"(The Greek Sailors) were spectators of a worship which had no beneficial effect on their characters" (Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistle of St. Paul, p. 271). Reader, is your worship any different?

Text: "Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body" (I Car. 6:13).

According to the Word of God, ’the body is not for fornication," that is, the body of a man or a woman is neither designed nor intended for fornication. This is not the purpose for the body: it is rather created and designed "for the Lord."

The argument so brazenly voiced in our day that "It is my body" is just not so. Man did not create his body; and it belongs to Him who did. It belongs to the Lord, and is His by right of creation, providence, and salvation. For this reason, the Apostle begs us still, saying, "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 mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God" (Rom. 12:1,2).

When a Society rejects the Lord, the degradation of woman-hood, and of manhood is the result. This is seen by the corresponding disrespect for the body. While this will be evidenced by the increase of fornication, it will also be seen by the disfiguring of the body, and by dress. Consider these latter.

Following the dismissal of Lorena Bobbitt in the 1994 trial case that captured international interest, The Augusta Chronicle conducted a poll involving 949 readers. The case, you will recall, concerned Mrs. Bobbitt’s mutilation of her husband. Some 470 respondents in the Augusta, Ga. Area believed Mrs. Bobbitt should be found "Not Guilty!" which she was; while 479 Augustans’ declared she should have been found "Guilty!"

Consider the seriousness of her deed when God declared to Moses that no Levite who was emasculated was to be allowed to serve as priest (Lev. 21:17-21).

Consider as well, that God declared "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD" (Deut. 23:1).

The seriousness of the act, the dastardliness of the deed can be sensed when we read that God made it a law that "When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, THINE EYE SHALL NOT PITY HER" (Deut. 25:11,12). This is God’s judgment for a woman who merely takes hold of the forbidden area. For what she did, Lorena Bobbitt ought to have been sentenced to death.

God told Israel, "They shall not... make any cuttings in their flesh" (Lev. 21:5b). This is not, as some have maintained, a prohibition of surgery such as to remove a tooth, or a ruptured appendix. The context deals with the willful disfigurement of the body, and includes the piercing of the flesh in an attempt to make the body more beautiful such as by piercing the ears. In our day, the sense of beauty has been so perverted as to include nose jewels, and the placing of body rings on the chest, in the navel, on the eyebrow, etc. God says we are not to make "any cutting in (the) flesh," that is, for cosmetic reasons, whether the form of implants, "tummy tucks," or face lifts." "Be content with such things as ye have."

Christians should not be so overcome with grief that they would make cuttings in their flesh "for the dead" (Lev. 19:28b). They must not disfigure their body. "The body is ...for the Lord..." And, what more might be said of the heathen practice of mutilating females.

"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD" (Lev. 19:28). Here God forbids the practice of printing marks upon the body. The body is to be left to its own unique beauty, unaltered by the "skill" of man.

Included here is the prohibition against the modern practice of cutting the hair in such a fashion as to disfigure a person’s appearance. This includes everything from the unisex appearance, to that which is weird; as well as the practice of "sculpturing" the hair to depict words, or figures. "They shall not make baldness upon the head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh" (Lev. 21:5)

The Word of God does not change with the times. The commandments, of God are still current, and they will never cease to be currant.

The Apostle reasoned with first century Christians, saying, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him" (I Cor. 11:14)? Reader, does not nature still teach this fact? It does, and it is a matter of shame for a man to sport long hair. It is as effeminate on men today-as it was for Absalom. It is shameful.

It is also just as true in the 20^th century as it was in the first century, that if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering" (I Cor. 11:15). As it is a sign of effeminacy for a man to wear his hair long, so it is masculine, and not feminine, for a woman to wear her hair short or cropped. God has given women hair as their glory.

When Isaiah wrote, " Make bare the leg, uncover the thigh...thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen" (Is. 47: 2b, 3a), he wrote of the shame and the enslavement of Babylon on account of her cruel treatment of God’s people. The baring of the leg and the uncovering of the thigh is a thing of shame and humiliation practiced by conquerors over the conquered. What kind of person is willing to do a shameful thing in order to attract attention to their body? Yet, how many Christians shamelessly dress in their shorts exposing their legs and their thighs! Brethren, such things ought not to be done! "The body is...for the Lord."

When Moses wrote, "The woman shall not wear that which pertains unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God" (Deut. 22:5), was this not done by inspiration? Has God annulled the commandment? Did God only intend it for Israel in ancient times?

Since "No prophecy of the Scriptures is of any private interpretation" (II Pet. 1:2a), Scripture must be interpreted in manner consistent with the way believers have understood it throughout history. For example, John Gill, a predecessor of Spurgeon who was reputed to be the leading Hebraist of his day, understands the verse to prohibit a woman from wearing man’s clothing, or to use the tools that a man uses in his trade; and states a woman has no business doing the work of a man. In our own day, we would add the exchanging of roles is here prohibited. There is to be no "Mr. Mom." However, a husband ought to be kind and to help his wife when she is ill or especially tired, but he should not do so commonly.

Gill cites 0nkelos as pointing out that the Hebrew words "kell geber" signify "armor" and here prohibit women from putting on military clothes and going with men to war.

Josephus states, "Take heed, especially in war, that women do not make use of that habit of men..."

In his commentary on the Scriptures, Adam Clarke translates the words "kell geber" as "instruments or arms of a man."

Matthew Henry agrees, declaring the distinction between men and women should not be confused either by their hair or by their clothes. "(The verse) forbids the confounding of dispositions and affairs of the sexes: men must not be effeminate, nor do women’s work in the house" (Remember, when the military would fine a servicemen for pushing a baby carriage?), "nor must women be viragos-- pretend to teach, or usurp authority."

Yet, how many Christian women fearlessly break this command of God and dress in slacks, and pantsuits both of which "pertain" unto man’s apparel! Every attempt to justify their use is a fraud; and women who wear them bend, stoop, and walk like men. They lose their womanly characteristics. A Christian woman in LaFayette, Georgia has refused to wear pants to her work as a paramedic. As a result, the ironclad rule was bent, thus allowing her to wear a long dress. "The body is...for the Lord."

The excessive use of jewelry is always associated in Scripture

with apostasy. Hosea said it was in the days when Israel served Baalim that she "decked herself with her earrings and her jewels, and she went after her lovers" and forgot Him (Hos. 2:13).

Isaiah described the daughters of Zion saying they were "haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: therefore, the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.

"In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, the chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, the bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, the rings, and nose jewels, the changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, the glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the veils.

"And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty" (Is. 3:16-24).

Some will charge us with "legalism," but is this not the same charge that is leveled in every age by those who do not want to be obedient to the Word of God?

"The body is...for the Lord;" and all Christians are to be good stewards of the body that God has given to them.

__________________________

April 15, 1994

Capital City/ABC Inc.

Mr. Charles Gibson

77 W. 66th Street

New York, New York 10023

Dear Mr. Gibson:

I was appalled by your audacious segment Friday morning (April 15th, 1994) in which you equated "homosexuality" (what Bible calls "sodomy") with normalcy. Your wishful thinking does not make it so.

AIDS is an unnecessary disease. It is the judgment God has ordained for conduct that is contrary to natural law. How long will you continue to pervert the fight ways of the LORD?

Sincerely yours,

Text: "And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land" (Gen. 34:1).

The daughter of Jacob was neither a credit, nor a joy to her family. She was neither exemplary, nor happy because she was indulged by her parents. Jacob was indulgent with all his children, and therefore, when his children grew, they were all a grief to him. It is likely that Joseph escaped the same fate only by his being sold into slavery by his older brothers.

The incident before us occurred when Dinah was likely 15 or 16 years of age. She was daring for "she went out." She was curious what the world was like, but this curiosity exposed her to shame. She was rebellious, for she gad about. She put herself in danger when she went abroad. A father would know this, and likely had warned her often, yet she went out believing she could take care of herself.

She ought to have remained at home, but the dangers to which people expose themselves are often of their own making. She went to see the "daughters of the land" -how they dressed; what was fashionable; how they danced. Like Eve, she wanted to be worldly-wise. She also went to be seen, and to see the sons of men.

Dinah was snared by the prince, the son of the Chief of the place. Shechem showed an interest in her. He seduced her-he took her-he lay with her. The text would seem to teach that the prince did not force her, but rather that he surprised her. He took advantage of her Innocence, and of her present rebellion. He ought to have protected her, but he instead took advantage of her. When Dinah sported with her virtue, her seduction was made possible. Christian young people ought to avoid all occasions to sin.

Shechem was more honorable than the men of the place were for he took her into his house. He did not put her away, but he spoke to his father to arrange their marriage. Now, the morality of the place was so animalistic, that Chief Hamor never even apologized for hie son’s behavior. Neither is there any evidence that he rebuked his son.

Two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, were "very wroth" when they heard how the Canaanite prince had "wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob’s daughter; which thing ought not to be done" (7).

Together they persuaded Hamor and his son their families could live as one people, but only if the men of the place were circumcised. The men agreed, and when the men were yet sore, the two brothers boldly came upon the city and killed every man of the place. When Jacob chided them for their actions, they answered, "Should he deal with out sister as with an harlot" (31)?

How dreadfully low is the morality of our day!

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen" (II Cor. 13:14).