
10
Commodianus, The Instructions, 57, ANF, IV, 214.
11
Lactantius, The Epitome of the Divine Institutes, 64, ANF, VII,
249.
12
See ANF, II, 75 and V, 576.
13
Justin Martyr, The Discourse to the Greeks, 4, ANF, 1, 272.
14
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2.4, ANF, II, 249.
15
See ANF, IV, 215 and V, 254.
16
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 3.11, ANF, II, 289.
17
See ANF, III, 86 and VII, 502.
18
See ANF, II, 290; IV, 215; V, 254; VII, 495.

327
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Books only)

History and Historical Teaching

Ante-Nicene Fathers, The. Alexander Roberts and James

Donaldson (eds. and trans.). Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, rpt. 1981.
Bainton, Roland. Early Christianity. Princeton, N.J.:
Van Nostrand, 1960.
Brinton, Crane, et. al. A History of Civilization, 3rd ed.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967.
Brown, Dale. Understanding Pietism. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1978.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Henry
Beveridge (trans.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rpt.
1981.
Degler, Carl. The Democratic Experience, 3rd ed. Glen-
view, Ill.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1973.
Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Church 1952.
Nolan Harmon (ed.). Nashville: The Methodist
Publishing House, 1952.
Durant, Will and Ariel. The Story of Civilization. New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1935-1967.
Hollenweger, Walter. The Pentecostals, R. A. Wilson
(trans.). Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House,
1972.
Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity.
New York: Harper and Row, 1953.
Manual, United Pentecostal Church International.
Hazelwood, Mo.: Pentecostal Publishing House, 1984.

329
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers., The. Philip Schaff and
Henry Wace (eds. and trans.). Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, rpt. 1976.
Nigg, Walter. The Heretics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1962.
Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed.
1890; rpt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958.
Wesley, John. The Works of John Wesley, 3rd ed. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, rpt. 1978.

Holiness Issues

Bergel, Gary, with remarks by Koop, C. Everett. Abortion

in America and When You Were Formed in Secret.
Elyria, Ohio: Intercessors for America, 1980.
Bernard, Loretta and Bernard, David. In Search of
Holiness. Hazelwood, Mo.: Word Aflame Press, 1981.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship, rev. ed.
New York: MacMillan, 1959.
Bridges, Jerry, The Practice of Godliness. Colorado
Springs: NavPress, 1983.
Bridges, Jerry. The Pursuit of Holiness. Colorado
Springs: NavPress, 1978.
Drescher, John. Why I am a Conscientious Objector.
Scottsdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1982.
Geisler, Norman. Ethics: Issues and Alternatives. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1971.
Handford, Elizabeth Rice. Your Clothes Say it for You.
Murfreesboro, Tenn.: Sword of the Lord Publishers,
1976.

330
LaHaye, Tim. The Unhappy Gays. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale
House, 1978.
LaHaye, Tim and Beverly. The Act of Marriage. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.
Laney, J. Carl. The Divorce Myth. Minneapolis: Bethany
House, 1981.
Larson, Bob. The Day Music Died. Denver: Bob Larson
Ministries, 1972.
Larson, Bob. Rock. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1980.
Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: MacMillan,
1952.
Mander, Jerry. Four Arguments for the Elimination of
Television. New York: William Morrow and Company,
1978.
Miles, Herbert. Sexual Happiness in Marriage, 2nd rev.
ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.
Miles, Herbert. Sexual Understanding Before Marriage.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971.
Nolan, William, M.D. The Baby in the Bottle. New York:
Coward, McCann and Geoghegan, 1978.
Perrotta, Kevin. Taming the TV Habit. Ann Arbor, Mich.:
Servant Books, 1982.
Pugh, Nathanael. Music: Does it Really Matter? Rpt.
Hazelwood, Mo.: Word Aflame Press, 1984.
Pugh, Nathanael. Dating Tips. Hazelwood, Mo.: Word
Aflame Press, 1983.
Rice, John R. Amusements for Christians. Murfreesboro,
Tenn.: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1955.
Rice, John It. What is Wrong with the Movies?, 19th ed.
Murfreesboro, Tenn.: Sword of the Lord Publishers,
1938.

331
Rushdoony, Rousas John. The Institutes of Biblical Law.
Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Company, 1973.
Ryle, J.C. Holiness. Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell
Company, rpt. n.d.
Segraves, Daniel. Women’s Hair—The Long and Short
of It. Dupo, Ill.: The Good Word, 1979.
Shettles, Landrum, M.D. and Rorvick, Daniel. Rites of
Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life before Birth.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.
Shoemaker, Donald. Abortion, the Bible, and the Chris-
tian. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976.
Stafford, Tim. A Love Story. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Taylor, Richard. The Disciplined Life. Minneapolis:
Bethany Fellowship, 1962.
Thomas, Cal. Book Burning. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway
Books, Good News Publishers, 1983.
Wildmon, Donald. The Home Invaders. Wheaton, Ill.:
Victor Books, SP Publications, 1985.
Wilkerson, David. Set the Trumpet to Thy Mouth. Lindale,
Tex.: World Challenge, 1985.
Willke, Dr. and Mrs. J. C. Handbook on Abortion. Cin-
cinnati, Ohio: Hayes Publishing, 1975.
Woodrow, Ralph. Women’s Adornment: What Does the
Bible Really Say? Riverside, Cal.: By the author,
1976.
Yoder, John. What Would You Do? [if attacked violently].
Scottsdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1983.
Young, Curt. The Least of These: What Everyone Should
Know About Abortion. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.

332
 Reference

Amplified Bible, The. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965.

Anderson, Sir Norman (ed.). The World’s Religions, 4th
ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
Asimov, Isaac. The Human Body. New York: The New
American Library, 1963.
Encyclopedia Britannica. Chicago: William Benton, 1976.
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. James Hastings,
et al (eds.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951.
Gesenius, William. Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the
Old Testament Scriptures, Samuel Tregelles (trans.).
1847; rpt. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.
Good News for Modern Man: The New Testament in
Today’s English Version, 3rd ed. American Bible
Society, 1971.
Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1978.
Holy Bible, The New King James Version. Nashville:
Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.
Illustrated Bible Dictionary, The. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale
House, 1980.
Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, The. Nashville:
Abingdon, 1962.
Marshall, Alfred. The Interlinear Greek-English New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958.
Mead, Frank. Handbook of Denominations in the United
States, 7th ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 1980.
Melton, J. Gordon. The Encyclopedia of American
Religions. Wilmington, N.C.: McGrath Publishing
Company, 1978.

333
Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament.
Merrill Unger and William White (eds.). Nashville:
Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980.
New Testament from 26 Translations, The. Curtis
Vaughn (ed.). Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967.
Noss, John. Man’s Religions, 5th ed. New York: Mac-
Millan, 1969.
Pulpit Commentary, The. H.D.M. Spence and Joseph
Exell (eds.). Rpt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.
Smedes, Lewis. Union with Christ, rev. ed. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1983.
Smith, William. A Dictionary of the Bible. McLean, Va.:
MacDonald Publishing Company, n.d.
Strong, James. Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.
Nashville: Abingdon, 1890.
Thayer, Joseph. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament. 1885; rpt. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.
Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, The. RV.G.
Tasker (ed.). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957-1963.
Vine, W. E. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament
Words. Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1940.
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the
English Language, unabridged. Philip Gove, et. al.
(eds.). Springfield, Mass.: G. and C. Merriam Com-
pany, 1976.
Wight, Fred. Manners and Customs of Bible Lands.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1953.
Wycliffe Bible Commentary, The. Charles Pfeiffer and
Everett Harrison (eds.). Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.
Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, The. Merrill
Tenney (ed.). Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967.

334
 SUBJECT INDEX

Abortion, 287-94, 297-99

Abraham, 58
Absalom, 218
Adam and Eve, 14, 74, 168, 289
Adornment. See, Dress, Jewelry, Makeup
Adultery, 179, 244, 256-58, 267, 269-71
Albigensians, 113-14
Alcoholic beverages, 101-2, 226-29, 231-40
Amish, 116, 206
Amusements, worldly, 50-51, 110-28, 313-27
Anabaptists, 115-16, 151, 202, 206, 237-38, 297, 326
Ananias and Sapphira, 23
Anglicans (Church of England), 115, 118-19
Annulment, 263-64, 270, 272
Antinomianism, 73
Apostolic Faith, The, 124-25, 150, 222
Appearance, worldly, 161-63, 207, 315, 318
Assemblies of God, 125, 150, 271, 297
Assyrians, 280, 283
Astrology, 303-11
Athenagorus, 112, 267, 269, 297
Atmosphere, worldly, 316-19, 322, 323
Attitudes, 48, 51-54, 67-68

Babylon, 168, 304-5

Backslider, 23, 25
Baldness, 214-15
Baptists, 120-21, 150-51, 202, 206, 223, 238, 240, 326
Beards, 105-6
Bearing arms, 284-86
Bestiality, 244
Betting, 320
Bible. See Word of God
Birth control, 252-53, 268, 289-90
Blood, eating of, 276, 298
Body, stewardship of, 49-50, 176, 225-41

335
Bowling, 318-19, 322
Brethren, 116, 120
Bridges, Jerry, 19, 35, 97, 151
Brownmiller, Susan, 167
Bruce, F. F., 16, 20, 270
Buddhism, 130

Caffeine, 230-31
Calvin, John, and Calvinists, 106, 116-18, 149, 202, 237, 325-26
Cana, 234
Capital punishment, 286-87
Card playing, 117, 119, 120, 318
Cathari, 113-14
Celsus, 295-96
Christian and Missionary Alliance, 123
Christmas, 103
Chrysostom, John, 113, 149, 202, 221-22, 324-25
Church of God, 123, 125, 150, 206, 223
Church of the Nazarene, 123
Circus, 322, 323
Clement of Alexandria, 112, 146-47, 191-96, 221, 235-36, 268, 323-26
Clement of Rome, 110
Clothing. See Dress
Commodianus, 112, 199, 324-26
Communism, 130
Conception, 289
Conscience, 27
Constantine, 111, 112, 146
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 113, 149, 201-2, 221, 237,
268-70, 298, 310, 324-26
Convictions, personal, 92-93, 97-99, 107
Cosmetics. See Makeup
Covetousness, 52-54, 319
Cyprian, 112, 147-48, 200-1, 237, 324

Dancing, 319, 321, 326

David, 58, 168, 280
Death, 14

336
Deborah, 308
Demas, 23
Didache, 112, 310
Divination, 303-44, 310-11
Divorce, 253-73
Dobson, James, 152
Dress (see also Jewelry, Makeup, Modesty, Sex Distinction): biblical
teaching 49, 155-89; historical teaching, 111-28, 191-208
Drugs, 65, 227-30
Drunkenness, 65, 226-27

Eating, 227; of blood, 276, 298; food offered to idols, 91-93, 95; tem-
perance in, 117, 226, 234-35, 237
Elisha, 280
Envy, 53
Episcopalians, 118
Esther, 172
Evangelical Free Church, 270
Evangelicals, 139, 321, 325
Eye, 49, 135-36

Fairs, 318-19, 325

Faith, 22-23, 27, 34, 60-61, 79-82
Falwell, Jerry, 121, 133, 150
Fellowship, 50
Feminists, 167
Finney, Charles, 123
Flesh (see also Sinful nature), 14, 16, 19, 90
Forgiveness, 24-25, 28, 259
Fornication, 244, 256-58, 260, 262, 267, 271
Fox, George, 120
Fruit, spiritual, 37, 39
Fundamentalists, 145, 202, 206, 321

Gambling, 114, 318-22, 325

Games, 318-19, 322-25
Geber, 181
Gideon, 171

337
Gleukos, 234
Gluttony, 117, 226, 234-35, 237
God, nature of, 78-79
Gothard, Bill, 152, 270
Grace, 28, 34, 35, 60, 74
Greed, 52-54, 319

Hair: arrangement of, 156-58, 171, 177; cutting of, 49, 116, 124, 126,
127, 209-23; dyeing of, 49, 162-63, 221; false, 120, 162, 221;
historical teaching, 194, 196, 203, 220-23; objections answered,
217-20
Handford, Elizabeth Rice, 121, 159, 165, 206, 210, 223
Hermas, 112, 235, 269
Hinduism, 129-30
Hippolytus, 112, 295, 310, 323-26
Holiness: defined, 32-34; general principles, 31-55; God’s nature,
78-79; personal effort required, 34-36; standards, 38-39, 99-102;
summary, 54-55
Holiness Movement, 123-24, 150-51, 202, 206, 222-23, 238, 325-26
Hollenweger, Walter, 125
Holy Spirit, 17, 19-20, 24, 31, 34, 79, 82-83, 86, 88
Homosexuality, 137, 138, 143-44, 179-80, 244, 267-68
Honesty, 50
Hosea, 259-60
Human life, 50, 275-302
Humiliati, 113, 202
Hus, John, and Hussites, 114, 202, 325-26
Hutterites, 116, 151, 206, 297
Hypocrisy, 64, 69

Ignatius, 110
In Search of Holiness, 32, 51-52, 136, 152, 210, 319
Incest, 179, 244, 257-58, 270, 293
Ironside, H. A., 150
Isaiah, 217, 288
Ishmaelites, 171
Islam, 129
Israelites, 170, 279-81, 283

338
Jacob, 170
Jainism, 129-30
Jealousy, 53
Jehoshaphat, 280
Jehu, 169, 171
Jeremiah, 288
Jesus, 58, 69, 74-75, 109, 233-34, 255, 276, 277, 284-86
Jewelry: biblical teaching on, 49, 155-60, 170-72; conclusion about,
64, 176-78; effects of, 164-67, 204; historical teaching, 113-28,
194-204; objections answered, 184-88; unchristian values of,
161-63
Jezebel, 169, 171
Job, 170, 305
John the Baptist, 217, 275, 288
John XXIII, 114
Josiah, 305
Judah, 169, 185
Judaism, 175-76
Judaizers, 59
Judas, 23
Justification, 58, 76
Justin Martyr, 112, 268, 325

Keswick holiness, 123-24

Koop, C. Everett, 134, 290

Lactantius, 112, 148-49, 268, 296, 310, 324

Laney, J. Carl, 270
Latourette, Kenneth, 111, 295, 297
Law, ceremonial, 59-60, 76, 87, 90-91
Law, moral (law of God), 15, 54, 74-78, 94
Law of Moses, 58-59, 81, 87-91, 276, 281
Law of sin (see also Sinful nature), 15-17
Law of the mind, 15
Law of the Spirit, 17
Lawsuits, 50, 113, 120, 122
Legalism, 57-83
Libertinism, 73

339
Liberty, Christian, 85-108, 136, 228
Liberty Baptist College, 121, 133, 150
Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn, 44
Lord’s Supper, 104-5, 234, 237
Lotteries, 320
Love, 54, 78, 80-82
Luther, Martin, and Lutherans, 114-15, 117, 120

Makeup: biblical teaching, 49, 155-57, 160, 169-70; effects of, 164-67;
historical teaching, 124-28, 194-202; objections answered, 183-84;
rejection of, 64, 175, 176-77; unchristian values of, 161-63
Marijuana, 65, 229-30
Marriage (see also Divorce), 243-52, 263-67
Masturbation, 252
Materialism, 53
Maturity, 37-38
Mennonites, 116, 206, 297
Methodists, 119, 121-23, 149, 202-4, 237-39, 268, 320, 325-26
Metropolitan Community Church, 268
Midianites, 171
Military service, 116, 283, 297
Minucius Felix, 112, 298, 324
Modesty, 129, 156-57, 164-69, 173-76, 182, 192-206
Money, 53, 162, 177
Montanus and Montanism, 111-12, 269
Moody, Dwight, 124
Moody Church, 150
Moravians, 120
Moses, 47, 170, 280
Movies, 62, 135-36, 144, 145, 150-53, 321
Mudelein, George, Archbishop, 150
Muggeridge, Malcolm, 142, 152
Murder, 275-76
Music, 117, 122, 319, 322, 325
Mustaches, 105-6

National Federation for Decency, 152

National Institute of Mental Health, 137-38

340
Nature, teaching of, 214-15
Nazarite vow, 217, 218
New birth, 31, 80
Noah, 168
Nonmoral issues, 91-93, 106-7
Novels, 119, 322

Oaths, 49, 111, 113, 114, 116, 120, 126

Obedience, 34, 36, 74, 80
Oberlin perfectionism, 123-24
Occult, the, 303-4, 310, 319
Oinos, 233
Old man, 18-19
Onan, 253
Opera, 322
Origen, 112, 295-96
Ornaments. See Jewelry

Pants, 167, 173, 182, 205-6

Paul, 58-59, 76-77, 156-58, 234, 237, 261-63, 277
Pentecost, J. Dwight, 270
Pentecost, Day of, 234
Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, 125
Pentecostals, 124-26, 150, 202, 206, 222-23, 238, 270, 297, 325-26
Perfection, 36-37, 122-24
Perfume, 183
Perrotta, Kevin, 138-43
Peter, 59, 157-58, 276-77
“Petting, necking,” 244, 316, 322
Pharisees, 58, 69-72, 75
Pietists, 120, 149, 202, 237, 325
Polygamy, 244, 267
Pool halls, 318-19
Prayer, 40-41
Prejudice, 54
Presbyterians, 116, 238
Prohibition, 238
Protestantism, 114-15, 268, 270, 272, 298

341
Puritans, 118, 149, 202, 237-38, 325-26

Quakers, 119-20, 202, 297, 325

Raffles, 320-21
Rape, 179, 293-94
Reformation, the, 113, 114-15
Reformed church, 115, 116-18, 202
Remarriage, 263-67
Repentance, 24-25, 28
Retaliation, 52
Rice, John R., 121, 145, 150-51, 321-22
Rings, 105, 125, 178-79, 194
Roman Catholicism, 113-14, 150, 268, 270, 272, 298
Rushdoony, Rousas, 75, 158, 214, 220
Ryle, J. C., 43-48, 76, 119
Ryrie, Charles C., 270

Sabbath observance, 70, 91, 103-4

Salvation, 21-23, 26, 28, 31, 35, 80
Salvation Army, 123, 240
Samson, 217
Samuel, 217
Sanctification, 31, 32, 47
Saul, 23, 186
Savonarola, 114, 202, 325
Secret societies, 124, 125, 126
Segraves, Daniel, 211
Self-defense, 276-79, 283-86
Self-discipline, 40
Self-righteousness, 60-61, 69
Sex distinction in dress, 158-59, 167, 173, 179-83, 193, 200, 205-6, 268
Sexual relationships, 50, 244, 250-52, 267-68
Sikhism, 130
Sin, 13-29, 40-43, 85-87
Sinful nature, 13-20, 26, 42, 89
Skating, 65-66, 97, 318-19, 322
Smedes, Lewis, 90

342
Spener, John Philipp, 120, 149
Spirit. See Holy Spirit
Sports, 97, 118, 126, 127, 205, 318-19, 322-25
Standards of holiness, 38-39, 99-102
Star of Bethlehem, 308-9
Stein, Ben, 143
Stephen, 277, 284
Stewardship, 162, 177, 225-28, 320
Swimming, 127, 175, 205, 206, 322
Syrians, 280

Tatian, 112, 146, 199, 268, 324

Tattoos, 176
Television, 62, 101-2, 126, 135-44, 151-53
Temptation, 27, 40-43
Tennis, 97, 205, 322
Tertullian, 112, 147, 196-99, 221, 237, 267, 269, 295, 298, 310, 323, 325
Theater (plays), 118, 119, 146-50, 322, 323-25
Theophilus, 112, 146
Thomas, Cal, 143-44
Thoughts, 48-49
Timothy, 233-34, 237
Tiyrosh, 232-33
Tobacco, 127, 228, 229, 238-40
Tongue, 49
Torrey, R. A., 150

Unborn children, 287-91

United Pentecostal Church, 126, 150-51, 206, 222, 271, 297

Veil, 211-12, 213, 214, 219

Video, 142, 152-53, 166, 318

Waldo, Peter, and Waldensians, 113-14, 202, 296, 326

Warfare, 276-83, 295-97
Wedding rings, 105, 178-79
Wesley, John, 121-23, 124, 149-50, 203-4, 237-38, 325-26
Wesleyan Church, 123, 206

343
Wigs, 120, 162, 221
Wildmon, Donald, 152
Wilkerson, David, 152
Wine, 232-37
Winn, Marie, 139
Witchcraft, 303-4, 310-11
Women in ministry, 249-50
Word of God, 41-42, 65, 73, 80, 82-83, 93-94
Worldliness, 50-51, 161-63, 207, 313-19

Yayin, 232
Yoder, John, 283

344
 Scripture Reference Index
Genesis 18:6-19 168 21:25 100
1:14-18 308 18:19 252
2:15-24 245 20:10-21 244 I Samuel
2:23-24 253 20:18 252 1:11 217
2:24 243, 250 21:7 267 16:7 160
3:7 168 16:14 23
3:21 168 Numbers 18:12 23
9:5-6 275 6:3 92, 232 21:13 105
9:6 288 6:18 217 28:16 23
9:20-25 168, 232 11:32-34 226
19:32-38 232 15:32-36 286 II Samuel
24:22 186 31:50-54 171, 185 1:10 185
24:47 186 1:24-27 186
24:64-65 181 Deuteronomy 11:1-5 168
27:28 232 5:15 104 14:26 218
35:1-7 170 5:17 275 18:9 218
35:4 185 7:13 232
38:7-10 253 12:17 232 I Kings
38:14-19 169 13:1-5 286 8:46 14
38:18 185 14:23 232
41:42 185 18:9-12 304 II Kings
18:20-22 307 6:13-23 280
Exodus 20:7 257 7:6-7 280
11:2 170 21:10-14 219 9:30 169, 171
14:13-14 280 21:18-21 286 19:35 280
20:13 50, 275 21:20 226 23:5 305
20:14 244 22:5 49, 155, 158,
20:17 52 167, 179-82, I Chronicles
21:22-23 288 193, 200, 216, 28:3 280
21:23-24 286 222
21:28-29 286 22:10-12 179 II Chronicles
22:16-17 244 22:20-30 244 6:36 14
28:17-38 185 22:22 286 20:20-25 280
32:2-4 170 22:22-27 179
33:4-6 170, 185 22:30 179 Esther
35:22 170, 185 24:1-4 254, 264 2:12-13 172
25:5-9 253 2:15 172
Leviticus 8:2 185
6:10 173 Judges 8:8 185
10:8-10 232 5:20 308
16:4 173 5:30 181 Job
17:1-18:8 257 8:24-27 171, 185 1:9-12 285
17:10-11 276 13:5 217 2:6 285
18 244, 257 13:7 232 3:3 181

345
10:8-12 288 23:21 226 8:5 215
13:10 54 23:29-35 232 10 304
31:1 135 25:12 185 10:2-3 303
31:15 288 25:16 226 17:9 14
31:26 305 28:13 25 30:6 181
42:11 186 31:4-5 232 31:22 181
42:14 170 31:10-31 248 31:31-33 79
48:33 232
Psalms Song of Solomon
1:1 316 1:10-17 186 Ezekiel
1:1-2 42 1:13-17 251 5:1 105
19:1 308 2:3-6 251 16:11-13 185
19:12-13 26 4:1-7 251 18:6 252
19:14 135 4:10-12 251 18:24 25
26:4-5 316 5:10-16 251 20:12 104
34:7 285 5:14-15 185 22:10 252
51:5 14, 289 7:1-13 251 23:26 171
69:25 23 8:8-10 251 23:40 169, 171, 185
69:28 23 23:42 171
91:11 285 Isaiah 44:21 232
97:10 80 3:16-23 172, 185
101:3 49, 135 3:17 215 Daniel
119:11 42 3:24 215 1:8-16 92
119:16 42 5:11 232 2:27 305
119:37 49, 135 7:14 289 5:15 305
119:105 42 8:1-7 283 5:29 185
133:2 105 10:12-27 283
Hosea
139:13-16 288 16:10 232
1-3 259
139:23-24 26 20 217
2:13 171
28:7 232
4:11 232
Proverbs 28:11-12 104
1:9 185 33:15-16 135 Amos
5:15-19 251 47 304 5:26 305
6:16-17 165 47:1-3 168
6:16-19 51 47:2-3 174 Habakkuk
6:25 169 47:10-15 305 2:15 232
6:34 181 49:1-5 288
7:10 169 50:6 105 Haggai
11:14 100 61:10 186 2:23 185
13:1 100 65:8 232
16:31 162 Malachi
17:10 100 Jeremiah 2:13-16 254
20:1 232 1:5 288 3:17 185
20:29 162 2:32 186
21:17 232 4:30 169, 171, 185 Matthew
23:7 48, 135 7:29 215, 219 1:18 289

346
1:18-19 257 23:23-24 70 18:10-14 69
1:20 289 23:27-28 70 21:34 226, 227
1:21 18 24:37-39 315 22:35-38 285
4:1-11 27, 42 25:14-30 37
5:17 74 26:52 277 John
5:20 75 28:20 74 1:14 289
5:27-28 33 3:3-5 31
5:28 164, 244 Mark 3:17 68
5:32 256, 258, 271 2:22 233 4:17-18 264
5:36 163 2:27 70 5:14 36
5:38-39 276 3:1-6 70 8:1-11 286
5:38-48 52 4:26-29 37 8:11 36, 68
5:40-41 277 6:17-18 258 8:32 74
5:43-44 276 7:1-7 71 8:34 24
5:44 50 7:9-23 71 8:34-36 18
5:48 36, 280 7:15 90 10:10 313
6:22-23 49, 136 7:21-23 135, 244 10:28-29 24
7:1 68 10:2-9 255 11:2 216
7:1-5 37 10:5 254 12:3 216
7:13-14 109 10:9 264 14:15 74, 80
7:16-20 160 10:11 243 14:23 74, 80
7:21 109 10:11-12 255, 258, 265 15:1-8 37
9:17 233 10:19 50 15:1-10 24, 26
10:22 23 12:28-31 54 15:1-17 39
12:1-13 104 16:8 26
13:23 37 Luke 16:13 26
15:18-20 48, 135, 136, 1:15 217, 232 17:14 282
275 1:35 289 17:16 282
15:19 51 1:41 288 18:36 282
17:24-27 277 1:44 288
18:15-18 50 3:14 276 Acts
18:21-22 259 5:37 233 1:8 19
19:6 258 7:30-39 72 1:15-20 23
19:8 254 7:37-38 216 1:25 23
19:9 257, 271 8:14 314 2:13 234
19:10 256 8:26-36 168 2:17-18 249
19:10-12 253, 266 10:34 233 3:19 104
22:17-21 277 11:34 136 5:1-11 23
22:36-40 54, 81 12:15 53 5:29 249
23:2-3 75 12:33-34 162 6:7 80
23:4 71 13:24 109 7:43 305
23:5-7 70 15:22 185 7:60 277
23:13 71 16:10-12 320 10:34 54
23:14 70 16:10-13 162 15 59, 90, 91,
23:15-22 71 16:18 256, 258 257
23:23 76 17:3-4 259 15:10 71

347
15:19-29 92, 104 6:1-2 21, 25, 28 12:17-21 52
15:28 94 6:6-7 18 12:19 276, 287
15:28-29 101 6:11-13 35 13 95
15:29 50, 257, 275, 6:11-14 18 13:1-7 243, 277
276 6:13 43 13:4 287
16:16-18 304 6:14-20 86 13:8 320
16:16-19 307 6:15 21, 93 13:8-10 54, 81
18:1-3 250 6:15-16 25, 28 13:13 227, 317
18:18 250 6:16 24, 227, 314, 13:13-14 186
18:26 250 320 13:14 43
19:13-17 168 6:17-18 18 14 91, 98, 103,
19:18-20 304 6:19 43 107
20:7 104 6:22 18, 86 14:5-6 104
21:9 249 6:23 24, 25 14:6 95, 103
7 15, 16, 17 14:14-15 95
Romans 7:1-3 256 14:15-16 97
1 13 7:5-6 89 14:20 95, 97
1:5 80 7:6 59 14:21 227
1:17 22 7:7 88 14:23 27
1:20 308 7:7-14 58 16:1 249
1:24-47 244 7:15 317 16:7 249
1:26-27 163 7:18 164 16:26 80
1:26-31 214 7:21-25 16
1:29-31 51 8 16, 17 I Corinthians
1:32 135 8:1-4 89 1:2 34
2 13 8:2-4 19, 79 3:16-17 49
2:4 25 8:3 58 3:17 225
2:11 54 8:3-4 88 5:1 257
2:17-29 58 8:4 76 5:9-6:8 50
3 13 8:5-14 24 6:9-10 22, 50, 95,
3:9-12 14 8:12-13 43 159, 216
3:19-20 58 8:13 22 6:9-18 244
3:20 88 8:14 21 6:10 227
3:20-28 59 8:14-16 26 6:11 34
3:23 13, 14 8:26 41 6:12 50, 95, 96,
3:25 78 8:28-29 26 227, 314, 316,
3:28 88 8:35-39 24, 26 320
3:31 76 9:31-10:4 89 6:13 95
4 58 10:16 80 6:16 251
4:1-12 88 11:22 22 6:18 251
5:8-11 26 12 95 6:19-20 33, 50, 226
5:12 14 12:1 226 7 253
5:12-19 245 12:1-2 33 7:1 251
5:19 14 12:2 161, 207, 314 7:1-2 262
5:20 58, 88 12:10 246 7:2-5 252
6 16, 17, 18, 42 12:17 160, 315 7:7 266

348
7:7-8 251 19:9 265 2:10 60
7:7-9 252 3:16 40
7:10-11 256 II Corinthians 4:1-3 37
7:10-13 262 6:14 50 4:2 246
7:11 263, 265 6:17 76, 207 4:13 37
7:15 265 6:17-7:1 32 4:21-24 20
7:15-16 262 7:1 22, 33, 35, 37, 4:22-24 33
7:20 261 226 4:28 319
7:26 251, 266 7:10 25 4:31-32 48
7:26-28 27, 263 8:21 160, 315 5:11 317
7:27-28 269 10:5 42, 48 5:12 153
7:32 265 10:3-4 281 5:16 136, 314
7:32-35 251 10:12 37 5:18 227
7:39 262, 263, 269 12:13 27 5:21 246
8:1-13 93 5:22-24 248
8:9 97 Galatians 5:25 247
8:13 97 2:16 57 5:27 21
9:24-27 40 1:16-21 59 5:28 247
9:25 161 2:20 22 5:33 247
9:26-27 35 3:13 87 6:5 277
9:27 23, 226 3:21-25 58 6:5-7 283
10 95 3:24 88 6:12 281
3:24-25 89,90
10:13 36 6:18 41
3:28 54, 249
10:23 95, 96, 316
4:1-11 88
10:23-33 93 Philippians
4:9-11 90, 104
10:24 320 1:1 250
4:21-31 88, 90
10:31 96 5:4 23 2:12 23
10:32-33 97 5:13 85, 94 2:12-13 35
11:1-16 209-23 5:16 20 2:13 20, 28
11:3 245 5:16-17 15 3:12-16 38
11:5 249 5:16-18 17 3:15 37
11:8-9 245 5:16-25 20, 24 4:3 249
11:11-12 246 5:18 89 4:8 42, 48 135
11:13-15 49, 159, 163 5:19-20 94 4:11 162
12:28 100 5:19-21 22, 48, 52
13:1-13 80 227, 244, 275 Colossians
13:5 320 304 1:27 22
14:8 100 5:21 317 1:28 37
14:10 100 5:22 17 2:5 179
14:14-15 41 5:22-23 39, 89 2:10-12 179
14:31 249 5:23 161 2:13-14 91
14:33-35 250 5:24 43 2:14-23 76
15:2 23 6:14 43 2:16 92
15:22 14 2:16-17 60, 91, 104
15:33 50 Ephesians 179
16:2 104 2:8-9 59, 88 2:20-23 60

349
3:5 50, 53, 244, II Timothy 1:21 41
319 2:3-4 314 1:25 81, 106
3:17 96 2:5 76 1:26 49
3:18 248 3:2 315 1:27 21, 33, 283
3:19 247 3:2-4 52 2:8 81
4:5 136, 314 3:4 315 2:9 54
4:12 37 4:2 101 2:11 275
4:10 24 2:12 81, 106
I Thessalonians 2:14-26 60, 80
4:3-7 244 Titus 2:15-17 283
4:7-8 20 1:6 267 3:1-12 49
4:11 283 1:7 227 4:4 33, 161, 314
5:8 23 2:3 227 4:5 15
5:12-13 101 2:4-5 248 4:7-8 35
5:22 50, 135, 160, 2:11-12 28, 60 4:11 49
227, 315 3:1 277 4:17 26, 27
5:23 33, 41, 226 3:3 313, 314 5:6 277
3:8 60 5:12 49
II Thessalonians 5:19-20 23, 25
3:6-7 100 Philemon
3:10-12 319 24 23-24 I Peter
1:10-12 88
I Timothy Hebrews 1:15-16 22, 32
2:1-3 277 3:14 23 2:9 207, 282
2:8-10 156, 187 4:1-11 104 2:13-21 277
2:9 49, 155, 4:11 23, 35 2:21-24 22
174-77, 186, 6:4-6 23, 25 3:1-2 249
194, 200, 202, 8:7-13 88 3:1-6 49, 157
216 10:10 34 3:3 155, 176, 177,
2:9-10 203 10:16 76, 79 187-88, 194,
2:9-12 157 10:25 104 200, 216
2:11-12 250 10:26-31 25 3:3-4 203
2:15 294 10:38-39 23 3:5 191
3:1-12 267 11:13-16 282 3:7 247
3:3 227 11:24-26 314 3:9 52, 276
3:8 187, 227, 250 12:1 35, 99, 109 4:3 227, 317
4:1-5 92 12:2 217 4:10 320
4:16 23 12:14 22, 31, 34 4:15 275
5:8 246, 320 12:15 23 4:17-18 261
5:12 23 13:4 243, 251 5:3 267
5:14 248 13:17 94, 100
5:17 101 II Peter
5:21 54 James 1:3-9 39
5:23 233 1:5-6 311 1:10 23
6:7-11 54 1:12-16 27 2:1 23
6:17-19 54 1:13 24 2:10 100

350
2:18-19 93
2:20-21 23
3:9 25
3:14 35
3:18 37

I John
1 20
1:8 15
1:9 24
1:10 14
2 20
2:1 13, 21, 24
2:3-6 21, 80
2:15 50, 161, 186,
313
2:15-16 33, 314
2:16 136, 164
3:4 27
3:8 24
3:9 20
3:14-15 276
3:15 22, 33
3:21-22 22

Jude
4 93
8 100
20-21 41

Revelation
2:1-7 80
2:1-29 22
2:5 25
2:15 25
2:16 25
2:21-22 25
3:1-22 22
3:3-5 25
3:5 23
3:19 25
9:8 216
13:10 277
21:7 22
21:8 22, 304
22:19 23

351