Clothing serves not only the utilitarian function of protecting the body from the elements (1 Tim. 6:8; James 2:15–16) but also a number of socially constructed functions, such as identifying the status of the wearer (James 2:2–3) and expressing cultural values such as modesty and beauty. The full range of such functions is attested in the Bible, and clothing plays a prominent symbolic role in a number of texts. Evidence concerning Israelite and other ancient clothing comes not only from the Bible but also from reliefs, pottery decorations, incised ivories, and, to a limited extent, textile fragments recovered in archaeological excavations.

In biblical lands most clothing was made from the wool of sheep or goats. More expensive articles (such as the garments of priests and aristocrats) could be made from linen, a textile made from the plant fiber flax. Other items, such as sandals, belts, and undergarments, were made from leather. Biblical law forbade the mixture of woolen and linen fibers in Israelite clothing (Deut. 22:11).

Articles of Clothing

A number of specific articles of clothing can be identified in the Bible. Egyptian and Mesopotamian pictures suggest that in OT times each nation was known for a distinctive costume or hairstyle. Some notion of how Israelite costume was perceived, at least that of royalty, may be derived from the depiction of the northern king Jehu (842–814 BC) and his retinue on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In this image Israelites are depicted wearing softly pointed caps, pointed shoes, and fringed mantles.

In OT Israel, men wore an undergarment or loincloth held in place by a belt. This loincloth could be made of linen (Jer. 13:1) or leather (2 Kings 1:8). Over this was worn an ankle-length woolen robe or tunic. The tunic of Joseph, traditionally rendered as his “coat of many colors” (Gen. 37:3 KJV, following the LXX), is perhaps better described not as colorful but as “long-sleeved” (see also 2 Sam. 13:18 NASB). The corresponding garments worn by women were similar in appearance, though sufficiently distinct that cross-dressing could be prohibited (Deut. 22:5).

Outside the tunic were worn cloaks (Exod. 22:25–26), sashes (Isa. 22:21), and mantles (1 Kings 19:19). A crafted linen sash was a marketable item (Prov. 31:24), whereas a rope belt was a poor substitute (Isa. 3:24). Both Elijah and John the Baptist wore a belt of leather (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6).

The characteristic garment of the elite was a loose-fitting, wide-sleeved, often elegantly decorated royal robe (Heb. me’il  ). This garment was worn by priests (Exod. 28:4), nobility, kings, and other highly placed members of Israelite society, such as Samuel (1 Sam. 15:27–28), Jonathan (1 Sam. 18:4), Saul (1 Sam. 24:4), David (1 Chron. 15:27), David’s daughter Tamar (2 Sam. 13:18), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3).

In the NT, the inner garment was the tunic (chitōn), and the outer garment was the cloak (himation). This distinction lies behind the famous command of Jesus: “From one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either” (Luke 6:29 ESV). The Gospel of John reports that the tunic taken from Jesus at the time of his death was made seamlessly from a single piece of cloth (John 19:23).

Footwear consisted of leather sandals attached to the feet by straps (John 1:27). Sandals were removed as a sign of respect in the presence of deity (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The exchange of footwear also played a role in formalizing various legal arrangements (Ruth 4:7–8; see also Deut. 25:9).

Special Functions of Clothing

According to Genesis, the first humans lived initially without clothing or the shame of nakedness (Gen. 2:25). After eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve realized that they were naked and fashioned clothing from leaves (3:7). Later, God made “garments of skin” for Adam and his wife (3:21). The significance of this story and the meaning of the divinely fashioned garments have a long history of interpretation going back to antiquity. Clearly, however, the story illustrates that a basic function of clothing is to cover nakedness—a motif that soon after this story is featured again in the story of Noah and his sons (9:21–23).

Rebekah’s ploy to secure the birthright for her son Jacob involved disguising him in the clothing of his brother Esau (Gen. 27:15; see also Saul’s use of disguise in 1 Sam. 28:8). This tale illustrates how especially in a culture in which individuals owned what would, by modern standards, be considered a limited amount of clothing, clothing itself became an extension of the individual’s identity. In the same way, Jacob himself later was tricked into thinking that one of his own sons was dead, based on the identification of an article of clothing (Gen. 37:31–33). That Isaac could detect Esau’s distinctive smell on his clothing may also indicate the infrequency with which garments were changed and laundered (Gen. 27:27; see also Matt. 10:10). So closely was clothing identified with its owner that a garment could be used as collateral or a pledge, though biblical law regulates this practice for humanitarian reasons (Exod. 22:26). Perhaps because the production of clothing was labor intensive, making clothes for someone was sometimes considered an act of intimacy or an expression of love, so that descriptions of this aspect of clothing in the Bible are quite poignant (see 1 Sam. 2:19; Acts 9:39). When clothing wore out, it was discarded and replaced (Ps. 102:26; Isa. 51:6; Luke 12:33). During the forty years in the wilderness, as a special provision to the Israelites, their clothes and shoes did not wear out (Deut. 8:4; 29:5; Neh. 9:21).

Clothing was an emblem not only of one’s identity but also of one’s office. Thus, when the authority of Elijah passed to his disciple Elisha, Elisha received his master’s cloak or mantle (2 Kings 2:13–14; see also Isa. 22:21). Examples of this function are multiplied when we consider the significance of clothing in symbolizing the role of priests in ancient Israel (e.g., Exod. 29:5–9; 39:27–31). The story of Tamar illustrates that the status of certain women was expressed by their clothing, including that of the prostitute (Gen. 38:15) and the widow (Gen. 38:14, 19).

Biblical texts reveal a rich gestural language involving clothing. In several biblical accounts, spreading the corner of one’s garment over a woman appears as a courtship or marriage ritual (Ruth 3:9; Ezek. 16:8). Giving garments as gifts was a way of honoring or elevating the recipient (Gen. 45:22; Judg. 14:12; Ezek. 16:10; Dan. 5:7), including royal investiture (Pss. 45:8; 93:1; 104:1). The guards who tortured Jesus prior to his crucifixion made light of his status as “king” by dressing him in a royal purple robe (Luke 23:11; John 19:2–3). Grasping someone’s garment, especially its hem, signified entreaty (1 Sam. 15:27–28; Zech. 8:23; Mark 5:27–28). Tearing one’s garments was a way of expressing despair or repentance (Gen. 37:29; Josh. 7:6; Judg. 11:35) or of lodging an especially strong protest (Num. 14:6; Matt. 26:65; Acts 14:14). In some cases, the tearing clothing was accompanied by the act of donning sackcloth and ashes, which signified a further degree of self-humiliation or mourning (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31; 2 Kings 19:1; Matt. 11:21; in Jon. 3:8 animals are included as well, perhaps to comic effect). In such instances, shoes and headwear were also removed (2 Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:2; Ezek. 24:17). A number of these customs can be understood in terms of the correlation of nakedness with shame, and clothing with honor. Military captives often were stripped naked as a form of humiliation (Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:10; Amos 2:16). In Luke 8:27 Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man who neither lived in a house nor wore clothing. In this case, the lack of clothing represents the full measure of human degradation.

Clothing stands symbolically for attributes such as righteousness and salvation (Job 29:14; Ps. 132:9; Isa. 61:10), the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Cor. 5:2–4), glory and honor (Job 40:10), union with Christ (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27), compassion and other virtues (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5), and purity (Rev. 3:18).

Clothing serves not only the utilitarian function of protecting the body from the elements (1 Tim. 6:8; James 2:15–16) but also a number of socially constructed functions, such as identifying the status of the wearer (James 2:2–3) and expressing cultural values such as modesty and beauty. The full range of such functions is attested in the Bible, and clothing plays a prominent symbolic role in a number of texts. Evidence concerning Israelite and other ancient clothing comes not only from the Bible but also from reliefs, pottery decorations, incised ivories, and, to a limited extent, textile fragments recovered in archaeological excavations.

In biblical lands most clothing was made from the wool of sheep or goats. More expensive articles (such as the garments of priests and aristocrats) could be made from linen, a textile made from the plant fiber flax. Other items, such as sandals, belts, and undergarments, were made from leather. Biblical law forbade the mixture of woolen and linen fibers in Israelite clothing (Deut. 22:11).

Articles of Clothing

A number of specific articles of clothing can be identified in the Bible. Egyptian and Mesopotamian pictures suggest that in OT times each nation was known for a distinctive costume or hairstyle. Some notion of how Israelite costume was perceived, at least that of royalty, may be derived from the depiction of the northern king Jehu (842–814 BC) and his retinue on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In this image Israelites are depicted wearing softly pointed caps, pointed shoes, and fringed mantles.

In OT Israel, men wore an undergarment or loincloth held in place by a belt. This loincloth could be made of linen (Jer. 13:1) or leather (2 Kings 1:8). Over this was worn an ankle-length woolen robe or tunic. The tunic of Joseph, traditionally rendered as his “coat of many colors” (Gen. 37:3 KJV, following the LXX), is perhaps better described not as colorful but as “long-sleeved” (see also 2 Sam. 13:18 NASB). The corresponding garments worn by women were similar in appearance, though sufficiently distinct that cross-dressing could be prohibited (Deut. 22:5).

Outside the tunic were worn cloaks (Exod. 22:25–26), sashes (Isa. 22:21), and mantles (1 Kings 19:19). A crafted linen sash was a marketable item (Prov. 31:24), whereas a rope belt was a poor substitute (Isa. 3:24). Both Elijah and John the Baptist wore a belt of leather (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6).

The characteristic garment of the elite was a loose-fitting, wide-sleeved, often elegantly decorated royal robe (Heb. me’il  ). This garment was worn by priests (Exod. 28:4), nobility, kings, and other highly placed members of Israelite society, such as Samuel (1 Sam. 15:27–28), Jonathan (1 Sam. 18:4), Saul (1 Sam. 24:4), David (1 Chron. 15:27), David’s daughter Tamar (2 Sam. 13:18), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3).

In the NT, the inner garment was the tunic (chitōn), and the outer garment was the cloak (himation). This distinction lies behind the famous command of Jesus: “From one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either” (Luke 6:29 ESV). The Gospel of John reports that the tunic taken from Jesus at the time of his death was made seamlessly from a single piece of cloth (John 19:23).

Footwear consisted of leather sandals attached to the feet by straps (John 1:27). Sandals were removed as a sign of respect in the presence of deity (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The exchange of footwear also played a role in formalizing various legal arrangements (Ruth 4:7–8; see also Deut. 25:9).

Special Functions of Clothing

According to Genesis, the first humans lived initially without clothing or the shame of nakedness (Gen. 2:25). After eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve realized that they were naked and fashioned clothing from leaves (3:7). Later, God made “garments of skin” for Adam and his wife (3:21). The significance of this story and the meaning of the divinely fashioned garments have a long history of interpretation going back to antiquity. Clearly, however, the story illustrates that a basic function of clothing is to cover nakedness—a motif that soon after this story is featured again in the story of Noah and his sons (9:21–23).

Rebekah’s ploy to secure the birthright for her son Jacob involved disguising him in the clothing of his brother Esau (Gen. 27:15; see also Saul’s use of disguise in 1 Sam. 28:8). This tale illustrates how especially in a culture in which individuals owned what would, by modern standards, be considered a limited amount of clothing, clothing itself became an extension of the individual’s identity. In the same way, Jacob himself later was tricked into thinking that one of his own sons was dead, based on the identification of an article of clothing (Gen. 37:31–33). That Isaac could detect Esau’s distinctive smell on his clothing may also indicate the infrequency with which garments were changed and laundered (Gen. 27:27; see also Matt. 10:10). So closely was clothing identified with its owner that a garment could be used as collateral or a pledge, though biblical law regulates this practice for humanitarian reasons (Exod. 22:26). Perhaps because the production of clothing was labor intensive, making clothes for someone was sometimes considered an act of intimacy or an expression of love, so that descriptions of this aspect of clothing in the Bible are quite poignant (see 1 Sam. 2:19; Acts 9:39). When clothing wore out, it was discarded and replaced (Ps. 102:26; Isa. 51:6; Luke 12:33). During the forty years in the wilderness, as a special provision to the Israelites, their clothes and shoes did not wear out (Deut. 8:4; 29:5; Neh. 9:21).

Clothing was an emblem not only of one’s identity but also of one’s office. Thus, when the authority of Elijah passed to his disciple Elisha, Elisha received his master’s cloak or mantle (2 Kings 2:13–14; see also Isa. 22:21). Examples of this function are multiplied when we consider the significance of clothing in symbolizing the role of priests in ancient Israel (e.g., Exod. 29:5–9; 39:27–31). The story of Tamar illustrates that the status of certain women was expressed by their clothing, including that of the prostitute (Gen. 38:15) and the widow (Gen. 38:14, 19).

Biblical texts reveal a rich gestural language involving clothing. In several biblical accounts, spreading the corner of one’s garment over a woman appears as a courtship or marriage ritual (Ruth 3:9; Ezek. 16:8). Giving garments as gifts was a way of honoring or elevating the recipient (Gen. 45:22; Judg. 14:12; Ezek. 16:10; Dan. 5:7), including royal investiture (Pss. 45:8; 93:1; 104:1). The guards who tortured Jesus prior to his crucifixion made light of his status as “king” by dressing him in a royal purple robe (Luke 23:11; John 19:2–3). Grasping someone’s garment, especially its hem, signified entreaty (1 Sam. 15:27–28; Zech. 8:23; Mark 5:27–28). Tearing one’s garments was a way of expressing despair or repentance (Gen. 37:29; Josh. 7:6; Judg. 11:35) or of lodging an especially strong protest (Num. 14:6; Matt. 26:65; Acts 14:14). In some cases, the tearing clothing was accompanied by the act of donning sackcloth and ashes, which signified a further degree of self-humiliation or mourning (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31; 2 Kings 19:1; Matt. 11:21; in Jon. 3:8 animals are included as well, perhaps to comic effect). In such instances, shoes and headwear were also removed (2 Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:2; Ezek. 24:17). A number of these customs can be understood in terms of the correlation of nakedness with shame, and clothing with honor. Military captives often were stripped naked as a form of humiliation (Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:10; Amos 2:16). In Luke 8:27 Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man who neither lived in a house nor wore clothing. In this case, the lack of clothing represents the full measure of human degradation.

Clothing stands symbolically for attributes such as righteousness and salvation (Job 29:14; Ps. 132:9; Isa. 61:10), the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Cor. 5:2–4), glory and honor (Job 40:10), union with Christ (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27), compassion and other virtues (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5), and purity (Rev. 3:18).

Clothing serves not only the utilitarian function of protecting the body from the elements (1 Tim. 6:8; James 2:15–16) but also a number of socially constructed functions, such as identifying the status of the wearer (James 2:2–3) and expressing cultural values such as modesty and beauty. The full range of such functions is attested in the Bible, and clothing plays a prominent symbolic role in a number of texts. Evidence concerning Israelite and other ancient clothing comes not only from the Bible but also from reliefs, pottery decorations, incised ivories, and, to a limited extent, textile fragments recovered in archaeological excavations.

In biblical lands most clothing was made from the wool of sheep or goats. More expensive articles (such as the garments of priests and aristocrats) could be made from linen, a textile made from the plant fiber flax. Other items, such as sandals, belts, and undergarments, were made from leather. Biblical law forbade the mixture of woolen and linen fibers in Israelite clothing (Deut. 22:11).

Articles of Clothing

A number of specific articles of clothing can be identified in the Bible. Egyptian and Mesopotamian pictures suggest that in OT times each nation was known for a distinctive costume or hairstyle. Some notion of how Israelite costume was perceived, at least that of royalty, may be derived from the depiction of the northern king Jehu (842–814 BC) and his retinue on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In this image Israelites are depicted wearing softly pointed caps, pointed shoes, and fringed mantles.

In OT Israel, men wore an undergarment or loincloth held in place by a belt. This loincloth could be made of linen (Jer. 13:1) or leather (2 Kings 1:8). Over this was worn an ankle-length woolen robe or tunic. The tunic of Joseph, traditionally rendered as his “coat of many colors” (Gen. 37:3 KJV, following the LXX), is perhaps better described not as colorful but as “long-sleeved” (see also 2 Sam. 13:18 NASB). The corresponding garments worn by women were similar in appearance, though sufficiently distinct that cross-dressing could be prohibited (Deut. 22:5).

Outside the tunic were worn cloaks (Exod. 22:25–26), sashes (Isa. 22:21), and mantles (1 Kings 19:19). A crafted linen sash was a marketable item (Prov. 31:24), whereas a rope belt was a poor substitute (Isa. 3:24). Both Elijah and John the Baptist wore a belt of leather (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6).

The characteristic garment of the elite was a loose-fitting, wide-sleeved, often elegantly decorated royal robe (Heb. me’il  ). This garment was worn by priests (Exod. 28:4), nobility, kings, and other highly placed members of Israelite society, such as Samuel (1 Sam. 15:27–28), Jonathan (1 Sam. 18:4), Saul (1 Sam. 24:4), David (1 Chron. 15:27), David’s daughter Tamar (2 Sam. 13:18), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3).

In the NT, the inner garment was the tunic (chitōn), and the outer garment was the cloak (himation). This distinction lies behind the famous command of Jesus: “From one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either” (Luke 6:29 ESV). The Gospel of John reports that the tunic taken from Jesus at the time of his death was made seamlessly from a single piece of cloth (John 19:23).

Footwear consisted of leather sandals attached to the feet by straps (John 1:27). Sandals were removed as a sign of respect in the presence of deity (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The exchange of footwear also played a role in formalizing various legal arrangements (Ruth 4:7–8; see also Deut. 25:9).

Special Functions of Clothing

According to Genesis, the first humans lived initially without clothing or the shame of nakedness (Gen. 2:25). After eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve realized that they were naked and fashioned clothing from leaves (3:7). Later, God made “garments of skin” for Adam and his wife (3:21). The significance of this story and the meaning of the divinely fashioned garments have a long history of interpretation going back to antiquity. Clearly, however, the story illustrates that a basic function of clothing is to cover nakedness—a motif that soon after this story is featured again in the story of Noah and his sons (9:21–23).

Rebekah’s ploy to secure the birthright for her son Jacob involved disguising him in the clothing of his brother Esau (Gen. 27:15; see also Saul’s use of disguise in 1 Sam. 28:8). This tale illustrates how especially in a culture in which individuals owned what would, by modern standards, be considered a limited amount of clothing, clothing itself became an extension of the individual’s identity. In the same way, Jacob himself later was tricked into thinking that one of his own sons was dead, based on the identification of an article of clothing (Gen. 37:31–33). That Isaac could detect Esau’s distinctive smell on his clothing may also indicate the infrequency with which garments were changed and laundered (Gen. 27:27; see also Matt. 10:10). So closely was clothing identified with its owner that a garment could be used as collateral or a pledge, though biblical law regulates this practice for humanitarian reasons (Exod. 22:26). Perhaps because the production of clothing was labor intensive, making clothes for someone was sometimes considered an act of intimacy or an expression of love, so that descriptions of this aspect of clothing in the Bible are quite poignant (see 1 Sam. 2:19; Acts 9:39). When clothing wore out, it was discarded and replaced (Ps. 102:26; Isa. 51:6; Luke 12:33). During the forty years in the wilderness, as a special provision to the Israelites, their clothes and shoes did not wear out (Deut. 8:4; 29:5; Neh. 9:21).

Clothing was an emblem not only of one’s identity but also of one’s office. Thus, when the authority of Elijah passed to his disciple Elisha, Elisha received his master’s cloak or mantle (2 Kings 2:13–14; see also Isa. 22:21). Examples of this function are multiplied when we consider the significance of clothing in symbolizing the role of priests in ancient Israel (e.g., Exod. 29:5–9; 39:27–31). The story of Tamar illustrates that the status of certain women was expressed by their clothing, including that of the prostitute (Gen. 38:15) and the widow (Gen. 38:14, 19).

Biblical texts reveal a rich gestural language involving clothing. In several biblical accounts, spreading the corner of one’s garment over a woman appears as a courtship or marriage ritual (Ruth 3:9; Ezek. 16:8). Giving garments as gifts was a way of honoring or elevating the recipient (Gen. 45:22; Judg. 14:12; Ezek. 16:10; Dan. 5:7), including royal investiture (Pss. 45:8; 93:1; 104:1). The guards who tortured Jesus prior to his crucifixion made light of his status as “king” by dressing him in a royal purple robe (Luke 23:11; John 19:2–3). Grasping someone’s garment, especially its hem, signified entreaty (1 Sam. 15:27–28; Zech. 8:23; Mark 5:27–28). Tearing one’s garments was a way of expressing despair or repentance (Gen. 37:29; Josh. 7:6; Judg. 11:35) or of lodging an especially strong protest (Num. 14:6; Matt. 26:65; Acts 14:14). In some cases, the tearing clothing was accompanied by the act of donning sackcloth and ashes, which signified a further degree of self-humiliation or mourning (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31; 2 Kings 19:1; Matt. 11:21; in Jon. 3:8 animals are included as well, perhaps to comic effect). In such instances, shoes and headwear were also removed (2 Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:2; Ezek. 24:17). A number of these customs can be understood in terms of the correlation of nakedness with shame, and clothing with honor. Military captives often were stripped naked as a form of humiliation (Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:10; Amos 2:16). In Luke 8:27 Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man who neither lived in a house nor wore clothing. In this case, the lack of clothing represents the full measure of human degradation.

Clothing stands symbolically for attributes such as righteousness and salvation (Job 29:14; Ps. 132:9; Isa. 61:10), the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Cor. 5:2–4), glory and honor (Job 40:10), union with Christ (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27), compassion and other virtues (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5), and purity (Rev. 3:18).

General satisfaction with one’s situation or status in life. Contentment is an attitude of the heart that stems from humility, and an attitude for which believers should strive (1 Tim. 6:6–10). Paul emphasized that true contentment was found in being satisfied with God’s provision (Phil. 4:11). The Greek words autarkēs (“content”) and autarkeia (“contentment”) refer to recognizing that what one has is sufficient or to being satisfied with one’s circumstances or lot in life.

In Christian theology, doctrine is the synthesis of Christian teaching, especially as set forth in its various related themes. The early disciples frequently referred to the teachings of Christ and to the teachings of the apostles and the church. These were memorized, compiled, and passed through the generations in the church (2 Tim. 2). As early as Acts 2 reference is made to the teaching of the apostles and the devotion of the church to it. By the second century, a body of teaching had crystallized into a doctrinal treatise called the Didache. Doctrinal teaching as a set structure is especially emphasized in the Pastoral Epistles, such that it has caused some to conjecture a later date and early catholic outlook for those letters. Regardless of the validity of this postulation, these letters evidence an early doctrinal and confessional outlook within the church.

This was, of course, nothing new, since the Israelites had a body of teaching that they had passed on through the generations: the law, both written and oral. For the Israelites, the law, both written and oral, was memorized, taught, interpreted, and heeded through all of society. The church simply followed suit in forming its teachings.

In the NT two words, didachē and didaskalia, are commonly translated “teaching” and in some cases are rendered by some translations as “doctrine.” The term didachē appears more widely throughout the NT, whereas didaskalia is used largely in the Pastoral Epistles (referring to both the content and the act of teaching). The term didaskalia is sometimes used with the term logos when the latter indicates sound speech (Titus 2:7–8) and words of the faith (1 Tim. 4:6). In fact, in one verse in the Pastoral Epistles all three terms are used together as “the faithful word,” “in accordance with the teaching,” and “in sound doctrine” (Titus 1:9 NASB).

The first body of teaching for the church is the teaching of Jesus (Matt. 7:28), such as that found in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus notes the ethic of his messiahship and his followers. The teaching of Jesus, which is authoritative (Mark 1:22, 27), and confrontational (Mark 12:38), is an astonishing answer to the religious leaders (Matt. 22:33; cf. Luke 4:32). Jesus notes the vanity of teaching the human commandments as if they were the doctrine from God (Mark 7:7). When questioned, Jesus sets forth his teaching as from the Father (John 7:16–17). The chief priests seek to destroy both Jesus and his followers because of the teaching (Mark 11:18; John 18:19; Acts 5:28). On Cyprus the proconsul is astonished at the doctrine of Christ taught by Paul (Acts 13:12), and in Athens Paul’s teaching about Christ is new and unusual to those of the Areopagus (Acts 17:18–20).

For Paul, doctrine is fundamental for believers. He notes the commitment to the teaching of Christ after conversion as normative for the Roman believers (Rom. 6:17), and he instructs further that they keep an eye out for those who cause division and hinder adherence to sound doctrine (Rom. 16:17). In fact, God has given gifted people to the body for building up the saints to avoid such doctrinal problems (Eph. 4:12–14). Further, a straightforward expression of teaching has priority over gifts such as tongues (1 Cor. 14:6, 26). Paul also points out that the Colossian heresy is the doctrine of human beings rather than that of God (Col. 2:22).

In the Pastoral Epistles the injunction from Paul to Timothy is that he be nourished on and persevere in sound doctrine (1 Tim. 4:6, 16) and set forth doctrine in preaching (1 Tim. 4:13 [along with public reading of Scripture]; 2 Tim. 4:2). All this is certainly fitting for Timothy, as he has followed the teaching of Paul (2 Tim. 3:10). The injunction to Titus is to hold to the word and to the sound doctrine and teaching as he corrects the church (Titus 1:9). Those who are servants are encouraged to show honesty and good faith, so that the teaching of the Savior will be respected (Titus 2:10). It is clear for Paul that Scripture is the basis of doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16). This doctrine (teaching) will be tolerated by few; as a whole, sound doctrine will be rejected in favor of a message more palatable to human interest (2 Tim. 4:3). The task of the servant of God is to stand against heterodox teaching (1 Tim. 1:3; 6:3). Heterodoxy leads to heteropraxy (1 Tim. 1:10). Paul notes the doctrine of demons, false teaching that is ultimately based in satanic teaching (1 Tim. 4:1).

The injunction of the writer to the Hebrews is that they are not to submit to strange teachings, which deny grace (13:9). This accords with the book’s argument as a whole. For John, staying in the doctrine of Christ is salvific, but going outside it is not (2 John 9). John’s readers are not to receive those who pervert the doctrine of Christ (2 John 10).

In the book of Revelation, Jesus warns the church at Pergamum about the false teaching of Balaam (2:14) and that of the Nicolaitans (2:15). The church at Thyatira is likewise warned to shun the teachings of the false prophetess known as “Jezebel” (2:20, 24).

In the Hebrew Bible several different words can be translated as “instruction.” In Exod. 24:12 God informs Moses that the laws and commands given to him on the mountain are for Israel’s instruction (yarah), instruction (dabar) given at the feet of God (Deut. 33:3). Indeed, Job 22:22 concedes that instruction (torah) proceeds from God’s mouth, while Nehemiah reminds God of his promises to the people of Israel when he refers to the instructions (dabar) given to Moses for repentance (Neh. 1:8). When the priests fail to give “true instruction,” they let the people go astray, inviting God’s wrath (Mal. 2:1–10). Similarly, failure to observe divine instruction (musar) elicits God’s condemnation (Ps. 50:17).

But the biblical book that bills itself as the instruction manual is Proverbs (part of the poetic section in the OT known as the Ketubim, the Writings), which is presented in the form of parental instruction (musar) to a child (1:8; 4:1; 13:1; 19:27), given in a royal setting (1:1) or a school. The book of Proverbs has been compared to similar Egyptian writings (The Instruction of Amenemope; The Maxims of Ptahhotep) and Sumerian wisdom as well as an Aramaic proverbial writing, Ahiqar.

While Proverbs, like its Egyptian and Mesopotamian counterparts, dispenses advice on how to successfully negotiate life, a distinct element of the biblical book is the setting of wisdom as inextricably bound to the “fear of the Lord” (1:7; 9:10). In Proverbs, instruction is also dispensed by the persona “Lady Wisdom” (chap. 8), whose advice, in contrast to that of the “loose” woman, leads to knowledge, wisdom, and life.

Jesus was known for his authoritative teaching of the law, which in the Synoptic Gospels is dominated by his use of parables for instruction (Matt. 7:29; Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32, 36). Accepting Jesus Christ entails discarding any false teaching and embracing the instruction (logos) of Jesus (1 Tim. 6:3–4; Heb. 6:2). Anyone who disregards this instruction is to be avoided and not socialized with (2 Thess. 3:14).

Instruction (didachē) in the Pauline writings is presumed to be a gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 14:6, 26) that is to be managed by the one so gifted for the benefit of the community of believers. It is to be shared in and out of season (2 Tim. 4:2). Such giftedness is also to be understood as entitling the instructor to support by the church (Gal. 6:6). Indeed, the Thessalonians are warned that failure to heed apostolic instruction (logos) is tantamount to disobeying God (1 Thess. 4:8; 2 Thess. 3:14). On the other hand, reminiscent of the Proverbs, parental instruction (nouthesia) should encourage rather than exasperate the child (Eph. 6:4). See also Education.

In the Hebrew Bible several different words can be translated as “instruction.” In Exod. 24:12 God informs Moses that the laws and commands given to him on the mountain are for Israel’s instruction (yarah), instruction (dabar) given at the feet of God (Deut. 33:3). Indeed, Job 22:22 concedes that instruction (torah) proceeds from God’s mouth, while Nehemiah reminds God of his promises to the people of Israel when he refers to the instructions (dabar) given to Moses for repentance (Neh. 1:8). When the priests fail to give “true instruction,” they let the people go astray, inviting God’s wrath (Mal. 2:1–10). Similarly, failure to observe divine instruction (musar) elicits God’s condemnation (Ps. 50:17).

But the biblical book that bills itself as the instruction manual is Proverbs (part of the poetic section in the OT known as the Ketubim, the Writings), which is presented in the form of parental instruction (musar) to a child (1:8; 4:1; 13:1; 19:27), given in a royal setting (1:1) or a school. The book of Proverbs has been compared to similar Egyptian writings (The Instruction of Amenemope; The Maxims of Ptahhotep) and Sumerian wisdom as well as an Aramaic proverbial writing, Ahiqar.

While Proverbs, like its Egyptian and Mesopotamian counterparts, dispenses advice on how to successfully negotiate life, a distinct element of the biblical book is the setting of wisdom as inextricably bound to the “fear of the Lord” (1:7; 9:10). In Proverbs, instruction is also dispensed by the persona “Lady Wisdom” (chap. 8), whose advice, in contrast to that of the “loose” woman, leads to knowledge, wisdom, and life.

Jesus was known for his authoritative teaching of the law, which in the Synoptic Gospels is dominated by his use of parables for instruction (Matt. 7:29; Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32, 36). Accepting Jesus Christ entails discarding any false teaching and embracing the instruction (logos) of Jesus (1 Tim. 6:3–4; Heb. 6:2). Anyone who disregards this instruction is to be avoided and not socialized with (2 Thess. 3:14).

Instruction (didachē) in the Pauline writings is presumed to be a gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 14:6, 26) that is to be managed by the one so gifted for the benefit of the community of believers. It is to be shared in and out of season (2 Tim. 4:2). Such giftedness is also to be understood as entitling the instructor to support by the church (Gal. 6:6). Indeed, the Thessalonians are warned that failure to heed apostolic instruction (logos) is tantamount to disobeying God (1 Thess. 4:8; 2 Thess. 3:14). On the other hand, reminiscent of the Proverbs, parental instruction (nouthesia) should encourage rather than exasperate the child (Eph. 6:4). See also Education.

Performing the necessary duties for the divine (Lat. pietas), “godliness” (1 Tim. 2:2, 10; 3:16; 4:7–8; 6:3, 5–6, 11; 2 Tim. 3:12; Titus 2:12; 2 Pet. 1:3; 3:11; cf. 1 Tim. 1:9; 3:4, 8, 11; 5:4; 2 Tim. 2:16; Titus 2:2, 7). Piety overlaps with fearing God in Job (4:6; 15:4; 22:4). In the Greco-Roman world, the term signifies either personal devotion in response to awe of the divine or, in broader practice, showing cultural respect for the deities. There is also an intellectual component to piety, having “right opinions” or knowledge about the gods, as Epictetus claims (Ench. 31). Luke equates piety with the biblical concepts of fear and righteousness (Acts 10:2, 22).

In the KJV, this term is used to describe a kind of verbal abuse, scolding, accusation, or derision (1 Sam. 25:14; 2 Chron. 32:17; Mark 15:29; Luke 23:39; 1 Cor. 5:11; 1 Tim. 6:4; 1 Pet. 3:9; 2 Pet. 2:11; Jude 9).

Both the OT and the NT view wealth as ultimately a result of God’s blessing (Prov. 10:22). Abraham shows the right attitude by refusing to accept plunder from the king of Sodom, recognizing God as the sole source of his riches (Gen. 14:23). Solomon’s wealth was seen as God’s favor (1 Kings 3:13). Wealth and riches are said to be in the house of persons “who fear the Lord” (Ps. 112:1–3). However, material success alone is not necessarily an indication of God’s approval, nor is poverty a sign of God’s disfavor. Fundamentally, neither poverty nor wealth can be superficially tied to divine displeasure or favor.

Balanced view. The Bible articulates a balanced view of wealth. It warns against having an arrogant attitude by failing to acknowledge that the source of wealth is God (Deut. 8:17–18). There is danger in trusting in riches (Pss. 52:7; 62:10). The rich are charged not to be haughty, and to set their hopes not on uncertain riches but rather on God (1 Tim. 6:17–18). The love of money is described as the root of all kinds of evil (1 Tim. 6:9–10), and it is therefore extremely difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:24). The foolishness of materialism, making riches the center of one’s life, is shown in the parable of the wealthy farmer (Luke 12:15–21). Instead of monetary greed, the spirit of contentment is commended, because even if lacking on the material level, one still has the Lord (Luke 12:15; Phil. 4:11; Heb. 13:5). Material possessions should be gained rightly; effort and diligence are required (Gen. 3:19; Prov. 10:4). Obtaining wealth through dishonesty and ill-gotten gains is denounced and condemned (Prov. 11:26; 13:11; Jer. 17:11; Mic. 6:12).

God-centered perspective. Wealth and material possessions are to be viewed from a God-centered perspective. God is the one who provides everything; thus we should trust him for our daily needs (Matt. 6:25–34; Luke 11:3). Job’s confession in a time of loss, “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised,” shows an admirable attitude to emulate (Job 1:21). God is the owner of all things, and we are simply stewards and administrators of God’s wealth. We need to remember that one day we will be accountable for the use of our wealth (1 Cor. 10:31). Jesus teaches us to seek the kingdom of God first rather than his material blessings (Luke 12:31–33). Anything that draws us away from serving God should be avoided. We cannot serve both God and mammon (Matt. 6:24). Our treasures are to be in heaven, meaning that our central focus should be on matters pertaining to the kingdom: “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Luke 12:32–34).

Responsibility and generosity. With the possession of wealth comes the duty to give generously to those in need (Prov. 11:24; 28:27). Prosperity is given as a means to do good; thus we ought to be rich in good deeds (1 Tim. 6:18). Although it is a duty of the covenant community to take care of the needy in the OT, it still emphasizes the voluntary heart (Deut. 15:5–11). In 2 Cor. 9:7, Paul presents the principle of giving in the NT: “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” It should be not an exaction but a willing gift (9:5).

The Christian should emulate Jesus: “Though he was rich, yet for [our] sake he became poor, so that [we] through his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). Therefore, material offerings to Christ should not be a burden (1 Cor. 9:11). Sacrificial giving is an expression of love to the Lord (2 Cor. 9:12). It also generates thanksgiving to God from those who receive it (2 Cor. 9:11). Worldly wealth should also be used for evangelistic purposes (Luke 16:8). If we are faithful in the use of money, we can be trusted with the kingdom’s spiritual riches (Luke 16:12–13). Although riches do not have eternal value in themselves, their proper use has eternal consequences (Luke 12:33; 1 Tim. 6:19). One of the qualifications of a church overseer is to be free from the love of money, and a deacon must not pursue dishonest gain (1 Tim. 3:3, 8). A good name is to be chosen over great riches (Prov. 22:1). James condemns as sinful the attitude of favoring the wealthy over the poor. Nonpreferential love is the answer to prejudicial favoritism (James 2:1–9).

The word “root” occurs in a literal sense in Job 30:4, but ordinarily it is used in a figurative sense. Its most prevalent connotation refers to the foundation or core of a matter or one’s life (Job 28:9; Prov. 12:3, 12; Isa. 14:30). It also, by analogy, signifies that which gives life to the plant (Matt. 13:6; Rom. 11:17). When pictured near water, roots symbolize prosperity (Job 29:19; Ezek. 31:7), even a blessing of the Lord (Job 8:17; Jer. 17:8).

The term sometimes indicates the lowest part or depth (Job 36:30). It can also carry the idea of origin, as in that of bitterness or evil (Deut. 29:18; 1 Tim. 6:10; Heb. 12:15), or the cause of a matter (Job 19:28).

Frequently, the word is used to describe something established, as in a kingdom (Ps. 80:9, 15; Isa. 27:6; 37:31; 40:24; Jer. 12:2). It emphasizes positively that which is secure (Prov. 12:3, 12) or negatively that which is uprooted or destroyed (1 Kings 14:15).

Finally, the word may refer to the offspring of a family (Judg. 5:14; Ps. 80:15), ultimately pointing to the coming Messiah (Isa. 11:1, 10; 53:2; Rev. 5:5; 22:16) as the heir through whom the dynasty is completed.

In English, a distinction between the words “temptation,” “test,” and “trial” (or “tribulation”) seems apparent. However, the biblical Greek noun peirasmos and verb peirazō translate these nouns and their related verbs, leaving context alone to determine meaning. In the understanding of the Scripture, temptation relates directly to test and trial.

Negatively, English Bibles choose “temptation” and “tempt” as the fitting translation for peirasmos and peirazō respectively. The devil, or Satan, is the origin; the purpose is to encourage sin and devastate human relationship with God (Matt. 4:1 pars.; 1 Cor. 7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 6:9; James 1:13). Satan personifies this purpose as the tempter (Matt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5).

Positively, the English word “test” seems fitting. God tests his people to reveal the quality of their faith commitment (Gen. 22:1; Exod. 15:25; Judg. 2:22; Gal. 4:14). When God tests his enemies, it results in a hardening of their hearts (Exod. 14:4). When God tests his own people, it may look like judgment (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 6:52; Heb. 3:8; 4:7). The NT sees a direct link between the words peirazō and dokimazō (“to test, prove, approve”) and uses one to explain the other (2 Cor. 13:5–7; James 1:2–3, 12).

Neutrally, “trial” (or “tribulation”) translates the meaning. People may face trials in their Christian walk (Acts 20:19; 2 Cor. 8:2; James 1:2, 12; 1 Pet. 1:6) that may or may not lead to sin (Matt. 26:41; cf. Dan. 12:10). The sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13 // Luke 11:4) presupposes the understanding that God is sovereign over all human circumstances and therefore has the power to protect from trials that may lead to temptation and fall. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane follows the same supposition (Mark 14:38).

This interconnectedness in the biblical understanding between temptation, test, and trial helps to explain some inherently difficult texts. There can be no sharp distinction made between temptation and test; God may use someone’s tribulation as a test to affirm faith, while Satan uses the same as an avenue for temptation to commit sin. A prime OT example of such interconnectedness is the parallel texts in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles that describe David as both tested by God (2 Sam. 24:1) and tempted by Satan (1 Chron. 21:1) in regard to taking a census of Israel.

When humans tempt/test God, they provoke him to prove his power (Exod. 17:1–7) by acting as if he does not exist (Ps. 14:1). God’s firm prohibition against this (Deut. 6:13–16) exposes it as a violation of his relationship with humans (Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9; 15:10).

Provision for the extremely needy. Alms provide what is essential to human survival: food, clothing, and shelter (1 Tim. 6:8). Of the three main expressions of Jewish and early Christian piety, which included prayer and fasting (Matt. 6:1–18), giving to the destitute, literally “the practicing of mercy,” was the most highly prized and appears to have been broadly practiced (Tob. 12:8; 2 Clem. 16:4). The rabbis eventually legislated against extreme almsgiving, fixing the limit at 20 percent of one’s assets (b. Ketub. 50a; cf. 1 Cor. 13:3). The inherent element of mercy suggests that the needy are not necessarily deserving of the gift. Jesus grounded the practice in mindfulness of God’s mercy toward those blessed with surplus (Matt. 5:7) but warned against giving for public recognition (6:1–4). Beggars would gather around the temple, appealing to the charity of pilgrims (Acts 3:1–10). The early church took the initiative to care for the destitute, particularly orphans and widows, a practice that James, the brother of Jesus, impressed upon Paul to maintain in the non-Jewish wing of the church—something the apostle was happy to do, even collecting money for the needy in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:10; 2 Cor. 9:1–5 [cf. James 1:27]). A communal fund was collected in the local synagogue (m. Pe’ah 8:7). Trumpets were blown on days of fasting as a reminder (b. Ber. 6b; b. Sanh. 35a; cf. Matt. 6:2). The early church directed most of its giving to the poor (Tertullian, Apol. 39.6).

A Roman province in western Asia Minor, not to be confused with the modern designation for the larger continent. The exact boundaries are difficult to determine, but the region, formed in 133–130 BC, and since the time of Augustus ruled by proconsuls, included the older kingdoms of Mysia, Lydia, Caria, and part of Phrygia, as well as several islands. Paul and his companions enjoyed an especially successful mission in Asia (Acts 19:10, 22, 26–27; Rom. 16:5). He later wrote letters to Christians in Colossae and Ephesus (Ephesians; 1 Timothy). Inscriptions attest to the wealth of many Ephesians. Through Timothy, Paul warns those pursuing wealth in the city (1 Tim. 6:9–10; cf. Rev. 3:17). The apostle John eventually settled in Ephesus and later was exiled to the island of Patmos, where he wrote to the seven churches of Asia (Rev. 1:4–3:22).

Clothing serves not only the utilitarian function of protecting the body from the elements (1 Tim. 6:8; James 2:15–16) but also a number of socially constructed functions, such as identifying the status of the wearer (James 2:2–3) and expressing cultural values such as modesty and beauty. The full range of such functions is attested in the Bible, and clothing plays a prominent symbolic role in a number of texts. Evidence concerning Israelite and other ancient clothing comes not only from the Bible but also from reliefs, pottery decorations, incised ivories, and, to a limited extent, textile fragments recovered in archaeological excavations.

In biblical lands most clothing was made from the wool of sheep or goats. More expensive articles (such as the garments of priests and aristocrats) could be made from linen, a textile made from the plant fiber flax. Other items, such as sandals, belts, and undergarments, were made from leather. Biblical law forbade the mixture of woolen and linen fibers in Israelite clothing (Deut. 22:11).

Articles of Clothing

A number of specific articles of clothing can be identified in the Bible. Egyptian and Mesopotamian pictures suggest that in OT times each nation was known for a distinctive costume or hairstyle. Some notion of how Israelite costume was perceived, at least that of royalty, may be derived from the depiction of the northern king Jehu (842–814 BC) and his retinue on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In this image Israelites are depicted wearing softly pointed caps, pointed shoes, and fringed mantles.

In OT Israel, men wore an undergarment or loincloth held in place by a belt. This loincloth could be made of linen (Jer. 13:1) or leather (2 Kings 1:8). Over this was worn an ankle-length woolen robe or tunic. The tunic of Joseph, traditionally rendered as his “coat of many colors” (Gen. 37:3 KJV, following the LXX), is perhaps better described not as colorful but as “long-sleeved” (see also 2 Sam. 13:18 NASB). The corresponding garments worn by women were similar in appearance, though sufficiently distinct that cross-dressing could be prohibited (Deut. 22:5).

Outside the tunic were worn cloaks (Exod. 22:25–26), sashes (Isa. 22:21), and mantles (1 Kings 19:19). A crafted linen sash was a marketable item (Prov. 31:24), whereas a rope belt was a poor substitute (Isa. 3:24). Both Elijah and John the Baptist wore a belt of leather (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6).

The characteristic garment of the elite was a loose-fitting, wide-sleeved, often elegantly decorated royal robe (Heb. me’il  ). This garment was worn by priests (Exod. 28:4), nobility, kings, and other highly placed members of Israelite society, such as Samuel (1 Sam. 15:27–28), Jonathan (1 Sam. 18:4), Saul (1 Sam. 24:4), David (1 Chron. 15:27), David’s daughter Tamar (2 Sam. 13:18), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3).

In the NT, the inner garment was the tunic (chitōn), and the outer garment was the cloak (himation). This distinction lies behind the famous command of Jesus: “From one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either” (Luke 6:29 ESV). The Gospel of John reports that the tunic taken from Jesus at the time of his death was made seamlessly from a single piece of cloth (John 19:23).

Footwear consisted of leather sandals attached to the feet by straps (John 1:27). Sandals were removed as a sign of respect in the presence of deity (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The exchange of footwear also played a role in formalizing various legal arrangements (Ruth 4:7–8; see also Deut. 25:9).

Special Functions of Clothing

According to Genesis, the first humans lived initially without clothing or the shame of nakedness (Gen. 2:25). After eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve realized that they were naked and fashioned clothing from leaves (3:7). Later, God made “garments of skin” for Adam and his wife (3:21). The significance of this story and the meaning of the divinely fashioned garments have a long history of interpretation going back to antiquity. Clearly, however, the story illustrates that a basic function of clothing is to cover nakedness—a motif that soon after this story is featured again in the story of Noah and his sons (9:21–23).

Rebekah’s ploy to secure the birthright for her son Jacob involved disguising him in the clothing of his brother Esau (Gen. 27:15; see also Saul’s use of disguise in 1 Sam. 28:8). This tale illustrates how especially in a culture in which individuals owned what would, by modern standards, be considered a limited amount of clothing, clothing itself became an extension of the individual’s identity. In the same way, Jacob himself later was tricked into thinking that one of his own sons was dead, based on the identification of an article of clothing (Gen. 37:31–33). That Isaac could detect Esau’s distinctive smell on his clothing may also indicate the infrequency with which garments were changed and laundered (Gen. 27:27; see also Matt. 10:10). So closely was clothing identified with its owner that a garment could be used as collateral or a pledge, though biblical law regulates this practice for humanitarian reasons (Exod. 22:26). Perhaps because the production of clothing was labor intensive, making clothes for someone was sometimes considered an act of intimacy or an expression of love, so that descriptions of this aspect of clothing in the Bible are quite poignant (see 1 Sam. 2:19; Acts 9:39). When clothing wore out, it was discarded and replaced (Ps. 102:26; Isa. 51:6; Luke 12:33). During the forty years in the wilderness, as a special provision to the Israelites, their clothes and shoes did not wear out (Deut. 8:4; 29:5; Neh. 9:21).

Clothing was an emblem not only of one’s identity but also of one’s office. Thus, when the authority of Elijah passed to his disciple Elisha, Elisha received his master’s cloak or mantle (2 Kings 2:13–14; see also Isa. 22:21). Examples of this function are multiplied when we consider the significance of clothing in symbolizing the role of priests in ancient Israel (e.g., Exod. 29:5–9; 39:27–31). The story of Tamar illustrates that the status of certain women was expressed by their clothing, including that of the prostitute (Gen. 38:15) and the widow (Gen. 38:14, 19).

Biblical texts reveal a rich gestural language involving clothing. In several biblical accounts, spreading the corner of one’s garment over a woman appears as a courtship or marriage ritual (Ruth 3:9; Ezek. 16:8). Giving garments as gifts was a way of honoring or elevating the recipient (Gen. 45:22; Judg. 14:12; Ezek. 16:10; Dan. 5:7), including royal investiture (Pss. 45:8; 93:1; 104:1). The guards who tortured Jesus prior to his crucifixion made light of his status as “king” by dressing him in a royal purple robe (Luke 23:11; John 19:2–3). Grasping someone’s garment, especially its hem, signified entreaty (1 Sam. 15:27–28; Zech. 8:23; Mark 5:27–28). Tearing one’s garments was a way of expressing despair or repentance (Gen. 37:29; Josh. 7:6; Judg. 11:35) or of lodging an especially strong protest (Num. 14:6; Matt. 26:65; Acts 14:14). In some cases, the tearing clothing was accompanied by the act of donning sackcloth and ashes, which signified a further degree of self-humiliation or mourning (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31; 2 Kings 19:1; Matt. 11:21; in Jon. 3:8 animals are included as well, perhaps to comic effect). In such instances, shoes and headwear were also removed (2 Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:2; Ezek. 24:17). A number of these customs can be understood in terms of the correlation of nakedness with shame, and clothing with honor. Military captives often were stripped naked as a form of humiliation (Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:10; Amos 2:16). In Luke 8:27 Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man who neither lived in a house nor wore clothing. In this case, the lack of clothing represents the full measure of human degradation.

Clothing stands symbolically for attributes such as righteousness and salvation (Job 29:14; Ps. 132:9; Isa. 61:10), the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Cor. 5:2–4), glory and honor (Job 40:10), union with Christ (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27), compassion and other virtues (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5), and purity (Rev. 3:18).

The reduction of expenditure and consumption. Solomon is presented as the extremity of excess, which contributed to turning his attention away from God, a form of idolatry (1 Kings 11; cf. Exod. 20:3; Matt. 6:24; 1 Tim. 6:6–10). Jesus rebukes those who follow this example, because they lack awareness of others’ needs (Luke 12:16–21; 16:19–31). To those with more he says, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal” (Matt. 6:19). The commandment reminds the disciple that material possessions fall apart, particularly when unused, and that the means available for satisfying human wants are scarce in comparison to the extent of those wants. People covet (Exod. 20:17), and when they reach a threshold of desperation, many steal, which causes those enslaved to their wealth to live in constant fear of losing it. The solution is to be content with God meeting our basic needs and to share when we have an abundance.

Clothing serves not only the utilitarian function of protecting the body from the elements (1 Tim. 6:8; James 2:15–16) but also a number of socially constructed functions, such as identifying the status of the wearer (James 2:2–3) and expressing cultural values such as modesty and beauty. The full range of such functions is attested in the Bible, and clothing plays a prominent symbolic role in a number of texts. Evidence concerning Israelite and other ancient clothing comes not only from the Bible but also from reliefs, pottery decorations, incised ivories, and, to a limited extent, textile fragments recovered in archaeological excavations.

In biblical lands most clothing was made from the wool of sheep or goats. More expensive articles (such as the garments of priests and aristocrats) could be made from linen, a textile made from the plant fiber flax. Other items, such as sandals, belts, and undergarments, were made from leather. Biblical law forbade the mixture of woolen and linen fibers in Israelite clothing (Deut. 22:11).

Articles of Clothing

A number of specific articles of clothing can be identified in the Bible. Egyptian and Mesopotamian pictures suggest that in OT times each nation was known for a distinctive costume or hairstyle. Some notion of how Israelite costume was perceived, at least that of royalty, may be derived from the depiction of the northern king Jehu (842–814 BC) and his retinue on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In this image Israelites are depicted wearing softly pointed caps, pointed shoes, and fringed mantles.

In OT Israel, men wore an undergarment or loincloth held in place by a belt. This loincloth could be made of linen (Jer. 13:1) or leather (2 Kings 1:8). Over this was worn an ankle-length woolen robe or tunic. The tunic of Joseph, traditionally rendered as his “coat of many colors” (Gen. 37:3 KJV, following the LXX), is perhaps better described not as colorful but as “long-sleeved” (see also 2 Sam. 13:18 NASB). The corresponding garments worn by women were similar in appearance, though sufficiently distinct that cross-dressing could be prohibited (Deut. 22:5).

Outside the tunic were worn cloaks (Exod. 22:25–26), sashes (Isa. 22:21), and mantles (1 Kings 19:19). A crafted linen sash was a marketable item (Prov. 31:24), whereas a rope belt was a poor substitute (Isa. 3:24). Both Elijah and John the Baptist wore a belt of leather (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6).

The characteristic garment of the elite was a loose-fitting, wide-sleeved, often elegantly decorated royal robe (Heb. me’il  ). This garment was worn by priests (Exod. 28:4), nobility, kings, and other highly placed members of Israelite society, such as Samuel (1 Sam. 15:27–28), Jonathan (1 Sam. 18:4), Saul (1 Sam. 24:4), David (1 Chron. 15:27), David’s daughter Tamar (2 Sam. 13:18), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3).

In the NT, the inner garment was the tunic (chitōn), and the outer garment was the cloak (himation). This distinction lies behind the famous command of Jesus: “From one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either” (Luke 6:29 ESV). The Gospel of John reports that the tunic taken from Jesus at the time of his death was made seamlessly from a single piece of cloth (John 19:23).

Footwear consisted of leather sandals attached to the feet by straps (John 1:27). Sandals were removed as a sign of respect in the presence of deity (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The exchange of footwear also played a role in formalizing various legal arrangements (Ruth 4:7–8; see also Deut. 25:9).

Special Functions of Clothing

According to Genesis, the first humans lived initially without clothing or the shame of nakedness (Gen. 2:25). After eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve realized that they were naked and fashioned clothing from leaves (3:7). Later, God made “garments of skin” for Adam and his wife (3:21). The significance of this story and the meaning of the divinely fashioned garments have a long history of interpretation going back to antiquity. Clearly, however, the story illustrates that a basic function of clothing is to cover nakedness—a motif that soon after this story is featured again in the story of Noah and his sons (9:21–23).

Rebekah’s ploy to secure the birthright for her son Jacob involved disguising him in the clothing of his brother Esau (Gen. 27:15; see also Saul’s use of disguise in 1 Sam. 28:8). This tale illustrates how especially in a culture in which individuals owned what would, by modern standards, be considered a limited amount of clothing, clothing itself became an extension of the individual’s identity. In the same way, Jacob himself later was tricked into thinking that one of his own sons was dead, based on the identification of an article of clothing (Gen. 37:31–33). That Isaac could detect Esau’s distinctive smell on his clothing may also indicate the infrequency with which garments were changed and laundered (Gen. 27:27; see also Matt. 10:10). So closely was clothing identified with its owner that a garment could be used as collateral or a pledge, though biblical law regulates this practice for humanitarian reasons (Exod. 22:26). Perhaps because the production of clothing was labor intensive, making clothes for someone was sometimes considered an act of intimacy or an expression of love, so that descriptions of this aspect of clothing in the Bible are quite poignant (see 1 Sam. 2:19; Acts 9:39). When clothing wore out, it was discarded and replaced (Ps. 102:26; Isa. 51:6; Luke 12:33). During the forty years in the wilderness, as a special provision to the Israelites, their clothes and shoes did not wear out (Deut. 8:4; 29:5; Neh. 9:21).

Clothing was an emblem not only of one’s identity but also of one’s office. Thus, when the authority of Elijah passed to his disciple Elisha, Elisha received his master’s cloak or mantle (2 Kings 2:13–14; see also Isa. 22:21). Examples of this function are multiplied when we consider the significance of clothing in symbolizing the role of priests in ancient Israel (e.g., Exod. 29:5–9; 39:27–31). The story of Tamar illustrates that the status of certain women was expressed by their clothing, including that of the prostitute (Gen. 38:15) and the widow (Gen. 38:14, 19).

Biblical texts reveal a rich gestural language involving clothing. In several biblical accounts, spreading the corner of one’s garment over a woman appears as a courtship or marriage ritual (Ruth 3:9; Ezek. 16:8). Giving garments as gifts was a way of honoring or elevating the recipient (Gen. 45:22; Judg. 14:12; Ezek. 16:10; Dan. 5:7), including royal investiture (Pss. 45:8; 93:1; 104:1). The guards who tortured Jesus prior to his crucifixion made light of his status as “king” by dressing him in a royal purple robe (Luke 23:11; John 19:2–3). Grasping someone’s garment, especially its hem, signified entreaty (1 Sam. 15:27–28; Zech. 8:23; Mark 5:27–28). Tearing one’s garments was a way of expressing despair or repentance (Gen. 37:29; Josh. 7:6; Judg. 11:35) or of lodging an especially strong protest (Num. 14:6; Matt. 26:65; Acts 14:14). In some cases, the tearing clothing was accompanied by the act of donning sackcloth and ashes, which signified a further degree of self-humiliation or mourning (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31; 2 Kings 19:1; Matt. 11:21; in Jon. 3:8 animals are included as well, perhaps to comic effect). In such instances, shoes and headwear were also removed (2 Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:2; Ezek. 24:17). A number of these customs can be understood in terms of the correlation of nakedness with shame, and clothing with honor. Military captives often were stripped naked as a form of humiliation (Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:10; Amos 2:16). In Luke 8:27 Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man who neither lived in a house nor wore clothing. In this case, the lack of clothing represents the full measure of human degradation.

Clothing stands symbolically for attributes such as righteousness and salvation (Job 29:14; Ps. 132:9; Isa. 61:10), the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Cor. 5:2–4), glory and honor (Job 40:10), union with Christ (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27), compassion and other virtues (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5), and purity (Rev. 3:18).

Clothing serves not only the utilitarian function of protecting the body from the elements (1 Tim. 6:8; James 2:15–16) but also a number of socially constructed functions, such as identifying the status of the wearer (James 2:2–3) and expressing cultural values such as modesty and beauty. The full range of such functions is attested in the Bible, and clothing plays a prominent symbolic role in a number of texts. Evidence concerning Israelite and other ancient clothing comes not only from the Bible but also from reliefs, pottery decorations, incised ivories, and, to a limited extent, textile fragments recovered in archaeological excavations.

In biblical lands most clothing was made from the wool of sheep or goats. More expensive articles (such as the garments of priests and aristocrats) could be made from linen, a textile made from the plant fiber flax. Other items, such as sandals, belts, and undergarments, were made from leather. Biblical law forbade the mixture of woolen and linen fibers in Israelite clothing (Deut. 22:11).

Articles of Clothing

A number of specific articles of clothing can be identified in the Bible. Egyptian and Mesopotamian pictures suggest that in OT times each nation was known for a distinctive costume or hairstyle. Some notion of how Israelite costume was perceived, at least that of royalty, may be derived from the depiction of the northern king Jehu (842–814 BC) and his retinue on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In this image Israelites are depicted wearing softly pointed caps, pointed shoes, and fringed mantles.

In OT Israel, men wore an undergarment or loincloth held in place by a belt. This loincloth could be made of linen (Jer. 13:1) or leather (2 Kings 1:8). Over this was worn an ankle-length woolen robe or tunic. The tunic of Joseph, traditionally rendered as his “coat of many colors” (Gen. 37:3 KJV, following the LXX), is perhaps better described not as colorful but as “long-sleeved” (see also 2 Sam. 13:18 NASB). The corresponding garments worn by women were similar in appearance, though sufficiently distinct that cross-dressing could be prohibited (Deut. 22:5).

Outside the tunic were worn cloaks (Exod. 22:25–26), sashes (Isa. 22:21), and mantles (1 Kings 19:19). A crafted linen sash was a marketable item (Prov. 31:24), whereas a rope belt was a poor substitute (Isa. 3:24). Both Elijah and John the Baptist wore a belt of leather (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6).

The characteristic garment of the elite was a loose-fitting, wide-sleeved, often elegantly decorated royal robe (Heb. me’il  ). This garment was worn by priests (Exod. 28:4), nobility, kings, and other highly placed members of Israelite society, such as Samuel (1 Sam. 15:27–28), Jonathan (1 Sam. 18:4), Saul (1 Sam. 24:4), David (1 Chron. 15:27), David’s daughter Tamar (2 Sam. 13:18), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3).

In the NT, the inner garment was the tunic (chitōn), and the outer garment was the cloak (himation). This distinction lies behind the famous command of Jesus: “From one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either” (Luke 6:29 ESV). The Gospel of John reports that the tunic taken from Jesus at the time of his death was made seamlessly from a single piece of cloth (John 19:23).

Footwear consisted of leather sandals attached to the feet by straps (John 1:27). Sandals were removed as a sign of respect in the presence of deity (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The exchange of footwear also played a role in formalizing various legal arrangements (Ruth 4:7–8; see also Deut. 25:9).

Special Functions of Clothing

According to Genesis, the first humans lived initially without clothing or the shame of nakedness (Gen. 2:25). After eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve realized that they were naked and fashioned clothing from leaves (3:7). Later, God made “garments of skin” for Adam and his wife (3:21). The significance of this story and the meaning of the divinely fashioned garments have a long history of interpretation going back to antiquity. Clearly, however, the story illustrates that a basic function of clothing is to cover nakedness—a motif that soon after this story is featured again in the story of Noah and his sons (9:21–23).

Rebekah’s ploy to secure the birthright for her son Jacob involved disguising him in the clothing of his brother Esau (Gen. 27:15; see also Saul’s use of disguise in 1 Sam. 28:8). This tale illustrates how especially in a culture in which individuals owned what would, by modern standards, be considered a limited amount of clothing, clothing itself became an extension of the individual’s identity. In the same way, Jacob himself later was tricked into thinking that one of his own sons was dead, based on the identification of an article of clothing (Gen. 37:31–33). That Isaac could detect Esau’s distinctive smell on his clothing may also indicate the infrequency with which garments were changed and laundered (Gen. 27:27; see also Matt. 10:10). So closely was clothing identified with its owner that a garment could be used as collateral or a pledge, though biblical law regulates this practice for humanitarian reasons (Exod. 22:26). Perhaps because the production of clothing was labor intensive, making clothes for someone was sometimes considered an act of intimacy or an expression of love, so that descriptions of this aspect of clothing in the Bible are quite poignant (see 1 Sam. 2:19; Acts 9:39). When clothing wore out, it was discarded and replaced (Ps. 102:26; Isa. 51:6; Luke 12:33). During the forty years in the wilderness, as a special provision to the Israelites, their clothes and shoes did not wear out (Deut. 8:4; 29:5; Neh. 9:21).

Clothing was an emblem not only of one’s identity but also of one’s office. Thus, when the authority of Elijah passed to his disciple Elisha, Elisha received his master’s cloak or mantle (2 Kings 2:13–14; see also Isa. 22:21). Examples of this function are multiplied when we consider the significance of clothing in symbolizing the role of priests in ancient Israel (e.g., Exod. 29:5–9; 39:27–31). The story of Tamar illustrates that the status of certain women was expressed by their clothing, including that of the prostitute (Gen. 38:15) and the widow (Gen. 38:14, 19).

Biblical texts reveal a rich gestural language involving clothing. In several biblical accounts, spreading the corner of one’s garment over a woman appears as a courtship or marriage ritual (Ruth 3:9; Ezek. 16:8). Giving garments as gifts was a way of honoring or elevating the recipient (Gen. 45:22; Judg. 14:12; Ezek. 16:10; Dan. 5:7), including royal investiture (Pss. 45:8; 93:1; 104:1). The guards who tortured Jesus prior to his crucifixion made light of his status as “king” by dressing him in a royal purple robe (Luke 23:11; John 19:2–3). Grasping someone’s garment, especially its hem, signified entreaty (1 Sam. 15:27–28; Zech. 8:23; Mark 5:27–28). Tearing one’s garments was a way of expressing despair or repentance (Gen. 37:29; Josh. 7:6; Judg. 11:35) or of lodging an especially strong protest (Num. 14:6; Matt. 26:65; Acts 14:14). In some cases, the tearing clothing was accompanied by the act of donning sackcloth and ashes, which signified a further degree of self-humiliation or mourning (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31; 2 Kings 19:1; Matt. 11:21; in Jon. 3:8 animals are included as well, perhaps to comic effect). In such instances, shoes and headwear were also removed (2 Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:2; Ezek. 24:17). A number of these customs can be understood in terms of the correlation of nakedness with shame, and clothing with honor. Military captives often were stripped naked as a form of humiliation (Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:10; Amos 2:16). In Luke 8:27 Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man who neither lived in a house nor wore clothing. In this case, the lack of clothing represents the full measure of human degradation.

Clothing stands symbolically for attributes such as righteousness and salvation (Job 29:14; Ps. 132:9; Isa. 61:10), the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Cor. 5:2–4), glory and honor (Job 40:10), union with Christ (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27), compassion and other virtues (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5), and purity (Rev. 3:18).

Both the OT and the NT view wealth as ultimately a result of God’s blessing (Prov. 10:22). Abraham shows the right attitude by refusing to accept plunder from the king of Sodom, recognizing God as the sole source of his riches (Gen. 14:23). Solomon’s wealth was seen as God’s favor (1 Kings 3:13). Wealth and riches are said to be in the house of persons “who fear the Lord” (Ps. 112:1–3). However, material success alone is not necessarily an indication of God’s approval, nor is poverty a sign of God’s disfavor. Fundamentally, neither poverty nor wealth can be superficially tied to divine displeasure or favor.

Balanced view. The Bible articulates a balanced view of wealth. It warns against having an arrogant attitude by failing to acknowledge that the source of wealth is God (Deut. 8:17–18). There is danger in trusting in riches (Pss. 52:7; 62:10). The rich are charged not to be haughty, and to set their hopes not on uncertain riches but rather on God (1 Tim. 6:17–18). The love of money is described as the root of all kinds of evil (1 Tim. 6:9–10), and it is therefore extremely difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:24). The foolishness of materialism, making riches the center of one’s life, is shown in the parable of the wealthy farmer (Luke 12:15–21). Instead of monetary greed, the spirit of contentment is commended, because even if lacking on the material level, one still has the Lord (Luke 12:15; Phil. 4:11; Heb. 13:5). Material possessions should be gained rightly; effort and diligence are required (Gen. 3:19; Prov. 10:4). Obtaining wealth through dishonesty and ill-gotten gains is denounced and condemned (Prov. 11:26; 13:11; Jer. 17:11; Mic. 6:12).

God-centered perspective. Wealth and material possessions are to be viewed from a God-centered perspective. God is the one who provides everything; thus we should trust him for our daily needs (Matt. 6:25–34; Luke 11:3). Job’s confession in a time of loss, “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised,” shows an admirable attitude to emulate (Job 1:21). God is the owner of all things, and we are simply stewards and administrators of God’s wealth. We need to remember that one day we will be accountable for the use of our wealth (1 Cor. 10:31). Jesus teaches us to seek the kingdom of God first rather than his material blessings (Luke 12:31–33). Anything that draws us away from serving God should be avoided. We cannot serve both God and mammon (Matt. 6:24). Our treasures are to be in heaven, meaning that our central focus should be on matters pertaining to the kingdom: “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Luke 12:32–34).

Responsibility and generosity. With the possession of wealth comes the duty to give generously to those in need (Prov. 11:24; 28:27). Prosperity is given as a means to do good; thus we ought to be rich in good deeds (1 Tim. 6:18). Although it is a duty of the covenant community to take care of the needy in the OT, it still emphasizes the voluntary heart (Deut. 15:5–11). In 2 Cor. 9:7, Paul presents the principle of giving in the NT: “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” It should be not an exaction but a willing gift (9:5).

The Christian should emulate Jesus: “Though he was rich, yet for [our] sake he became poor, so that [we] through his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). Therefore, material offerings to Christ should not be a burden (1 Cor. 9:11). Sacrificial giving is an expression of love to the Lord (2 Cor. 9:12). It also generates thanksgiving to God from those who receive it (2 Cor. 9:11). Worldly wealth should also be used for evangelistic purposes (Luke 16:8). If we are faithful in the use of money, we can be trusted with the kingdom’s spiritual riches (Luke 16:12–13). Although riches do not have eternal value in themselves, their proper use has eternal consequences (Luke 12:33; 1 Tim. 6:19). One of the qualifications of a church overseer is to be free from the love of money, and a deacon must not pursue dishonest gain (1 Tim. 3:3, 8). A good name is to be chosen over great riches (Prov. 22:1). James condemns as sinful the attitude of favoring the wealthy over the poor. Nonpreferential love is the answer to prejudicial favoritism (James 2:1–9).

Clothing serves not only the utilitarian function of protecting the body from the elements (1 Tim. 6:8; James 2:15–16) but also a number of socially constructed functions, such as identifying the status of the wearer (James 2:2–3) and expressing cultural values such as modesty and beauty. The full range of such functions is attested in the Bible, and clothing plays a prominent symbolic role in a number of texts. Evidence concerning Israelite and other ancient clothing comes not only from the Bible but also from reliefs, pottery decorations, incised ivories, and, to a limited extent, textile fragments recovered in archaeological excavations.

In biblical lands most clothing was made from the wool of sheep or goats. More expensive articles (such as the garments of priests and aristocrats) could be made from linen, a textile made from the plant fiber flax. Other items, such as sandals, belts, and undergarments, were made from leather. Biblical law forbade the mixture of woolen and linen fibers in Israelite clothing (Deut. 22:11).

Articles of Clothing

A number of specific articles of clothing can be identified in the Bible. Egyptian and Mesopotamian pictures suggest that in OT times each nation was known for a distinctive costume or hairstyle. Some notion of how Israelite costume was perceived, at least that of royalty, may be derived from the depiction of the northern king Jehu (842–814 BC) and his retinue on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In this image Israelites are depicted wearing softly pointed caps, pointed shoes, and fringed mantles.

In OT Israel, men wore an undergarment or loincloth held in place by a belt. This loincloth could be made of linen (Jer. 13:1) or leather (2 Kings 1:8). Over this was worn an ankle-length woolen robe or tunic. The tunic of Joseph, traditionally rendered as his “coat of many colors” (Gen. 37:3 KJV, following the LXX), is perhaps better described not as colorful but as “long-sleeved” (see also 2 Sam. 13:18 NASB). The corresponding garments worn by women were similar in appearance, though sufficiently distinct that cross-dressing could be prohibited (Deut. 22:5).

Outside the tunic were worn cloaks (Exod. 22:25–26), sashes (Isa. 22:21), and mantles (1 Kings 19:19). A crafted linen sash was a marketable item (Prov. 31:24), whereas a rope belt was a poor substitute (Isa. 3:24). Both Elijah and John the Baptist wore a belt of leather (2 Kings 1:8; Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6).

The characteristic garment of the elite was a loose-fitting, wide-sleeved, often elegantly decorated royal robe (Heb. me’il  ). This garment was worn by priests (Exod. 28:4), nobility, kings, and other highly placed members of Israelite society, such as Samuel (1 Sam. 15:27–28), Jonathan (1 Sam. 18:4), Saul (1 Sam. 24:4), David (1 Chron. 15:27), David’s daughter Tamar (2 Sam. 13:18), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3).

In the NT, the inner garment was the tunic (chitōn), and the outer garment was the cloak (himation). This distinction lies behind the famous command of Jesus: “From one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either” (Luke 6:29 ESV). The Gospel of John reports that the tunic taken from Jesus at the time of his death was made seamlessly from a single piece of cloth (John 19:23).

Footwear consisted of leather sandals attached to the feet by straps (John 1:27). Sandals were removed as a sign of respect in the presence of deity (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The exchange of footwear also played a role in formalizing various legal arrangements (Ruth 4:7–8; see also Deut. 25:9).

Special Functions of Clothing

According to Genesis, the first humans lived initially without clothing or the shame of nakedness (Gen. 2:25). After eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve realized that they were naked and fashioned clothing from leaves (3:7). Later, God made “garments of skin” for Adam and his wife (3:21). The significance of this story and the meaning of the divinely fashioned garments have a long history of interpretation going back to antiquity. Clearly, however, the story illustrates that a basic function of clothing is to cover nakedness—a motif that soon after this story is featured again in the story of Noah and his sons (9:21–23).

Rebekah’s ploy to secure the birthright for her son Jacob involved disguising him in the clothing of his brother Esau (Gen. 27:15; see also Saul’s use of disguise in 1 Sam. 28:8). This tale illustrates how especially in a culture in which individuals owned what would, by modern standards, be considered a limited amount of clothing, clothing itself became an extension of the individual’s identity. In the same way, Jacob himself later was tricked into thinking that one of his own sons was dead, based on the identification of an article of clothing (Gen. 37:31–33). That Isaac could detect Esau’s distinctive smell on his clothing may also indicate the infrequency with which garments were changed and laundered (Gen. 27:27; see also Matt. 10:10). So closely was clothing identified with its owner that a garment could be used as collateral or a pledge, though biblical law regulates this practice for humanitarian reasons (Exod. 22:26). Perhaps because the production of clothing was labor intensive, making clothes for someone was sometimes considered an act of intimacy or an expression of love, so that descriptions of this aspect of clothing in the Bible are quite poignant (see 1 Sam. 2:19; Acts 9:39). When clothing wore out, it was discarded and replaced (Ps. 102:26; Isa. 51:6; Luke 12:33). During the forty years in the wilderness, as a special provision to the Israelites, their clothes and shoes did not wear out (Deut. 8:4; 29:5; Neh. 9:21).

Clothing was an emblem not only of one’s identity but also of one’s office. Thus, when the authority of Elijah passed to his disciple Elisha, Elisha received his master’s cloak or mantle (2 Kings 2:13–14; see also Isa. 22:21). Examples of this function are multiplied when we consider the significance of clothing in symbolizing the role of priests in ancient Israel (e.g., Exod. 29:5–9; 39:27–31). The story of Tamar illustrates that the status of certain women was expressed by their clothing, including that of the prostitute (Gen. 38:15) and the widow (Gen. 38:14, 19).

Biblical texts reveal a rich gestural language involving clothing. In several biblical accounts, spreading the corner of one’s garment over a woman appears as a courtship or marriage ritual (Ruth 3:9; Ezek. 16:8). Giving garments as gifts was a way of honoring or elevating the recipient (Gen. 45:22; Judg. 14:12; Ezek. 16:10; Dan. 5:7), including royal investiture (Pss. 45:8; 93:1; 104:1). The guards who tortured Jesus prior to his crucifixion made light of his status as “king” by dressing him in a royal purple robe (Luke 23:11; John 19:2–3). Grasping someone’s garment, especially its hem, signified entreaty (1 Sam. 15:27–28; Zech. 8:23; Mark 5:27–28). Tearing one’s garments was a way of expressing despair or repentance (Gen. 37:29; Josh. 7:6; Judg. 11:35) or of lodging an especially strong protest (Num. 14:6; Matt. 26:65; Acts 14:14). In some cases, the tearing clothing was accompanied by the act of donning sackcloth and ashes, which signified a further degree of self-humiliation or mourning (Gen. 37:34; 2 Sam. 3:31; 2 Kings 19:1; Matt. 11:21; in Jon. 3:8 animals are included as well, perhaps to comic effect). In such instances, shoes and headwear were also removed (2 Sam. 15:30; Isa. 20:2; Ezek. 24:17). A number of these customs can be understood in terms of the correlation of nakedness with shame, and clothing with honor. Military captives often were stripped naked as a form of humiliation (Lam. 4:21; Ezek. 23:10; Amos 2:16). In Luke 8:27 Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man who neither lived in a house nor wore clothing. In this case, the lack of clothing represents the full measure of human degradation.

Clothing stands symbolically for attributes such as righteousness and salvation (Job 29:14; Ps. 132:9; Isa. 61:10), the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53–54; 2 Cor. 5:2–4), glory and honor (Job 40:10), union with Christ (Rom. 13:14; Gal. 3:27), compassion and other virtues (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5), and purity (Rev. 3:18).

In English, a distinction between the words “temptation,” “test,” and “trial” (or “tribulation”) seems apparent. However, the biblical Greek noun peirasmos and verb peirazō translate these nouns and their related verbs, leaving context alone to determine meaning. In the understanding of the Scripture, temptation relates directly to test and trial.

Negatively, English Bibles choose “temptation” and “tempt” as the fitting translation for peirasmos and peirazō respectively. The devil, or Satan, is the origin; the purpose is to encourage sin and devastate human relationship with God (Matt. 4:1 pars.; 1 Cor. 7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 6:9; James 1:13). Satan personifies this purpose as the tempter (Matt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5).

Positively, the English word “test” seems fitting. God tests his people to reveal the quality of their faith commitment (Gen. 22:1; Exod. 15:25; Judg. 2:22; Gal. 4:14). When God tests his enemies, it results in a hardening of their hearts (Exod. 14:4). When God tests his own people, it may look like judgment (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 6:52; Heb. 3:8; 4:7). The NT sees a direct link between the words peirazō and dokimazō (“to test, prove, approve”) and uses one to explain the other (2 Cor. 13:5–7; James 1:2–3, 12).

Neutrally, “trial” (or “tribulation”) translates the meaning. People may face trials in their Christian walk (Acts 20:19; 2 Cor. 8:2; James 1:2, 12; 1 Pet. 1:6) that may or may not lead to sin (Matt. 26:41; cf. Dan. 12:10). The sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13 // Luke 11:4) presupposes the understanding that God is sovereign over all human circumstances and therefore has the power to protect from trials that may lead to temptation and fall. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane follows the same supposition (Mark 14:38).

This interconnectedness in the biblical understanding between temptation, test, and trial helps to explain some inherently difficult texts. There can be no sharp distinction made between temptation and test; God may use someone’s tribulation as a test to affirm faith, while Satan uses the same as an avenue for temptation to commit sin. A prime OT example of such interconnectedness is the parallel texts in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles that describe David as both tested by God (2 Sam. 24:1) and tempted by Satan (1 Chron. 21:1) in regard to taking a census of Israel.

When humans tempt/test God, they provoke him to prove his power (Exod. 17:1–7) by acting as if he does not exist (Ps. 14:1). God’s firm prohibition against this (Deut. 6:13–16) exposes it as a violation of his relationship with humans (Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9; 15:10).

In English, a distinction between the words “temptation,” “test,” and “trial” (or “tribulation”) seems apparent. However, the biblical Greek noun peirasmos and verb peirazō translate these nouns and their related verbs, leaving context alone to determine meaning. In the understanding of the Scripture, temptation relates directly to test and trial.

Negatively, English Bibles choose “temptation” and “tempt” as the fitting translation for peirasmos and peirazō respectively. The devil, or Satan, is the origin; the purpose is to encourage sin and devastate human relationship with God (Matt. 4:1 pars.; 1 Cor. 7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 6:9; James 1:13). Satan personifies this purpose as the tempter (Matt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5).

Positively, the English word “test” seems fitting. God tests his people to reveal the quality of their faith commitment (Gen. 22:1; Exod. 15:25; Judg. 2:22; Gal. 4:14). When God tests his enemies, it results in a hardening of their hearts (Exod. 14:4). When God tests his own people, it may look like judgment (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 6:52; Heb. 3:8; 4:7). The NT sees a direct link between the words peirazō and dokimazō (“to test, prove, approve”) and uses one to explain the other (2 Cor. 13:5–7; James 1:2–3, 12).

Neutrally, “trial” (or “tribulation”) translates the meaning. People may face trials in their Christian walk (Acts 20:19; 2 Cor. 8:2; James 1:2, 12; 1 Pet. 1:6) that may or may not lead to sin (Matt. 26:41; cf. Dan. 12:10). The sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13 // Luke 11:4) presupposes the understanding that God is sovereign over all human circumstances and therefore has the power to protect from trials that may lead to temptation and fall. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane follows the same supposition (Mark 14:38).

This interconnectedness in the biblical understanding between temptation, test, and trial helps to explain some inherently difficult texts. There can be no sharp distinction made between temptation and test; God may use someone’s tribulation as a test to affirm faith, while Satan uses the same as an avenue for temptation to commit sin. A prime OT example of such interconnectedness is the parallel texts in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles that describe David as both tested by God (2 Sam. 24:1) and tempted by Satan (1 Chron. 21:1) in regard to taking a census of Israel.

When humans tempt/test God, they provoke him to prove his power (Exod. 17:1–7) by acting as if he does not exist (Ps. 14:1). God’s firm prohibition against this (Deut. 6:13–16) exposes it as a violation of his relationship with humans (Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9; 15:10).

In English, a distinction between the words “temptation,” “test,” and “trial” (or “tribulation”) seems apparent. However, the biblical Greek noun peirasmos and verb peirazō translate these nouns and their related verbs, leaving context alone to determine meaning. In the understanding of the Scripture, temptation relates directly to test and trial.

Negatively, English Bibles choose “temptation” and “tempt” as the fitting translation for peirasmos and peirazō respectively. The devil, or Satan, is the origin; the purpose is to encourage sin and devastate human relationship with God (Matt. 4:1 pars.; 1 Cor. 7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 6:9; James 1:13). Satan personifies this purpose as the tempter (Matt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5).

Positively, the English word “test” seems fitting. God tests his people to reveal the quality of their faith commitment (Gen. 22:1; Exod. 15:25; Judg. 2:22; Gal. 4:14). When God tests his enemies, it results in a hardening of their hearts (Exod. 14:4). When God tests his own people, it may look like judgment (Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 6:52; Heb. 3:8; 4:7). The NT sees a direct link between the words peirazō and dokimazō (“to test, prove, approve”) and uses one to explain the other (2 Cor. 13:5–7; James 1:2–3, 12).

Neutrally, “trial” (or “tribulation”) translates the meaning. People may face trials in their Christian walk (Acts 20:19; 2 Cor. 8:2; James 1:2, 12; 1 Pet. 1:6) that may or may not lead to sin (Matt. 26:41; cf. Dan. 12:10). The sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13 // Luke 11:4) presupposes the understanding that God is sovereign over all human circumstances and therefore has the power to protect from trials that may lead to temptation and fall. Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane follows the same supposition (Mark 14:38).

This interconnectedness in the biblical understanding between temptation, test, and trial helps to explain some inherently difficult texts. There can be no sharp distinction made between temptation and test; God may use someone’s tribulation as a test to affirm faith, while Satan uses the same as an avenue for temptation to commit sin. A prime OT example of such interconnectedness is the parallel texts in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles that describe David as both tested by God (2 Sam. 24:1) and tempted by Satan (1 Chron. 21:1) in regard to taking a census of Israel.

When humans tempt/test God, they provoke him to prove his power (Exod. 17:1–7) by acting as if he does not exist (Ps. 14:1). God’s firm prohibition against this (Deut. 6:13–16) exposes it as a violation of his relationship with humans (Matt. 4:7; Acts 5:9; 15:10).

Both the OT and the NT view wealth as ultimately a result of God’s blessing (Prov. 10:22). Abraham shows the right attitude by refusing to accept plunder from the king of Sodom, recognizing God as the sole source of his riches (Gen. 14:23). Solomon’s wealth was seen as God’s favor (1 Kings 3:13). Wealth and riches are said to be in the house of persons “who fear the Lord” (Ps. 112:1–3). However, material success alone is not necessarily an indication of God’s approval, nor is poverty a sign of God’s disfavor. Fundamentally, neither poverty nor wealth can be superficially tied to divine displeasure or favor.

Balanced view. The Bible articulates a balanced view of wealth. It warns against having an arrogant attitude by failing to acknowledge that the source of wealth is God (Deut. 8:17–18). There is danger in trusting in riches (Pss. 52:7; 62:10). The rich are charged not to be haughty, and to set their hopes not on uncertain riches but rather on God (1 Tim. 6:17–18). The love of money is described as the root of all kinds of evil (1 Tim. 6:9–10), and it is therefore extremely difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:24). The foolishness of materialism, making riches the center of one’s life, is shown in the parable of the wealthy farmer (Luke 12:15–21). Instead of monetary greed, the spirit of contentment is commended, because even if lacking on the material level, one still has the Lord (Luke 12:15; Phil. 4:11; Heb. 13:5). Material possessions should be gained rightly; effort and diligence are required (Gen. 3:19; Prov. 10:4). Obtaining wealth through dishonesty and ill-gotten gains is denounced and condemned (Prov. 11:26; 13:11; Jer. 17:11; Mic. 6:12).

God-centered perspective. Wealth and material possessions are to be viewed from a God-centered perspective. God is the one who provides everything; thus we should trust him for our daily needs (Matt. 6:25–34; Luke 11:3). Job’s confession in a time of loss, “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised,” shows an admirable attitude to emulate (Job 1:21). God is the owner of all things, and we are simply stewards and administrators of God’s wealth. We need to remember that one day we will be accountable for the use of our wealth (1 Cor. 10:31). Jesus teaches us to seek the kingdom of God first rather than his material blessings (Luke 12:31–33). Anything that draws us away from serving God should be avoided. We cannot serve both God and mammon (Matt. 6:24). Our treasures are to be in heaven, meaning that our central focus should be on matters pertaining to the kingdom: “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Luke 12:32–34).

Responsibility and generosity. With the possession of wealth comes the duty to give generously to those in need (Prov. 11:24; 28:27). Prosperity is given as a means to do good; thus we ought to be rich in good deeds (1 Tim. 6:18). Although it is a duty of the covenant community to take care of the needy in the OT, it still emphasizes the voluntary heart (Deut. 15:5–11). In 2 Cor. 9:7, Paul presents the principle of giving in the NT: “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” It should be not an exaction but a willing gift (9:5).

The Christian should emulate Jesus: “Though he was rich, yet for [our] sake he became poor, so that [we] through his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). Therefore, material offerings to Christ should not be a burden (1 Cor. 9:11). Sacrificial giving is an expression of love to the Lord (2 Cor. 9:12). It also generates thanksgiving to God from those who receive it (2 Cor. 9:11). Worldly wealth should also be used for evangelistic purposes (Luke 16:8). If we are faithful in the use of money, we can be trusted with the kingdom’s spiritual riches (Luke 16:12–13). Although riches do not have eternal value in themselves, their proper use has eternal consequences (Luke 12:33; 1 Tim. 6:19). One of the qualifications of a church overseer is to be free from the love of money, and a deacon must not pursue dishonest gain (1 Tim. 3:3, 8). A good name is to be chosen over great riches (Prov. 22:1). James condemns as sinful the attitude of favoring the wealthy over the poor. Nonpreferential love is the answer to prejudicial favoritism (James 2:1–9).