The Flesh is Nothing to be Proud Of

Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; Revelation 3:17-18

The licentious society in which we live comes quite close to idolizing the naked body, but the whole tone of Scripture is in the opposite direction. The priests, for example, were commanded to wear breeches and not robes when they officiated, so that even the sight of a naked leg would not mar their service.

Women in the [churches] were to be modestly covered, and no doubt that meant legs and shoulders and chests as well as heads! In short, flesh is nothing to be proud of! It is far better for our sisters (and brothers) to cover theirs with a fair amount of clothing instead of a carefully nurtured suntan.

(Booker, George., By The Way, ChristadelphianBooksOnline, Section V)

Clothes Maketh the Man

Ora Horn Prouser wrote:

In the ancient world, clothing held symbolic value. Dress could indicate status, power or membership in an elite group. A purple robe, for example, represented royal authority (Esther 8:15); a linen ephod distinguished priests from mere worshippers (1 Samuel 22:18).

Clothing could also represent the wearer’s responsibilities. The removal of a shoe represented a rejection or a denial of obligation, as in the case of the levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). A garment could even stand in for its owner: For example, letters found in the ancient archives of Mari, in Syria, describe a professional prophet sending a piece of his hem to the king as both identification and a guarantee that his prophecy will come true.

Throughout the Hebrew Bible, the accumulation or receipt of clothing has positive connotations, as seen in Jacob’s famous gift of a tunic to his favorite son, Joseph (Genesis 37:3), and Hannah’s yearly present of a robe to her son, Samuel (1 Samuel 2:19). The loss of clothing and the status associated with it, however, can be humiliating, even devastating. The Ammonites, Israel’s enemies east of the Jordan, embarrass King David’s messengers by cutting their garments at the buttocks (2 Samuel 10:4-5)….

Several times in the Bible, the act of rending garments represents the gain or loss of a kingdom. The prophet Ahijah, for example, rips a garment into twelve pieces and tells Jeroboam to take ten of them, since God has declared, “I am tearing the kingdom from Solomon and I am giving you the ten tribes” (1 Kings 11:30-31). And when, earlier, Saul rips the prophet Samuel’s cloak, a princely garment that symbolizes the prophet’s calling and dignity, Samuel proclaims, “God has ripped the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one who is better than you” (1 Samuel 15:28). Ironically, Saul grasps Samuel’s cloak only as a gesture of supplication or submission, and David intends only to cut off a distinctive part of Saul’s garment—both acts, however, take on a far greater meaning in this context.

The Twinkling of an Eye

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, ... 1 Corinthians 15:51-52

Dr. A. Fruchtenbaum writes:

1 Corinthians 15:52 describes a change before bodies can enter Heaven. In verse 52a, the emphasis is on the quickness and rapidity of that change. It will be done in a moment. The Greek term translated moment is the word from which the English word “atom” comes. It is going to be in the “atom” of time.

Furthermore, it will also be as fast as the twinkling of an eye. This is not the blinking of the eye, but a reference to a sudden flash of recognition. It is like seeing a person one knows but does not immediately recognize. Then suddenly, that quick flash of recognition is what is meant by the twinkling of an eye. This verse emphasizes the quickness of the change.

Thou Shalt Not Murder

Exodus 20:6 says, “Thou shalt not kill” (KJV), and many people quote that as if it was a stand-alone verse and universally applicable, forbidding the death penalty. However, a study of the subject of the death penalty reveals a totally different picture.

First, comparing the KJV to other modern versions, including the New King James Version,
reveals that almost all modern versions read, “You shall not murder,” and doing a lexical study
of the Hebrew word shows that “murder” is indeed the better translation, especially in light of
our modern culture.

Beside that, the next chapter in Exodus proscribes the death penalty for murders, saying, “Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death” (Ex.21:12).

Continued study of the scope of the subject shows that the death penalty was proscribed by the Law for several crimes, including attacking one’s father or mother (Ex. 21:15), and
kidnapping (Ex. 21:16) and, under certain conditions, rape (Deut. 22:25). In fact, every book of
the Torah, the five books of Moses, proscribes the death penalty for specific crimes, and a
detailed study of the New Testament shows that the New Testament does not forbid the death
penalty.

Study will show that many of the leaders we look up to as the heroes of the Bible executed people, including Moses (Nu. 15:36), Joshua (Josh. 7:25) and Solomon (1 Kings 2:25;46). Far from forbidding the death penalty, the Bible mandates it as a means of keeping society
safe.

John Schoenheit, The Death Penalty: Godly or Ungodly (Christian Educational Services, Indianapolis, IN, 2000)

Note: Although not completely opposed, I personally struggle with some aspects of the death penalty. But I thought that this author made some interesting points.

Jehu is called “Zimri.”

And as Jehu entered in at the gate, she said, Had Zimri peace, who slew his master? 2 Kings 9:31


2 Kings 9:31 is another example where the scope of a subject gives us details that enrich our understanding of the record.

The conquering warrior Jehu was approaching the city of Jezreel in his chariot, when the ungodly Jezebel looked out a window and called him, “Zimri.” Without a scope of Scripture, her statement would be meaningless.

However, from 1 Kings 16 we learn that Zimri was a general who murdered his king to gain the
kingdom, but only reigned seven days before he himself was murdered. By calling Jehu, “Zimri,”
Jezebel was apparently hoping to shock Jehu into not killing her, but working out some kind of
deal. Her tactic did not work. He killed her and took over the kingdom.

www.truthortradition.com/pdf/BibleStudyGuide.pdf

This is where an alternate translation of this verse can benefit our understanding. The NLT translation says:

When Jehu entered the gate of the palace, she shouted at him, "Have you come in peace, you murderer? You are just like Zimri, who murdered his master!"

Ears, Hands, and Great Toes

Then shalt thou kill the ram, and take of his blood, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right ear of his sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe of their right foot, and sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about. Exodus. 29:20

The blood applied to the right ear, right hand, and right foot signified that all the bodily members and soul and spirit faculties of priests were to be consecrated to God and His service. They represent the hearing, working, and walking members of the body.

Priest were to hear and obey God and the law, work with their hands in performing their service, and walk in all the ways of God.

(Dake, Finis Jennings., Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible, Dake Publishing, Inc. Lawrenceville, Georgia, 1999, pg 185)

Under His Feet

Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. Hebrews 2:8

In ancient times, the king’s throne was elevated so that everyone who visited him had to bow down before him, sometimes even kissing his feet. His subjects were accordingly said to be “under his feet.” The feet were considered the lowliest part of the body, so to be under someone’s feet was to have lower status than him.


(NavPress Bible study, Hebrews, NavPress, Colorado Springs, CO: 1989, pg 35)