Worship Without Instruments – Why?

Cory Collins wrote a book, titled Where Fresh Waters Flow: The Restoration Plea, that was published by Heritage Press in 2007. There is now a new, expanded 2025 edition of the book, which is available for purchase on Amazon. This post includes an expanded excerpt from the original 2007 edition.

Here are links to several videos of Cory’s sermons on this subject.

“Let the Church Sing” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufjw1bpSLvU

“By His Authority: Worship in Song” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F22MX0gXiKM

“Why Christians Sing” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPaOEoq1024

“The Church: Its Singing” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsFH2ZbhTUk

From the book:

After Jesus Christ shared the bread and the cup with His disciples at the Last Supper, the Scripture says, “When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives (Matthew 26:30).” They proceeded to Gethsemane, where Judas and the crowd came to arrest the Savior. Their singing serves as a powerful example of worship. It was from the heart, it was full of faith, and it was without mechanical accompaniment.

When Paul and Silas were in prison in Philippi, though they had been harshly mistreated and severely beaten, about midnight they were singing hymns of praise to God. The prisoners were listening to them (Acts 16:25). Their singing, directed toward God, had a tremendous impact on the lost people around them. They did not use or need any instrumental assistance.

People often ask regarding the worship of the churches of Christ, “Where’s the organ?” Or even, “Where’s the band?” Is simple, unaccompanied singing in worship optional, traditional, or eccentric … or is it biblical?

Let’s consider this question first of all from the Bible’s teaching. Then let’s look at additional matters that are historical and practical.

Biblical Reasons for Singing without Mechanical Instruments

The New Testament has all authority regarding Christian worship. Heb 8:13-10:18 While Christians learn from the Old Testament’s unchanging principles, they do not follow its specific means of worship. Incense, dancing, animal sacrifice, a separate priesthood, the Sabbath, three annual holy feasts, and instrumental music in the Temple worship were all part of the Old Testament administration. They are not part of the New.

In fact, Jesus Himself taught that worship in the New Covenant would be different from that of the Old. Instead of a physical Temple in Jerusalem, with all the outward, physical elements connected to it, He said, “… the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father … the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:19-24).

In the Old Testament, instruments were used specifically as part of the Temple services (2 Chron 29:25-30). So were other worship elements noted in the Psalms.

• Ps 20:3 Burnt offerings: rams, bulls, and goats

• Ps 107:22 Levitical thank offerings

• Ps 50:8; 51:19; 66:13 Burnt offerings

• Ps 118:27 Festal procession with waving of palm branches, as during the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev 23:40ff)

• Ps 26:6 Levitical altar

• Ps 122:1; 27:4 Temple in which God was worshiped

• Ps 5:7 Prayers offered at or toward the temple

Therefore, one cannot simply take authority for instruments, say from Psalm 150, without also considering the other items in Psalms that were part of the Temple worship system. One must look to the New Testament and ask, “How did the early Christians worship?”

The New Testament does not explicitly say, “You shall not use instruments of music.” Neither does it in such a direct way prohibit sprinkling for baptism, baptizing babies, praying to Mary, adding elements to the Lord’s Supper, or installing and honoring a Pope. However, it implicitly forbids all of these things by specifying certain other things. Thus it excludes all substitutes or changes. This is “The Law of Exclusion.”

When we put together a shopping list, we do not list the items that we are not buying. Other items are excluded. If they are added, we will not pay for them! In the same way, since God has specified the kind of music He wants in worship, He does not have to list all the kinds of music that He does not want.

The New Testament specifies that the music of the church is to be vocal music. The “instrument” or “organ” is the human heart, giving praise to God through the lips. The New Testament’s silence on the instrument is a thundering silence, especially in light of the prominence of instruments in Old Testament temple worship. Instruments were available for use; Christians from a Jewish background were accustomed to them; but the early church did not use them.

Read and consider Ephesians 5:18-21. Following the command to “be filled with the Spirit,” in the Greek text there are several participles that describe what Christians do who are filled with the Spirit. They are speaking …, singing …, making melody in the heart …, giving thanks …, and submitting to one another. Mechanical instruments are not necessary or expedient in the carrying out of this teaching, nor are they capable of speaking, singing, etc. Also consider Colossians 3:15-17.

Note the fact that the New Testament references specify vocal music.

Matt 26:30 - sang a hymn

Acts 16:25 - singing hymns

Rom 15:9 - I will sing hymns to Your name.

Rom 15:11 - Sing praises to Him, all you peoples.

1 Cor 14:15 - I will sing with my spirit and my mind.

1 Cor 14:26 - Everyone has a hymn, or word of instruction. (This would have been the place to mention instruments if they had been part of NT worship.)

Eph 5:19 - Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord.

Col 3:16 - Sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.

Jas 5:13 - Let him sing songs of praise.

Heb 13:15 - The sacrifice of praise, the fruit of lips that confess His name.

Music scholars, even outside the Restoration Movement, acknowledge the fact that the early church abstained from the use of such instruments.

¨Curt Sachs of Columbia University, one of the most eminent musicologists of modern times, has said, “All ancient Christian music was vocal.”

¨Lyman Coleman, an outstanding Presbyterian scholar: “Both the Jews in their temple service and the Greeks in their idol worship were accustomed to sing with the accompaniment of instrumental music.  The converts to Christianity must have been familiar with this model of singing, but it is generally admitted that the primitive Christians employed no instrumental music in their religious worship (The Primitive Church, pp. 370-371).”

¨Joseph Bingham, of the Church of England, in his book, Antiquities of the Church, says, “Music in the Church is as ancient as the apostles; but instrumental music is not.”

¨Hugo Leichtentritt writes: “Only singing, however, and no playing of instruments, was permitted in the early Christian Church (Music, History and Ideas, p. 34).”

¨Frank Landon Humphreys writes: “The early Christians discouraged all outward signs of excitement, and from the very beginning, in the music they used, reproduced the spirit of their religion — an outward quietude.  All the music employed in their early services was vocal (Evolution of Church Music, p. 42).”

Also remarkable is this. The term “a cappella” is Latin, meaning “in the manner of the church.” The very existence of this term further evidences the fact that singing “in the manner of the church” is singing without instrumental accompaniment.

In the past, some who have advocated the instrument have tried to claim biblical authority for it in the use of the Greek term psallo (> psalm) in Ephesians 5:19. They have said that the term meant to “pluck” a stringed instrument. If so, each Christian is required to pluck a stringed instrument in worship!

In fact, the word psallo appears also in 1 Cor 14:15 and Jas 5:13, where only vocal expression is in view. The Septuagint (Greek OT) also sometimes uses psallo in this purely vocal sense (Ps 135:3; 138:1; 146:2). If psallo in Eph 5:19 does allow or call for the use of an instrument, that instrument is specified: it is the heart.

Historical Reasons for Singing without Mechanical Instruments

These indisputable facts are evident from a study of church history. First, churches did not use musical instruments in worship for 600-plus years after Christ. Second, Protestant groups did not use them just 200 years ago. Third, many religious leaders have spoken against their use. Note:

¨Clement of Alexandria (150-210 AD): “The one instrument of peace, the word alone by which we honor God, is what we employ.  We no longer employ the ancient psaltery and trumpet, and timbrel, and flute.”  As quoted in Restoration Quarterly, Vol. I, No. 1, 1957, p. 3

¨Origen (325 AD):  “For the unison song of the people of Christ is more pleasing to God than any musical instrument.  Thereby in all the churches of God with one mind and heart, with unity and agreement in faith and worship, we offer to God a unison melody in our singing of Psalms.” Quoted in Restoration Quarterly, p. 4

¨John Chrysostom (345-407 AD): “There is no need of lyre there, nor stretched strings nor plectrum, nor of musical skill, nor of any instruments.  But if you choose, you will make yourself the lyre, putting to death the members of the flesh, and making a great harmony of the body with the soul.” “But I would say this, that in olden times they were thus led by these instruments because of the dullness of their understanding and their recent deliverance from idols.  Just as God allowed animal sacrifices, so also He let them have these instruments, condescending to help their weakness.”  Quoted in Restoration Quarterly, p. 45

¨Augustine (c. 400 AD):  “Has not a rule been established in the name of Christ with reference to those ‘vigils’ of yours, that harps (citharae, that is, lyres) should be excluded from this place?”

¨Jerome (c. 400 AD):  “A Christian should not know what a lyre or flute is, nor what their use is.”  Quoted on p. 144 in Instrumental Music in Worship, by M.C. Kurfees.

¨Thomas Aquinas, a leading Catholic Scholar of his age (1250 AD):  “Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize.”  Quoted in McClintock and Strong’s Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 739

¨John Calvin, founder of the Presbyterian Church:  “Musical instruments in celebrating the praise of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, the restoration of the other shadows of the law.  The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews.”  John Calvin’s Commentary, Thirty-third Psalm.

¨John Wesley, reputed founder of the Methodist Church: “I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen.”  Quoted in Clarke’s Commentary, Vol IV, p. 686

¨Adam Clarke, the greatest commentator of all times among the Methodists: “Music as a science, I esteem and admire; but instruments of music in the house of God I abominate and abhor.  This is the abuse of music; and here I register my protest against all such corruptions in the worship of the Author of Christianity.”  Clarke’s Commentary, Vol. IV, p. 686

¨Martin Luther called the organ “an ensign of Baal”.  McClintock & Strong’s Encyclopedia of Music, Vol. VII, p. 762

¨Charles H. Spurgeon, a very influential Baptist preacher in London years ago, said: “Israel was a school, and used childish things to help her to learn, but in these days, when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes … We do not need them.  They would hinder rather than help our praise.  Sing unto Him.  This is the sweetest and best music.  No instrument like human voice … We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it.” Spurgeon would not preach in a congregation where the instrument was present.

So the burden of proof is not upon the churches of Christ, as if we must prove why we do not use instruments. We need not feel defensive. The burden of proof is on those who would introduce and defend the instrument, without biblical warrant or historical precedent.

Practical Reasons for Singing without Mechanical Instruments

The introduction of instruments, without biblical warrant, continues to create division. Churches that use instruments have divided further over the question of what kind of instruments they prefer. The “traditional” service will have an organ, while the “contemporary” service will have a rock band. Singing without instruments promotes unity, since everyone agrees that vocal singing is Scriptural by itself.

The suggestion that instruments are necessary to attract lost people, or young people, is very troubling. The purpose of worship is to glorify God. The question is, “What pleases Him?” The question is not, “What kind of worship do we, or the lost, or the young, or the old, prefer?”

The use of instruments has taken various church assemblies from edification to entertainment ... from worship service to concert performance ... from participation to passivity ... and from the spiritual to the mechanical.

Instead, we choose to follow the simple, clear, New Testament teaching. The writer of Hebrews put it this way: “Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name.” Heb 13:15

 

Seven Days: Genesis 1 and the Fall of Jericho

It’s a fact that many professors, scholars, and authors have sought to reinterpret the creation account in Genesis 1 in various “non-literal” ways that discredit, discount, or deny the “days” described in that text. They insist that Genesis 1 does not exactly indicate what God actually did. These approaches include the day/age theory, the gap theory, the myth theory, theistic evolution, the cosmic temple theory, and perhaps others. Some of these views are tolerated and even promoted without a clear rebuttal in various Christian universities.

What does all this have to do with the fall of Jericho? Well, let's start by taking a look at Yahweh’s instructions to Joshua regarding the strategy he would use to take the city.

Josh 6:3 You shall march around the city, all the men of war going around the city once. Thus shall you do for six days. 4 Seven priests shall bear seven trumpets of rams’ horns before the ark. On the seventh day you shall march around the city seven times, and the priests shall blow the trumpets.

The account of Jericho's destruction mentions the first day, the second day, and so forth, including the seventh day. Not only are the days specifically numbered and put in sequential order; the morning is mentioned as part of the days involved.

So … how long were the “days” during which the Hebrews circled Jericho? There is virtually 100% agreement among Bible students, scholars, writers, and university professors. These were ordinary days, and the text makes that clear.

Now read Genesis 1 again. Hmm … The days of creation are numbered. They are placed in order. Each day is said to include an evening and a morning.

Strange. Why do non-literal interpreters of Genesis read the “days” of Genesis 1 and the “days” of Joshua 6, which are described in nearly identical terms, and draw contradictory conclusions? How can they say, “The days described in Joshua 6 are real, ordinary days, but the days described in Genesis 1 are not?”

The Hebrew word yom, which appears 2301 times in the Hebrew Bible, is typically translated as “day.” In every one of those instances, except for Genesis 1, all are agreed as to the proper meaning of the term.

Of course, yom can refer to a period other than an actual, ordinary day. We all agree with that. For example, notice Genesis 2:4, in which the word yom refers to the entire period of God’s creation.

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

Several other passages use the phrase, “in those days.” Note Judges 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25. Ruth 1:1. Clearly these texts refer to periods other than an actual, ordinary day. We may say, "Well, back in my day ..." or we may speak of "the good old days." Of course, in these cases, "day" and "days" do not refer to actual 24-hour days.

However, as we saw in Joshua 6:3-4, yom can refer to an actual, ordinary day.

What contextual factors indicate, rather demand, that yom describes a literal day?

Whenever the biblical text states the day and gives that day a number (first, second, third, etc.), it is referring to an actual, ordinary day.

Whenever the biblical text states the day as including a morning, it is referring to an actual, ordinary day.

Whenever the biblical text states the day as including an evening, it is referring to an actual, ordinary day.

Whenever the biblical text states the day and notes that there was also a night, it is referring to an actual, ordinary day.

In Genesis 1:5, Yahweh defines “day one” (the literal Hebrew) as having an evening and a morning. Then he continues with the second day, the third day, etc.

Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Read Exodus 20:11, in which Yahweh confirmed the six actual days of creation when giving Israel the Ten Commandments.

Ex 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

By the way, these texts (Genesis 1 and Exodus 20) provide the origin of the seven-day week. Our week is based on the clear, biblical texts that insists that God’s creation involved six literal days and a seventh day on which he rested and ceased creating.

Go back for a moment to Genesis 2:4. How do we know that “day” in this verse does not refer to an actual, ordinary day? We know that because Genesis 2:4 does not include any of the contextual elements that would indicate an ordinary day. There is no mention of an ordinal number, a morning or evening, or a night. The same is true of the passages cited from Judges and Ruth.

No one debates the interpretation of yom anywhere in the Bible – except in Genesis 1. And even in that crucial text, the “new” interpretations have come rather recently.

Until the 1700’s and 1800’s, virtually all biblical commentators, scholars, students, and theologians took Genesis 1 at face value. Even those who rejected the Bible as the inspired word of God agreed that Genesis 1 clearly claimed that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days.

The text did not change. The meaning of the words did not change. The history of interpretation did not change.

Enter the Re-interpreters of Genesis (ROGs)

What did change was this. Re-interpreters of Genesis (let’s call them ROGs) decided, based on the hypotheses and theories of modern science, that God could not have actually done what Genesis 1 says that he did.

ROGs came up with interpretive schemes that allowed them to have it both ways, so to speak. They would still claim that Genesis 1 tells the truth in some ways. However, they would affirm that the universe was not necessarily created in six ordinary days.

Why? Scientific hypotheses and theories emerged which insisted that the universe is millions and millions (or billions and billions) of years old. According to these beliefs, the earth could not have been created in six literal days, nor could it have been created as recently as the Genesis account indicates.

The only way that religious scholars could fit millions or billions of years into the biblical account was to re-interpret Genesis 1. There was no other way to do it. The findings of science, in their view, required reevaluation of what was once held as clear biblical teaching. The text of Genesis could no longer be taken at face value.

It is not my aim to disrespect or question the sincerity of various ROGs. It is rather my aim to affirm the clear meaning of the text of Genesis.

Here are a few of the alternate theories that some have proposed and promoted.

~ Non-creationism

In a separate article, I posted about a current trend which disconnects Genesis 1 entirely from the material creation of the universe. This view proposes that Genesis 1 actually describes God, not bringing matter into existence, but rather adding purpose and function to that which already existed. Please read that post for more information. 

https://coryhcollins.blogspot.com/2025/01/the-real-world-of-genesis-1.html

~ Creation mythology

A creation myth or cosmogonic myth is a type of cosmogony, a symbolic narrative of how the world began and how people first came to inhabit it. While in popular usage the term myth often refers to false or fanciful stories, members of cultures often ascribe varying degrees of truth to their creation myths.

~ Day-age creationism

This view holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not literal 24-hour days, but are much longer periods (from thousands to billions of years). The Genesis account is then reconciled with the age of the Earth. Proponents of the day-age theory can be found among both theistic evolutionists, who accept the scientific consensus on evolution, and progressive creationists, who reject it. The theories are said to be built on the understanding that the Hebrew word yom is also used to refer to a time period, with a beginning and an end and not necessarily that of a 24-hour day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-age_creationism

~ Progressive creationism

This is the religious belief that God created new forms of life gradually over a period of hundreds of millions of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_creationism

~ Theistic evolution

Also known as theistic evolutionism, God-guided evolution, or evolutionary creationism, this approach claims that God acts and creates through laws of nature. Here, God is taken as the primary cause while natural causes are secondary, positing that the concept of God and religious beliefs are compatible with the findings of modern science, including evolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

~ Gap creationism

Here’s one with a different take. Though it does treat the six days as actual days, it inserts the millions or billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

Gap creationism (also known as ruin-restoration creationism, restoration creationism, or “the Gap Theory”) is a form of creationism that posits that the six-yom creation period, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved six literal 24-hour days (light being “day” and dark “night” as God specified), but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, which the theory states explains many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth. It differs from day-age creationism, which posits that the ‘days’ of creation were much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years), and from young Earth creationism, which although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, does not posit any gap of time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism

Takeaways

The Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth, and all that is in them, in six days, and that he rested on the seventh day.

The Bible uses almost identical language to describe the days involved in the fall of Jericho.

There is virtually unanimous agreement regarding the nature of the “days” of Jericho’s fall.

There was virtually unanimous agreement regarding the “days” of creation in Genesis 1 until the 1700s and the 1800s.

More recent scientific theories have proposed that the earth was formed billions of years ago, over a very long period of time.

Therefore, many religious leaders and even some Christian university professors have concluded that the “face-value” reading of Genesis 1 is wrong.

They have offered multiple alternative interpretations of the Bible’s creation account.

They have not offered to reinterpret the identical language of Joshua 6 to mean something other than actual days.

In fact, it’s only when specific “days” are mentioned with creation that many are now teaching, “The days cannot be actual days.” Everywhere else in the Bible, specific "days" are understood to be just that.

The Bible still says, in unmistakable terms, even in Exodus:

Ex 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Here's a related post from Serving and Sharing: "The REAL World of Genesis 1."

https://coryhcollins.blogspot.com/search?q=real+world

 

Modesty - Jesus-Style

Image source: https://www.elim.org.uk

What if we started a discussion about modesty by talking first about Jesus?

Have you ever thought of Jesus as a modest person, in his demeanor, his conduct, his speech, and even his appearance? As disciples of Christ, let's approach the “sensitive” subject of modesty by asking, “How can we imitate and honor the modesty of our Master in our thoughts, words, relationships, appearance, and deeds?” When that is our aim, our only aim, we will find it much easier to make the everyday external choices regarding how we dress and act.

Regarding Jesus’ own modesty, let’s consider a revealing statement in Matthew 21:5. In his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, he fulfilled the “modesty” prophecy found in Zechariah 9:9.

Matt 21:5 “Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold your King is coming to you, gentle, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’”

The way we dress, speak, and act can say a lot about who we are, what we believe, and what we seek. The world urges us to dress less and show more, to promote ourselves, and to draw attention to ourselves. “Fit in! Impress others with how you look, how you live, and how much you have! Attract the opposite sex! Look cool and cute!” However, Jesus’ life tells a far different story.

Modesty and Jesus Christ

The prophet Isaiah predicted Jesus’ modesty 700+ years before his birth.

Isa 53:2 … He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.

Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. 2 He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; 3 a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. 4 He will not grow faint or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his law.

The Gospel of Matthew quotes that second passage after noting this about Jesus.

Matt 12:15 Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. And many followed him, and he healed them all 16 and ordered them not to make him known. 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: 18 “Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles. 19 He will not quarrel or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets; 20 a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory; 21 and in his name the Gentiles will hope.”

Jesus was not showy. His appearance was not particularly attractive or impressive. He wasn’t concerned about being first in line, but rather last. He didn’t seek to enrich himself, but rather to enrich others at his own expense. He didn’t “keep score” using any fleshly, material, social, or economic standards.

What is modesty? It’s common practice to focus first on the external, especially on the dangers of immodest clothing, gaudy jewelry, and an extravagant lifestyle. However, all of these outward elements actually express matters of the heart – one’s attitude, faith, values, and priorities.

For a disciple of Jesus Christ, everything – yes, everything – starts with Jesus Christ. Having died to self and sin, and having been buried with him in baptism, one rises to begin living a transformed life (Romans 6-8 – read it all!).

Modesty is moderation in one’s estimation of his own abilities, accomplishments, or value. It is humility, meekness, reserve or propriety in speech, dress, and behavior. To be modest is to focus on what is honorable, respectable, decent, and appropriate.

Rom 12:3 For by the grace given to me I say to each of you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.

Rom 12:16 … be of the same mind toward one another; be not haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation.

Phil 2:3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Phil 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

Jas 3:17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. 18 And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

What is the opposite of modesty? Extravagance, showiness, selfish pride, and narcissism. Improper attempts to impress, attract, and draw others to oneself by behavior, speech, lifestyle, or dress. “Look at me!”

Even when scripture talks about clothing, jewelry, and other outward factors, it connects these elements to one’s prior commitment to Christlike godliness.

Modesty and Adornment: 1 Tim 2:9-10

1 Tim 2:9 Likewise, I want women to adorn (kosmeo*) themselves with proper (kosmios*) clothing, modestly (aidos**) and discreetly (sophrosune***), not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. *>>>“cosmos” and “cosmetics.”

** With proper respect for convention, even reverence (Heb 12:28). KJV has “shamefacedness,” the ability to feel shame and to blush.

*** With sound judgment, rationality, self-control, moderation.

The Christian woman’s primary adornment: her good works. Why? Because she is all about godliness (reverence for God).

She adorns herself, not with an outward show, highlighting externals, but with good works. Why? Because that’s what fits her claim to godliness.

By the way, the primary issue in this text is overdressing. One can be immodest in either direction. Underdressing – showing too much, needing more clothes. Overdressing – showing off with excessive outward adornment.

How can modesty describe both of these? Because modesty describes the person who does not say, “Look at me based on my outward appearance!” One who seeks to create the WOW factor, either by wearing too little or by dressing extravagantly, is immodest.

Our clothes make a statement. Our appearance, just like our speech and conduct, should not draw undue attention to ourselves.

May our appearance not say “sex,” “money,” or “pride,” but “godliness,” “purity,” and “moderation.”

Modesty and Adornment: 1 Peter 3:1-6

1 Pet 3:1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

Again, adornment. Not first of all external, but “the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.”

Its quality and source: that of a gentle and quiet spirit.

Why? Because that’s what God sees and considers as precious.

Because the Christian woman is holy and hopes in God, like Sarah.

She will not compromise. She must not!

Think of Sarah. A beautiful woman, so that Abraham constantly feared that someone would kill him and take her! Yet today we know nothing specific about her physical appearance. What does it matter?

Christians don’t think, speak, act, or dress like the world. We are holy, set apart, and consecrated by God and for God.

Modesty and Principles

A woman – or a man! – whose primary adornment when “getting dressed” for life each day is good works that please God …

and whose primary “claim to fame” is his or her intense desire to be godly …

will naturally speak, act, and dress modestly …

lean on the cautious side and the conscience side …

and welcome the genuine help of others in that shared pursuit.

Modesty is first an attitude, not an action.

It begins with how one dresses the heart, not the body.

The outside reflects the inside, as the fruit reveals the tree.

Modesty and Clothing, Speech, and Behavior

Respect yourself, your privacy, your space, and your value.

Don’t cheapen yourself in your own eyes or the eyes of others.

Be transformed, not conformed. Be different. Be holy. Rom 12:1-2.

Adorn yourself with holiness first, before you speak, act, or dress.

When peers affect your choices, change your peers, not yourself.

Take thought for, respect what is right in the sight of all. Rom 12:17.

Remember: God gave clothes to conceal, not to reveal. Gen 3.

Respect your conscience. When in doubt, cover more, act out less.

Read Every Man’s Battle, Every Woman’s Battle, etc. (Arterburn).

Dress in such a way that most people will not even remember what you wore.

Don’t wear clothes that call attention to yourself but rather to your purity.

Don’t act, speak, or dress in order to tease or tantalize.

Ask yourself why you wear what you wear.

Who do you want to see you, and what do you want them to think or do when they see you.

More like the world, or less like the world.

What statement you make.

Modesty and the Home

Modesty begins in the home. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t preach and teach on the subject. We must! However, nothing takes the place of mom and dad discussing and demonstrating biblical modesty at home.

When a girl or a boy dresses inappropriately, for example, it was the mother or the father, not the preacher or the elders, who bought those clothes! Parents must address the modesty question, not only before our children leave the house, but before even shopping for clothes.

It can be extremely difficult for male church or camp leaders, who are not a girl’s father, to talk directly to her about modesty. So, fathers and mothers, step up! Teach your sons and daughters. This is your job!

Accept your God-given primary responsibility for such instruction.

Begin with the inside, “who you are and whose you are.”

Start with, “Because you love and honor God and you respect yourself and others …”

Show how the outside (behavior, speech, and dress) reflects such.

Don’t let them be naïve as to the world’s sexualization and seduction.

Warn them of cultural idols and celebrities who promote immodesty.

Demonstrate Christian modesty by the way you yourself act, dress, and speak.

Modesty and Temptation

Notice with me the complementary truths found in Romans 13:14 and in Romans 14:13. You can remember them by swapping the chapter numbers and the verse numbers – 13:14 and 14:13.

Each follower of Christ is responsible to control his or her eyes, thoughts, desires, and behavior. Scripture exhorts you and me, “But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires” (Romans 13:14). If one chooses to lust or practice sexual immorality, that person chooses to sin.

At the same time, you and I must “determine not to put an obstacle or stumbling block in the way of a brother” (Romans 14:13). If I know that my brother is very easily tempted by money, for example, I will not knowingly put a pile of cash where he could steal it without being seen!

Likewise, you and I must not act, speak, or dress in a way that we know may cause difficulty for members of the opposite sex. This has always been true, but it is perhaps even more true today than just a few decades ago. Our culture is sex-crazed. Clothing, television, movies, music, pornography, social media, multiple websites, and advertising often seek to heighten sexual desire.

So, from Romans remember both 13:14 and 14:13! Guard yourself against sin, but also protect others who may not guard themselves as carefully as you try to do.