|
As we consider what God has to say... we will deal with three
primary things--with TRUTH, CUSTOM, and FASHION. These may sound
like odd things with which to deal from the pulpit, but to deal
with the subject at hand, it becomes quite necessary that we talk
about these things.
By TRUTH, I mean the will of God. By CUSTOM, I will have reference
to a social habit that is deeply rooted In tradition. In other
words, that which has been established through periods of long
usage. When I speak of FASHION, I will have reference to any style
that has gained wide spread acceptance in any given period. These
three things that we have in mind; truth, custom, and fashion are
things that may conflict, but not necessarily so. There are many
difficulties involved in this type of thing, for these reasons.
Style is a thing that changes about like the phases of the moon.
We have even lived in our time to see customs changed which are
deep rooted things over a long period of time. This complicates it
when you deal with the fact that truth never changes and still
this fits within the same framework. Also we are dealing with the style
and customs that may vary with various locales, while we're also
dealing with truth that is universal. So, you get involved with a
number of things.
I would like to say that the ramification of this thing is
absolutely tremendous. Modesty is our subject. Modesty involves
many facets of our lives. I suppose that we could speak about
modesty as it respects the heart of men end spend our entire time
on that. We could talk about a meek and quiet spirit, and this
deals with modesty, certainly. We might then talk about clothing
and nakedness or lack of nakedness. I would like to point out that
most of the Biblical emphases are placed here. I realize that
sometimes we say that modesty begins with the heart, and that, I
believe. But I would like to point out when the Bible talks about
modesty, in fact, in every culture that I considered, the big
things when you are talking about modesty, you are discussing
clothing or the lack of it. I don't think there is any way to get
away from that. Modesty is a thing that is set forth in the Bible
as that which is to be sought. It is to be a studied art among
God's people. It is not something to see how far removed from it
we can get, but among the people of God it ought to be a studied
thing. The Bible sets it forth as a find that is worth all the
seeking we may ever do. For this reason, certainly, we want to
consider this.
First of all, let's talk about dress through the ages. I shall
say, that the manner of clothing has varied through the ages. To
wit, the fact that you are not dressed this evening as you were
twenty years ago. You only have to get out an old photograph to
see that quite evidently. You certainly aren't dressed the same.
I can assure you, we are not dressed as we were fifty years ago, as
I look back to some of those times. So, we believe in changing
styles.
We can't assume that our clothing is natural, inherent, or
universal. It isn't any of those things, necessarily. If changing
or resisting change in style makes us righteous, then the
Mennonites and the Amish are more righteous than we. Even they
themselves have changed a great deal. I found in this study that
they are "the plain sects", as they have labeled themselves. There
are about twenty groups among "the plain sects" who have resisted
change to a much greater degree than we have. So, we would say
that this is not what constitutes modesty as such. To resist a
change of any kind. . . or I can say about clothing in which we
are now garbed, that "from the beginning, it was not so."
We want to talk about that which was from the beginning. We go
back to the beginning, and I mean to the beginning, and deal with
Biblical principles. You're going to hear me talking about
Biblical principles. I shall be the first to admit, I do not know
all the law that revolves around a Biblical principle. I am
persuaded however, there are Biblical principles, and you believe in
Biblical principles. The Bible teaches us that nakedness is a
symbol of shame. In the beginning, God set some standards of dress
and undress, of modesty and immodesty... to wit, the garden of
Eden, is the beginning place. I suppose, after Adam and Eve had
sinned, they had partaken of the forbidden fruit, they knew that
they were naked and hid themselves. That's more than we do today.
I'm reminded of a quote of old Marshal Keeble, who said, "In the
beginning when they ate them apples, they knew they were naked and
hid themselves and prayed... Lord send us some more of them
apples!"
I think we live in times when we need to be saying, Lord, send us
a few more of those things that made them aware that they were
naked and that made them aware of the fact that they needed to be
covered and caused them to hide themselves. The Bible states that
they made aprons. The marginal reading is that they made
girdles--something to gird about the mid-section. But even after
they had thusly clothed themselves, they still hid themselves from
the presence of God. They felt uncomfortable about the whole
situation. I would like to point out, that though they were
uncomfortable, it was not because of the way they had been raised
up. Well, God raised these two! I would suspect if indeed they
had any frustrations or inhibitions, they were pretty good ones.
I do know this, God was not satisfied. Modern psychologists will
sometimes say that you have certain inhibitions and certain
frustrations, because that's the way you were raised up.
I do know this, that God was not satisfied. They made them
garments to gird themselves about the mid-section, but God was not
satisfied. (Much like a tunic, reaching to the knee). The Bible
teaches me that God made them coats of skins, Genesis 3:21. Not
only clothed, but modestly clothed! It is not enough to be
clothed, we must be modestly clothed; this is what God is concerned
with. And remember, that just with their mid-section girt about,
they were still naked in the sight of God. We should realize that!
I do know one thing, when God made the coats of skins, he clothed
them. It was not for the purpose of revealing either. It was a
concealing! I would highly suspect that those coats of skin didn't
do much for the figure. It did clothe them, and with that God was
concerned. It certainly was not a see through job such as is
sometimes evident today. May I also point out that God made Adam
one, too. Sometimes we find that our men and boys may simply feel
that they may clad themselves in some swim trunks, because they
happen to be of the male species and parade themselves in public
and feel all is well, because they happen to be a male. God made
Adam one, too, and clothed his nakedness. In the Bible, Gen.
9:30-25, there is another principle (call it what you may), laid
down in regard to nakedness. You will remember that this is the
case of Noah who had been made drunken. He was uncovered. The
Bible says he was naked. When you get uncovered, certainly that
word is applicable. Well, you remember that those sons of his,
lest they see their father's nakedness, put upon their shoulders a
garment and backed into the situation and covered up his nakedness.
I will be quite frank with you, God is saying that anytime
nakedness exists to any degree, that we need a covering. This is
what is set forth here. I am just pointing out an attitude that
existed toward nakedness, even with a father-son relationship.
Again, this came to be a symbolic thing. Over in Isaiah 47, listen
to what He has to say, beginning with verse one: "Come down and sit
in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there
is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more
be called tender and delicate. Take the millstone, and grind meal:
uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover thy thigh, pass over
the river. Thy nakedness shalt be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall
be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man."
God is simply saying to them that he was going to expose them and
their wickedness, and He uses this particular figure of when they
would gather up their garments and cross over the river. I just
point this out very hurriedly, that when it came to the point that
He said the thigh was exposed, God said, "Your nakedness has been
uncovered." I think that it is worthy of note. Over in Revelation
3:18, a familiar passage, He exhorts the congregation (and us), "I
counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in fire, that thou mayest be
rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the
shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with
eyesalve, that thou mayest see."
I would like to point out also, that according to God's word it is
possible to be clothed and still be naked. One does not have to be
naked to be naked! (In the sense the world uses it, and in the
sense God uses it). Job 22:6 says, "For thou hast taken a pledge
from thy brother for nought, and stripped the naked of their
clothing." What he has in mind, the best I can determine, is that
they were so thinly clad and so barely covered, that God said, "Ye
are naked." I would suspect that this is what He has in mind in
James 2:15 when he says, "If thy bother or sister be naked, be
destitute of daily food." I think he is not considering someone
who is stark naked as we use the term today. He is simply
saying, if they be thinly or poorly clad so that they are hardly
able to cover their nakedness, He says, you need to help them. We
would work ourselves to death, I suppose, trying to help one
another!
In John 21:7, Peter was fishing, and you remember that they saw the
Lord on the shore that morning. The Bible says that Peter was
naked. I remember when someone pointed that out to me. Well,
here's a case--he was there fishing--and he was naked. We just
assume that means what we call it, today. But, I'll assure you
that this is not the case. He had taken off his outer cloak, but
he was still clad in an undercoat, a linen frock that fishermen at
that time wore. But he considered himself, with that only, as
being naked. The divine writer considered him so. And he drew his
outer cloak to him over his inner cloak... I think this is worthy.
What I am saying is that clothing is not enough... it must be
modest, or "God directed" clothing... and that is what we are
discussing.
Alright, let's talk about dress in the aforetime. I've approached
this, you might say, historically. If you want to use the term
the world uses: sometimes the bronze age--the early, middle, late;
sometimes the early, middle, or late iron age; and sometimes the
Persians, the Grecians, or the Romans. But, I am concerned more
with dress of Old Testament times. Let's talk about it... the
dress of men.
There is no doubt in my mind, since studying this, that they were
dressed in tunics. There was an inner tunic, a tunic coat, a
girdle a cloak, a headdress, and shoes or sandals. By an inner
tunic, I mean a short shirt-like garment of varying lengths. By a
tunic coat, I mean a shirt like garment, usually expressed as being
long sleeved, extending usually to the ankles. By a girdle, I mean
that with which to gird them about. That with which they would
bind this flowing robe business to themselves in times of work, or
in times when they would want to move along more rapidly. This is
spoken of in Proverbs 31. You will remember that Elijah had
such... John the Baptist had such. On the outer side was this
cloak or mantle or robe. I am persuaded this is what he has in
mind when he speaks of Joseph's coat of many colors, which his
father made for him... Samuel's coat which Hannah made for him and
took to him... that best robe of which it is said of the prodigal
son, should be brought forth and put on him. He's talking about
that robe. He was not naked except in the sense that they
considered nakedness at that time. He said he still needed a robe,
and he brought it to him. This is that spoken of in Matthew 6,
you remember, that there he said that if someone sue you at law, he
can take the shirt off your back. He can take the inner tunic or
coat, but he could not take the outer cloak. But, of course, the
Lord goes on, to say something about that. That cloak sometimes,
many times, so far as God's people were concerned in Numbers 16,
was fringed in blue.
The word skirt is used in the Old Testament in reference to men's
garments. But, I would like to point out the way in which it is
used in the King James Version. In Ruth 3:9 the Bible speaks of
the skirt as an individual's garment. In Psalms 133:2, I think it
is speaking of an upper extremity, the collar of the oil that ran
down even to the skirt, it says, but literally to the collar. In
1 Samuel 34:4, this is the case where David cut off the corner of
Saul's robe. In Exodus 28:33, he is discussing the hem of the
priest's garment.
Now, the dress of women in that time. There was a definite
distinction, because the law forbade men and women wearing the same
thing. There were some feminine clothing or feminine articles
which wore similar names. They were very different in embossing,
embroidery, and needle work. It was again in the tunic or robe.
Robes reaching to the feet so far as I know and so far as I am able
to determine. In reading Proverbs 31:19-22 we learn how they got
them. There are also some other kinds over there, and situations,
as we talk about the vain daughters of Israel. I want you to
listen to these. He speaks of their fine linen, their festive
robes, their ankle chains, their nose jewels, their pindons, and
their bracelets. He calls them the vain daughters with all this
garb.
The clothing of the Hebrew, I would say in just sort of
generalizing about it, was graceful, modest and was exceedingly
significant. I mean, IT MEANT SOMETHING! It told WHO and WHAT
they were. It seems to me that in reading the Old Testament, in
this regard, those people had a moral urge to do what God told them
to do and to represent Him correctly. Through the centuries there
were very little changes. In New Testament times, I detect very
little change. When we get into the New Testament all I can say is
that it requires a little bit of Roman flavor, as you talk about
the Roman toga, very similar to the tunic, a loose outer garment
worn in public. Very similar to, and where we get the word
"stole", I understand. This was dress of the common people in both
ages as with John the Baptist, and so on. Of course, with the
ruling class there were always the better garments, you know, as
that of kings' houses. But, at the time of Jesus and his
disciples, the clothing must have involved about six articles.
Again, and please listen to the similarity, that linen shirt, that
under garment, that tunic (John 19:23), "the coat without seam" for
which those soldiers gambled--they wanted that inner garment. There
was the girdle about the waist, in the case of John the Baptist it
was leather. There was the outer garment of John 19:23, the
leather sandals, most likely, and then the turban. (There is
something interesting about that, that I will just pitch in. This
is the napkin of which the Bible speaks that Lazarus came forth
still wrapped in, and it talks about, you will remember, that it
was neatly placed aside in the case of Jesus in the tomb. This is
very likely the turban they wore at that time).
They were still dressed in the time of Jesus so that one could
touch the border of His garment, Matthew 23:45, or in the case of
Jesus (Revelation 1). Let us mention that in the New Testament, so
far as I know, no particular garb is prescribed, as such.
Probably, the major warning in the New Testament is against over
dress. That sounds like an odd thing in our time. First Peter 3,
you know, says not having the broided hair and all. This is
overdoing the thing, and what he is warning against, here. But,
modesty Is stressed more under this age than in any other.
Now, let's talk about that word--modesty. Modesty,
shamefacedness, sobriety, again, may I point out, we need to seek
to know. This should be among us a studied art... WHAT DOES GOD
WANT? I think that I speak to people who want to know. What does
God really want me to do? I think we are ready to do it. The word
modest literally means orderly, well-arranged, decent. This is as
it's used in 2 Timothy 2:7 and 1 Peter 3:3--an ordering of the whole
life. Modest as a word can surely mean this. Thayer says it means
well-arranged, seemly, modest, living with decorum, decently.
Webster, in his International version, went all the way back to the
Archaic meaning, and I wanted to pick up the whole thing. Listen
to this; he says the word modest means, "lacking in vanity, not
bold, not self asserting, retiring in manner, moderate, observing
conventional standards of dress and manner, free from coarseness
and indecency, not showy." The word modesty means freedom from
coarseness and indelicacy. A regard for propriety in dress,
speech, and conduct.
The word shamefacedness, 1 Timothy 2:9, is used to show a sense of
shame, modesty. Listen to some translations. Just pick out this
part if you will. Shamefacedness is translated shamefastness, a
quiet and serious air, reverence, and respect; modest and serious.
When he talks of shamefacedness, it literally means modesty which
is fast, as rooted in the very soul of man. So, this is what he's
wanting, something that is rooted and grounded in shamefastness.
Behaving according to a standard of what is proper, or decent, or
pure. But, listen to Jeremiah 6:15, where he raises the question:
"Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they
were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they
shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they
shall be cast down, saith the Lord." He said they came to a place
where nothing bothered them. I mean they were as bold and brazen
as could be. And it is from this that we pick up the word
shamefacedness, a sense of shame still, fast in our souls, and our
God intends for it to be that way.
Sobriety means literally, soundness of mind, sound judgment. This
is like Acts 26 where, I understand, this same word is used. You
remember that they had accused Paul of being beside himself, that
much learning had made him mad. He said, "I am not mad most noble
Festus, But I speak the words of truth and sobriety." Soberness is
saying that we should have inner self government. A system of
checks and balances. He's saying we need something to have a
constant rein on the passion and the desires of this fleshly man...
that we need this inner barrier that we have erected against
whatever may be opposed to modesty and shamefacedness and sobriety.
Why all this? Listen to the passage: "In like manner also, that
women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and
sobriety: not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly
array: But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good
works. People should know by the way we dress, and the way we do,
what we are, or what we profess to be! People do not have to carry
around an x-ray with them. You may be a perfectly good person, but
please don't expect the world to carry around an x-ray machine with
them, to check you out on the inside to see how you are. God said
they have a perfect right to look at the outside, and that's about
the only thing they will do and make their conclusion. I know one
thing, our clothing will show our shamefastness or lack or it.
This must rule out clothing whatever it is which exposes or causes
unwholesome thinking. It could not possibly be clothing that
causes lewd or lustful thoughts or emotions. I like what Solomon
said in Proverbs 11:22, "As a jewel of gold in a swine's snout, so
is a fair woman which is without discretion." We've never lived
long enough to out do that one and we never will!
--1921 McKamie Road
McGregor, TX 76657
[ This article is taken from a study on the subject by brother
McKamie, the conclusion of which will be carried next
month, Lord
willing].
|
