“Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel: for the Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land” (Hosea 4:1). 

This third article on controversial topics will look at a matter that is often as disagreeable among people as the two previous topics of drinking and divorce and remarriage.  Consider carefully the topic that relates to the dress or clothing appropriate for Christians to wear.

3.  Dressing Modestly.  It is written, “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;” (1 Tim. 2:9).  Again, “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price” (1 Peter 3:3-4).  More often than not, these passages are referenced to deal with the issue of coverage or lack of coverage of the body.  While that issue is important to address, these passages have to do with the nature of what one is wearing.  This will be addressed first before getting into the coverage issue.

Modest apparel is described from the words in First Timothy 2:9 as adorning that is fitting the character of one who is of God.  The Greek word translated “modest” literally means “well-arranged, seemly, modest” (Thayer, p. 356).  It is set in contrast to the words “not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array” (1 Tim. 2:9).  The point behind the modesty is that the appearance is not to distract from the real emphasis of the person, which is “But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works” (1 Tim. 2:10).  The words “shamefacedness and sobriety” (1 Tim. 2:9) also modify the concept of modest apparel.  These are attitudes denoting shrinking back from what is dishonorable with self-government.  Male or female children of God are to reflect both outwardly and inwardly the decorum that is befitting of God’s standard, not the world’s.

Coverage of clothing would involve several areas: exposure of the body and type of clothing that advertises what is befitting of God’s standard.  The first mention of coverage is found with Adam and Eve.  “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons” (Gen. 3:7).  Here is man’s attempt at dealing with nakedness and its implications.  Note now God’s work.  “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them” (Gen. 3:21).  Exposing the body under the guise of the world’s standard of “modesty” is not befitting of one who is seeking to draw attention to the inner man in contrast to the outer man. Next, what one wears says something about the mind of the wearer.  For example, “And she put her widow’s garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife. When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face” (Gen. 38:14-15).  Note that the garment itself advertised a worldly concept while being covered even of face.                                                                                                                   Jimmy Clark

“Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel: for the Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land” (Hosea 4:1). 

The previous article addressed a controversial topic that too often is either tolerated or condoned by even religious people: drinking of alcoholic beverages.  The northern kingdom was plagued by such practice (cf. Hosea 4:11).  Isaiah prophesied about this same time and said of the southern kingdom, “Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink” (Isa. 5:22).  A second controversy that arose in that day (and is prominent even today) is the topic now to be considered.

2.  Divorce and Remarriage.  Unfaithfulness in marriage was a major problem to the northern kingdom.  Idolatry brought whoredom (cf. Hosea 4:12-13).  Malachi faced this issue in his day (cf. Mal. 2:13-16).  Jesus faced such in his day (cf. Matt. 5:27-32; 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18).  Society has come to accept divorce and remarriage so readily today that there is even “no-fault” divorce.  The law of the state of Alabama sets forth this declaration concerning no-fault divorce reasons:

Alabama allows spouses to allege one of two reasons as a reason for the divorce:

• irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, or
• incompatibility. (Ala. Code § 30-2-1 (a)(7)(9).)

Irretrievable breakdown means that the marriage is broken beyond repair, and incompatibility means that the spouses simply do not get along anymore. Both no-fault grounds tell a court that at least one spouse wants to end the marriage, which is generally enough for a judge to grant your divorce. (divorcenet.com/resources/grounds-for-divorce-in-alabama.html).

Jesus gave only one exception for divorce and remarriage without the new marriage being adultery.  “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9).  Such a restriction both safeguards the integrity of all marriages and sets a deterrent that would lead married people to work hard to solve their difficulties.

Think about such loosening of the restriction as is done today.  For example, if it is Biblical for divorce and remarriage to take place for other reasons besides the one exception, what is to keep second and possibly other divorces and remarriages from also being dissolved upon irretrievable breakdown, incompatibility or any other cause?  Mankind then determines what is permissible with the consequence producing a moral breakdown of the home in society.  God forbid.                                                                                                            

Jimmy Clark