” WHAT ABOUT THE SIN OF BATHSHEBA ? ”
~~~> { an open letter to the Apostolic women ) <~~~
“And it came to pass in an evening tide, that David arose from off his bed,
and walked upon the roof of the king’s house: and from the roof he saw a
woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.”
II Samuel 11:2
We hear a great deal about the sin of David, but seldom does anyone mention
the sin of Bathsheba. And it is true enough that David’s sin was very great,
and Bathsheba’s very small. David’s sin was deliberate and presumptuous;
Bathsheba’s only a sin of carelessness. David committed deliberate adultery
and murder; Bathsheba only carelessly and undesignedly exposed herself
before David’s eyes. We have no doubt that David’s sin was great, and yet
Bathsheba’s sin was small.
Yet it remains a fact that Bathsheba’s little sin was the cause of David’s
great sin. Her little sin of ignorance, her little thoughtless and careless
exposure of herself, was the spark that kindled a great devouring flame.
“Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth!” (James 3:5)
On the one side, it was only a little carelessness , only a little thoughtless,
unintentional exposure of herself before the eyes of David.
But on the other side, Adultery and guilt of conscience; murder and the
loss of a husband, besides the death in battle of other innocent men; great
occasion for the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme; the shame of an
illegitimate pregnancy, and the death of the child; the uprising and death
of Absolom; and the defiling of David’s wives in the sight of all Israel;
and the sword never departing from David’s house. (II Sam. 12:11-18)
Again I say, “Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth!” None of
this great evil would ever have taken place if Bathsheba had only been
careful not to display her body in the sight of a man.
Observe:
She neither designed nor foresaw any of this evil, yet she was the occasion
of it all. She did not display herself purposefully or wantonly: she only did it
ignorantly and thoughtlessly. Yet the results of her little sin of ignorance were
just the same as if it had been purposeful.
Now the reason for my writing all of the above is this: there are many Christian
women today who are guilty of the same carelessness as Bathsheba was.
Godly women, who would recoil with horror from the very thought of wantonly
displaying their bodies, do nevertheless carelessly and thoughtlessly display
themselves habitually by the manner in which they dress. I believe they are as
innocent of that as Bathsheba was. But neither can I altogether excuse them
from blame in the matter.
The whole world is well aware that certain kinds of feminine dress are pro-
vocative and tempting to the eyes and heart of a man and are Christian
women alone altogether naive and ignorant ? This can hardly be; and yet
I do not write to blame them, but to instruct them, provoke them to love and
good works, to make them thoughtful where they have been thoughtless
before, to make them careful for the spiritual welfare of the weakest of their
brethren, where they were careless about it before.
The first thing which must be understood is that nakedness before the eyes
of others is wrong. It is wrong in a man, and it is wrong in a woman. When
Adam and Eve sinned, God made “coats of skins, and clothed them.”
(Gen.3:21)
The sole reason for His clothing them was to cover their nakedness, as
the Genesis account makes plain. Observe, he clothed them with coats.
They were already wearing fig leaves, which probably covered as much as,
or more than, much of the clothing which is worn today, yet in spite of
their fig leaves they were still naked in their own eyes, and in God’s.
But if it is equally wrong for a man to expose his nakedness as it is for a
woman, it is not equally dangerous, for men are much more susceptible to
be tempted through the “eye-gate” in this particular, than are women. But
when a woman exposes herself only a little, she becomes a fiery dart to
tempt the heart of man. Like it or not, this is the plain fact. And because
this is a fact, you are not at liberty to dress any way you please.
“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…as well as in your spirit.”
I Cor. 6:19-20
But if you dress in such a way as to expose your body, or parts of it, to the
lustful gaze of man who chooses to look at you, you certainly do not glorify
God in your body. And if you fear God and love your neighbor, you dare
not dress so. You dare not thus use your body as an instrument of any un-
righteousness to allure the eyes, and tempt the hearts of men.
Many men are wicked, and will lust after you in spite of anything you can
do to prevent it. They have “eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from
sin”. (I Peter 2:14) Should you therefore help them to sin? Should you put
further temptation in their way? Will God excuse you if you do?
Other men, godly men, are not wicked, but only weak. David was not wicked.
He was a man after God’s own heart. But in the presence of an unclothed
woman, he was weak — and it would be a rare man who was not. Though
the brethren in Christ are not wicked, yet they may be weak. And the devil
does all he can do to weaken them further. They are forced to live in a world
where they are continually bombarded with sights which are designed by the
enemy of their souls to weaken their morals and destroy their purity of heart.
And must Christian women help the devil to do his work ? Must they make
themselves a temptation to their brethren even in the congregation of God?
O that you could understand the fierce and bitter conflict in the souls of your
brethren, when you carelessly display your body. Oh, that you could hear their
pleadings with God For help and deliverance from the power of those
temptations. Oh that you could see their tears of shame and repentance when
the temptation has overcome them, and they have sinned with eyes and heart
and mind. Never again would you plead for your right to dress as you please.
The fact is, you have no such right. You have no right to destroy, by your
careless dress, the brother for whom Christ died. You are bought with a price,
and are not your own. You are duty-bound to glorify God in your body —
to clothe that body, not as you will, but as God wills. And a little of real love for
the souls of your brethren would remove forever from your heart the desire to
dress as you please. For, “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities,
(that is, the weakness), of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification. For even
Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that
reproached thee fell on me.” (Rom.15:1-3)
Christ was willing to deny Himself all of the glories of heaven, and bear the
reproaches of ungodly men in order to save your souls, and will you plead for
your right to please yourself in your dress ? Can you not deny yourself a little
of comfort to save another man’s soul ? Can you not bear a little reproach for
being “old-fashioned” or “a little out of style”, in order to help another man in
his battle against sin ?
You may think that I am making too much of too little. You may suppose the
case is not so serious as I have represented it to be. But consider: you are a
woman, and cannot experience the passions of a man. You have your own
passions, but they are not the same as a man’s. They are, (generally speaking),
not so strong as a man’s.
Neither are they so easily inflamed as a man’s. Nor are they excited in the same
manner as a man’s. And the plain fact is, a man’s passions are easily provoked
by the sight of a careless woman, as was plainly the case with David and
Bathsheba, when he beheld her washing herself. Most men, ’tis true, will be better able to resist your allurement than David did Bathsheba’s. They will not
go so far as David did. But how do you know that
they can resist the thought and desire of it?
How do you know that they do not sin with their eyes and in their heart and
imagination? There is great pleasure to a man in merely looking, even though
he goes no farther. You know very well that the Bible says, “But I say unto you,
That whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery
with her already in his heart”, (Mat.5:28),
Will You Say That This Is Not A Serious Matter ? ‘IT IS SERIOUS’, for it is sin,
and sin is serious. Sin blights and deforms and ruins and destroys And If You
Know Just How Serious This Ss, you need only read the very next verse,
which says, “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee:
for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that
thy whole body should be cast into hell.”
Here is a most solemn statement in the Bible concerning the seriousness of
sin, and it is spoken with reference to the very sin which you may so lightly
and thoughtlessly occasion by your careless dress. This is not a light matter,
and you dare not treat it lightly.
At this point you may say, “Amen, all true; but I do not need to hear it, for I dress
modestly.” Are you quite sure of it? If you follow the fashions and practices of
this age, you assuredly do not dress modestly, for modesty is ignored by many
of them, and purposefully thrown to the winds by many other. And it may be that
you, being a woman, and not able to see yourself through a man’s eye, are
unable to perceive that which may really be tempting and provocative in your
own dress. God would have you to be “wise as serpents, and harmless as
doves”. (Mat.10:16)
But if you unthinkingly dress as the rest of the world does, you are assuredly
neither wise nor harmless. Not wise, for however ignorant and innocent you
may be, you are following a system of fashion which is deigned by wicked men
to break down and destroy the morals of men.
As said before, the obvious design of God in making clothing for Adam and
Eve was to cover their nakedness,
and any clothing which fails to do so cannot be right.
Bare backs, bare midriffs, bare legs and thighs, are wrong — wrong in the sight
of the God Who clothed Adam and Eve with coats to cover their bare bodies. Whatever the rest of the world may do, You are bound to do right.
And what ever the rest of the church may do, You are bound to do right.
And the things that I have just mentioned are so obvious and so flagrant a
violation of the purposes of God in clothing you, that there ought not to be a
moment’s question as to what is right.
But, (alas), the standards of the church are sunk so low in our day that there
are actually Christians and preachers who will defend such things. Meanwhile
we need say no more about forms of dress which so obviously thwart the
purposes of God.
Let us turn our thoughts to some things which, while less flagrant,
nevertheless violate the evident purpose of clothing;
* ~> Short Dresses
You need no one to tell you that these are wrong. The whole world knows that
they are provocative to a man’s eyes. But women who profess godliness,
women who ought to know better, will simply follow the current fashions of
the world, whether long or short, without any reference to what is right.
Others will quibble about how short is too short. Rather than making very
sure their dresses are plenty long, they will make them as short as they dare,
while still persuading themselves that they are long enough. You may stand
at attention in front of your mirror, and persuade yourself that your too-short
dress reveals nothing, but only let you sit down, only let you bend over, only let
you get in or out of a car, and what a spectacle of indecency you present.
And whether you design it or not, and whether you like it or not, exposed legs
and thighs are a provocation to lust in the eyes of men.
For the same reason you ought to have nothing to do with those skirts which
are slit half way up the sides or back. Who cannot see that the design of such
a fashion is to expose your thighs to view? Or is it to enable you to walk ?
So much the worse if it is. If your skirt is so tight that you cannot walk without
cutting the sides or back, by all means throw it away, and get something with
a little more material. We shall have more to say about tight clothing further
along. Do you ask how long your dresses ought to be ? See that your legs are
covered below the knee, front and back, while you are bending over or sitting
down, and you will be safe enough. But be careful here it is not enough that
your legs should be covered only from the vantage point of your own eyeballs.
When you bend over or sit down, the front of your dress will naturally hang
lower, so as to cover more of your legs, but the back will be drawn up so as
to cover the less. Very often I have seen women sit down and carefully arrange
the front of their skirt so as to cover the top side of their thighs from their own
view, while leaving the sides and under sides of their thighs exposed to the view
of anyone sitting across from them. And this will be unavoidable if your dresses
are so short that they only cover you down to the knees while you are standing
erect. If you want to be safe, your dresses should cover you well below the
knee in all postures.
* ~> Low Necklines
Again, the whole world knows very well that these are a great temptation to the
eyes of a man. And if you are a godly woman, no doubt you would never dream
of purposely wearing a neckline too low. But you may be doing it nevertheless,
through thoughtlessness or ignorance. It is not only low necklines which offend,
but also large or loose ones. You may stand erect in front of a mirror wearing
a large or loose neckline, and think it perfectly modest. But only bend over a
little, so that the material of your blouse falls away from your body, and
immediately the most provocative and tempting part of your anatomy is exposed
to the view of any man who happens to be standing in front of you.
The same is true, of course, when you dress with the top buttons of your blouse
unbuttoned. This looks provocative, even if nothing were actually exposed by it.
It looks to a man as though you must design to expose yourself and tantalize his
passions. What else can he think ? For what other purpose would you leave two
or three buttons of your blouse un-buttoned ? You cannot bear a tight choking
collar on your blouse ?
It may be legitimate to leave your blouse open at the neck for comfort’s sake,
and it may even be modest, (depending upon the garment), provided you un-
button one button only. There can be no possible reason or excuse for leaving
two or three buttons open. It is simply following a wicked fashion of a wicked
world.
Your collar will no more choke you with one button open than it will with three.
One button open will always be a great plenty for comfort’s sake, and with some
blouses it will be too much. If you can leave your top button open, yet not expose yourself when you bend over and the material of your blouse falls away from
you, very well. This may depend upon the nature of the blouse, as well as upon
your own build. But if there is any danger of exposing yourself, you had better
button all your buttons. You might set the top button down an inch or so, and
make another button hole for it, and thus provide for both comfort and modesty.
You can scarcely be too careful here, because it only takes little matter to
provoke a great fire, and when a man sees a woman with the top two or three
buttons of her blouse open, he will probably conclude that it is her intention to
tempt and tantalize men. Is this the impression you wish to give?
If not, button your buttons, snap your snaps, and zip your zippers. And if you
happen to bend over a little in front of a man, and he sees you exposed because
of your large, loose, low, or open necklines, unless he is a very rare man,
he will be tantalized by the sight, whatever you may think or intend.
Therefore you cannot do as the rest of the world does. Let your neckline be high
enough and small enough to be in fact a neck line, and not a chest or shoulder
line, and you will be safe. Note well: this means that if the neck hole of your
garment is large enough to slip over your head, it is probably too large.
Your necklines should be of the sort that you can close up with buttons or
snaps after you put the garment on.
* ~> Sleeveless Blouses
Sleeveless blouses always reveal too much. Little as you may be able to
understand it, the area beneath your arms, and the parts of your chest or
your back which immediately adjoin them, are very attractive to a man; and
a sleeveless blouse cannot help but display these parts. You must also bear
in mind that others will see you from all angles and in all positions, and the
armholes of a sleeveless blouse will often allow a man to see inside the
blouse, especially when your arms are uplifted or outstretched,
thus displaying part of your chest.
The same is true of a short sleeved blouse which has very large or loose
sleeves. This may be perfectly modest as long as you keep your elbows
at your sides, but as soon as you raise your arms you create an opening
though which a man may see inside your blouse, and this is a great snare
to his heart. Remember you are a woman, and cannot see yourself as a
man sees you. And if only the weakest of your brethren might be tempted
by your sleeveless or loose-sleeved blouses, ought you not to deny
yourself a little comfort or fashion, and conceal your body a little better
for his good?
* ~> Sheer Clothing
It ought to be unnecessary to say anything about clothing which is so light
or so sheer that a man may see through it. The obvious and undeniable
design of such clothing is to thwart the purposes of clothing, and expose
your body rather than covering it. This you cannot help but realize. Everyone
else knows it also, and when a man sees such attire, what can he think but
that it is your intention to display your body to his sight? And yet so low are the
standards in the church today that it is not uncommon to see Christian women
wearing see-through clothing. If you have been guilty of this, your first business
is to repent —to reject at once everything which is obviously and purposefully
sheer. You ought to be careful also not to wear any material which is so light
or so thin that it may be seen through when you are in direct light.
* ~> Tight Clothing
Dress which explicitly reveals your form is as bad as that which reveals your
nakedness. The whole world knows that such dress is provocative —
notoriously and proverbially so —and when a man sees a woman dressed
in tight clothing that reveals and displays every curve of her form, you will
cause him trouble of soul that would only be exceeded by sheer nakedness. The world calls tight clothing “revealing”, which is exactly what it is and as
such it is an obvious violation of the purpose of God in clothing you.
Every woman who professes godliness, therefore, ought to refuse every form
of dress which reveals and displays her figure. Specifically she should avoid
sweaters, and anything made of knit, stretchy, or soft clinging material, unless
perhaps the fit is very loose. Woven material, with some stiffness and body to
it, will conceal your form much better. This matter is of the utmost importance,
especially for a woman who is large in the bust. A woman’s indiscretion in this
area is one of the surest ways to provoke a man’s unlawful interest, and that is
true whether she is actually exposed, or only exposed by virtue of wearing thin
or clinging material to cover her top. This is a fact which the world knows very
well. Twenty-five years ago the world was singing a popular song about the
pleasure of seeing a woman in a sweater and a tight skirt. Now the natures of
man and woman have not changed in twenty-five years.
When a man looks at you he should see your clothing, and not the shape and
form of everything which is inside it. Sweaters, tee shirts, and knit blouses in
their vary nature cling to your body and reveal and display the shape and form
of it. The shape and form of a woman’s body, even though it is somewhat
covered with clothing, will draw his eyes, and kindle unlawful thoughts. I do not
say that it is impossible for a woman to wear a sweater or knit top which is not
too revealing. What I do say is that the sweaters and knit tops which American
women usually wear are almost always too tight. They might do better if they
would wear their sweater several sizes larger than they usually do.
A woman who is very small in the bust may fairly easily wear sweaters which
are loose enough to conceal her form, but the larger her bust, the more difficult
this will become. A woman who is large in the bust had best avoid knit clothing
altogether. She will have a hard enough time of it to conceal her form without
wearing sweaters. I cannot emphasize this too much or insist upon it too strongly.
A woman especially a woman who is large in the bust may take away a man’s
heart in a moment. If she would please God and walk in benevolence toward
men in this fight against sin, she must dress in such a way as to hide and
conceal her womanly form in this particular. She must therefore wear loose
fitting blouses of woven, (not knit or stretchy), material.
If she wishes to wear a sweater for warmth, she can easily wear a loose cotton
blouse over, (not under), it, and be warmer yet. True, this will not be stylish, but
no matter about that. I am writing for godly women, who would rather please
God than the world.
Understand also that you will accomplish little by exchanging tight sweaters for
tight blouses. A blouse of woven material in its very nature will conceal your
form better than a sweater, but it may still be provocative enough if it is too tight.
You ladies who are overweight often offend in this, by wearing the same clothes
you would if you were twenty or thirty pounds lighter. Your blouse should never
be stretched tight across your bosom, but should have slack enough in the fit
that when a man looks at you he sees the blouse, not the form of what is inside
of it. I tell you that any man knows very well what it is to be tempted by such
sights — and it may take only a moments involuntary sight to turn a man’s heart
or imagination into unlawful channels.
* ~> Slacks / Pants / Jeans
Here we have come to a bone of contention which divides churches, families,
and friends. The background is this: historically in our culture, the men have
worn pants, and the women dresses. This is an undisputed fact, which is
embodied in the proverbial expression that a wife who runs the house “wears
the pants in the family”.
The woman’s “liberation” movement, which is more than a century old, has
sought to put the pants on all the women, figuratively speaking. It has sought
to “liberate” the woman from her God appointed place of subjection to the man,
and to give her “equal rights” to do whatever the man may do.
The spirit of this movement has also put upon the woman’s body the man’s
clothing — namely, pants. And the church has followed the world in so doing.
Many of the older and stricter men of God, less influenced by the world
themselves, take a strong stand against women wearing pants.
The younger set know nothing of the historical background of the question,
can see no point in the stand which their elders take, and so regard it as
narrow minded and petty. “The slacks which they wear”,
they say, “were made for women and are not men’s clothing”.
On the other side it may be urged that God made neither slacks for Adam,
nor a dress for Eve, but coats for both of them. Yet Deuteronomy 22:5
certainly assumes that the same clothing is not to be worn by both men
and women, and it is also certain that historically in our country the slacks
have been the men’s clothing.
It may be urged that the culture has changed, so that slacks are now
acceptable clothing for women also. Yet when we consider the sinister
forces which have wrought to change the culture, we may plead that
the change is no way recognized by God, but is an abomination to Him.
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto, (or resembles),
a man… for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.” I say
no more than this, for it is outside the purpose of this article to settle
this controversy. I do not ask here, is it wrong in the eyes of God for
a woman to wear slacks? I ask, what effect are her slacks likely to have
on the eyes of men?
And first, in their very nature slacks are apt to reveal and display the
form of a woman. Women contend for modest slacks, but who wears
them? In the very nature of the case, it is an extremely rare thing to
see a woman in slacks which are not too tight. Why is this? Why may
men wear slacks which fit loosely, while the slacks of women must
cling to every inch of their legs and lower anatomy? Because it is the
god of this world who inspires these styles, and he knows his business
only too well. He knows only too well that it is a snare to a man’s heart
to have displayed before his eyes the form of a woman’s legs and lower
anatomy. These a woman ought to keep carefully concealed at all times,
and there is nothing that will do it so well as a dress. A loose-fitting
skirt or dress, provided it is not too short, is the best possible clothing
with which to conceal the form.
But some women suppose that because their slacks are not skin tight,
they are therefore modest. Well, now, suppose that your slacks are
loose enough that they leave a little space between the material and
your body. Still they basically display the form of your legs and lower
anatomy. That is the nature of the garment, and can hardly be avoided.
And further, as soon as you bend over, those “modest” slacks of yours
will be stretched just as tight over your form as the skin tight slacks
which other women wear. Though you may not be able to understand
it, (for the sight of a man will probably not effect you in the same way),
Page 11
it is the sight of the form which will provoke temptation in a man. This
is plain enough in the Bible account of David and Bath-sheba, and every
honest man will tell you the same thing. You must believe it, though you
may not be able to understand it. The sight of the form of your legs and
lower anatomy will tempt the heart of man, and it is the nature of slacks
to display the form of those parts.
Some, who believe it is wrong for a woman to wear slacks, but who wish
to accommodate their ladies for engagement in some active type of activities,
recommend the wearing of culottes, which are sort of a cross between a skirt
and slacks. Our only question concerning them is, Are they modest or
immodest? They may be either, depending upon several things. If they
are fashioned so as to look like a loose-fitting skirt, and are long enough,
they may be as modest as a skirt. Unfortunately, many of them more
nearly resemble slacks, or even shorts, than a skirt. If yours are long
enough and loose enough to keep you well covered and concealed in
all postures, they may be acceptable as a modest skirt.
OBJECTIONS
We must next answer some objections.
First:
“What right do you have to prescribe all of these legalistic rules for women?”
I answer,
If we lived without sin in the garden of Eden, you could dress just as you please,
or not dress at all, and hurt no one by it. But in this world you can not; and if you
do you will only be contributing to swell the tide of sin. I write for godly women,
who want to do what is right. I seek only to give you some instruction,
concerning the effects which your dress will have on the men who see you.
And I suppose that truly godly women will be happy to receive such instruction.
It is usually the worldly, who are not willing to do right at any cost, who raise
the cry of legalism.
But
“This is a small matter, and not worthy of so much ado. We ought to be
occupied with the weightier matters of the law, the matter of the heart,
and not make such a fuss over
Little outward things.” This may be an outward thing, but it is not a little one.
Can you read Mat. 5:28-29, and yet contend that this is a little matter?
But,
“any man who views women so must be perverted” Yes: be it known unto you
that men are perverted.
Our pristine purity is lost, and our hearts are natural and strongly inclined to sin,
and especially to the sin of lust. Sin easily besets us. (Heb.12:1)
But understand,
though all men are perverted from their original purity, and though the passions
of all men, (except those perverted in a worse way), are alike in this matter,
I would not want to leave you with the impression that the practices of all men
are alike, or with the feelings of uneasiness in the presence of men.
If you but dress right, and act right, and associate with the right kind of men,
in the right kind of situations, there will be little occasion for you to be uneasy
or uncomfortable. But there will be great plenty of occasion for you to be
careful, even in the presence of the best men.
Why?
Because though the godly “have crucified the flesh with the affections and
lusts”, (Gal.5:24),
and have renounced the unlawful indulgence of those desires ~ yet the desires
themselves remain. It was a man of God who was overcome by the allurement
of Bathsheba.
God’s way of order is thus; “To avoid fornication, let every man have his own
wife, and let every woman have her own husband”. (ICor.7:2)
History and experience unite to prove that many of the godliest of men
including men who are godly and married have a very hard struggle against the unlawful indulgence of those passions, in look or in thought.
If we go through life with our eyes open it must be evident that this desirable
end in marriage is widely frustrated, both in the godly and the ungodly.
Now whether you wish to pity such persons, or blame them, or both, the fact
will remain that there are many marriages which fall short in this way.
And it is another fact that a man who finds himself in such a position,
however he may have gotten there, will have a very bitter struggle to try to
subdue those passions.
The battle is a hard one, and a man who is very strong spiritually, but who
lacks this fulfillment, may in fact fare worse in the struggle than a much
weaker man who has found the fulfillment which every man desires.
David, we know, was a man of God, and through out the Old Testament
histories he is held up as a standard of godliness.
Suppose that some men are so strong, or so fully fulfilled in their own
marriages, that you could not tempt them if you would. What then ?
Even were that a possibility the fact would remain that many men are weak
and easily provoked to sin. With a man insusceptible to temptation you need
not concern yourself, but you are bound by duty, (as you ought to be moved
by love), to “bear the weaknesses of the weak” yes, even of the weakest and
not to put stumbling blocks in their way. (Rom.15:1, 14:13)
But:
“If a man looks upon me to lust, that is his sin, not mine.” Nay, “Now walkest
not thou charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, (or thy dress),
for whom Christ died. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine,
nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.” (Rom.14:15, 21)
David was made weak, David was made to stumble, by Bathsheba’s careless
exposure of herself, and your display of your feminine beauty will have the same
effect upon your brethren.
NOW You can hardly plead that you do not know this, and
“To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” (Jas.4:17)
Every man is fully responsible for his own sin, You will certainly be held in
some sense responsible for another man’s sin, if you willfully provoke him to it.
God Said To Ezekiel , “When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt
surely die; if thou doest not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked
man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.” (Eze.33:8)
The wicked is fully responsible for his own sin, and shall surely die for it.
But the watchman is held accountable also, merely because he failed to do
what he could have done to turn the other man from his sin. How much more will you be held accountable if you put stumbling blocks
in another man’s way ?
“If I were to follow all of these instructions, I would have to buy a whole new
wardrobe, and that I cannot afford.” My friend, you cannot afford to sin.
If you are a real Christian, you came to Christ resolving to forsake every sin,
and do the whole will of God, at any cost. If you have a will to do right, you will
find a way or cry for God to provide one ~
You can afford to change the way you dress. You cannot afford to sin,
or to provoke others to sin.
You May Say “I am not attractive or shapely. No man is likely to be tempted by
a sight of me. Therefore I may dress as I please.”
In the first place, you are no proper judge of what is attractive to a man. It is of
course true that a shapely and beautiful woman is more likely to be a temptation
to a man than a plain woman, but it is also true that a woman who is not
attractive to one man probably will be to another, and even the homeliest will be
attractive to somebody. Just suppose that you are actually so unattractive that
no man would be thus tempted by you.
What about your example to other women ?
What about your example to those who have dressed improperly through all
their ungodly life, and who may be looking to you to teach them and lead them
in the right way ? Do you want them to look at you, and excuse their own
improper dress on the basis of your example?
Finally,
Some women are so naive, that they suppose that because no men are
actually making advances or propositions to them, they must not be a
temptation to any man.
Let them understand that a man derives great pleasure —sinful pleasure—
from looking at any and every attractive woman. Why do you suppose that
men spend millions of dollars every year for pornographic pictures ?
Let these pictures be left out of pornographic magazines, and see how many
copies they would sell! What pleasure can pictures afford them,
except the pleasure of looking?
It is looking at a woman’s body which provokes a man’s passions and sparks
his imagination, and there is great pleasure in that looking. Most men will freely
indulge in that pleasure, with little or no restraint. They will feast their eyes upon
the feminine form wherever they may find it, and this of course will include your
form if you dress so as to expose and display it.
Godly men will recognize that such pleasure is sinful except when it is confined
to their own wife, and they will fight hard to resist the temptation and conquer the
sin. but because of the extreme strength and intensity of the male passions,
they find this to be a very hard fight. In spite of all of their determination and
praying and striving, they may find their eyes seemingly involuntarily drawn to
the sight of a beautiful and shapely woman, and a moment’s involuntary sight
away be enough to take the heart away.
A man who has gained some mastery over this kind of temptation may easily
resist the initial onslaught, but constant exposure to such allurement may
weaken and break down even the strongest. Therefore we are told to “flee
youthful lusts”, (II Tim.2:22) —
( to flee from the very presence of such temptations )
But wither shall we flee in this wicked world?
Must We Flee From The Very Congregation Of God
In Order To Keep Our Hearts Pure?
Shame ! Shame! If We Can Not Find A Safe Haven There !
IN CONCLUSION :
There is nothing at all wrong or evil about your physical beauty.
It is the creation of God, and is, like all that God created, “very good”.
It was designed by God for a specific purpose:
The woman was made “for the man”. (I Cor.11:9)
The perfectly obvious design of your beauty is to satisfy the heart of a man —
BUT A MAN — NOT Every Man.
If God has joined you, the woman, To That One Man,
Then by all means, give that beauty to him,
AND
He will be the less susceptible to the beauty and charms of other women.
Thus Used,
The beauty of your body will glorify the God who gave it to you,
and serve the man for whom it was given.
BUT
If you put your body and beauty on display to the gaze of the whole world,
You will only glorify yourself …..AND , Serve the devil.
NOW
JUST WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT ?
Bishop J Holland 35217-0412 ~ {03/22/1973} ~
Back To The Bible Basics