|
This is a
valid and pertinent question for the time in which we live. The
response to this question could take pages to answer to deal
adequately with the different points that arise in a discussion
concerning this subject. I will not write an in-depth study on the
subject at this point, but I will share a few reasons and point to
consider.
Women in the Church of God wear long dresses and skirts so that they
reflect the holiness and modesty as taught in the scripture. Dress
does not make someone holy, but someone who is holy will adorn
herself in a way that is in accordance with the scripture. It is
important to realize that holiness is a condition of heart, but it
affects every area of life.
I Timothy 2:8-10 states “I will therefore that men pray everywhere,
lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 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.
I here insert a lengthy quote from the commentator Adam Clark on
Timothy 2:9.
|
That women adorn
themselves, kai tas yunaikas en katastol kosmio.
The apostle seems to refer here to different parts of
the Grecian and Roman dress. The stola seems to have
been originally very simple. It was a long piece of
cloth, doubled in the middle, and sewed up both sides,
leaving room only for the arms; at the top, a piece was
cut out, or a slit made, through which the head passed.
It hung down to the feet, both before and behind, and
was girded with the zona round the body, just under the
breasts. It as sometimes made with, sometimes without,
sleeves; and, that it might sit the better, it was
gathered on each shoulder with a band or buckle. Some of
the Greek women wore them open on each side, from the
bottom up above the knees, so as to discover a part of
the thigh. These were termed phainomarides,
showers (discoverers) of the thigh; but it was, in
general, only young girls or immodest women
who wore them thus.
The katastola seems to have been the same as the
pallium or mantle, which, being made
nearly in the form of the stola, hung down to the
waist, both in back and front, was gathered on the
shoulder with a band or buckle, had a hole or slit at
the top for the head to pass through, and hung loosely
over the stola, without being confined by the
zona or girdle. . . . A more modest and becoming
dress than the Grecian was never invented; it was, in
great measure, revived in England about the year 1805,
and in it, simplicity, decency, and elegance were
united; but it soon gave place to another mode, in which
frippery and nonsense once more prevailed. It was too
rational to last; and too much like religions simplicity
to be suffered in a land of shadows, and a world of
painted outsides.
With shame facedness and sobriety. The stola,
catastola, girdle, etc., though simple in
themselves, were often highly ornamented both with gold
and precious stones; and, both among Grecian and Roman
women, the hair was often crisped and curled in the most
variegated and complex manner. To this the apostle
alludes when he says: . . . Not with plaited hair, or
gold, or pearl, or costly raiment. The costly raiment
might refer to the materials out of which the raiment
was made, and to the workmanship; the gold and pearls,
to the ornaments on the raiment.
With shame-facedness or modesty, meta aidous.
This would lead them to avoid every thing unbecoming or
meretricious in the mode or fashion of their dress.
With sobriety, meta swphrosuvas. Moderation would
lead them to avoid all unnecessary expense. They might
follow the custom or costume of the
country as to dress itself, for nothing was ever more
becoming than the Grecian stola, catastola,
and zona; but they must not imitate the
extravagance of those who, through impurity or
little of mind, decked themselves merely to attract
the eye of admiration, or set in lying action the tongue
of flattery. Woman has been invidiously defined: An
animal fond of dress. How long will they permit
themselves to be thus degraded?
…When either women or men spend much time, cost, and
attention on decorating their persons, it affords a
painful proof that within there is little excellence,
and that they are endeavoring to supply the want of mind
and moral good by the feeble and silly aids of dress and
ornament… |
Clarke seemed to have caught the sense of Paul's thoughts on dress.
The modest dress he described is far from the current world and
Christian idea of proper dress. The first-century Christians could
follow the general dress style of their culture with some minor
modification, but twentieth-century Christian women surely cannot
follow today's popular dress standards. The dress standard of the
world does not even approach the biblical standards on the subject.
Principles of modesty and Christian dress apply to a man as well as
to a women, but there is a difference in their apparel.
Biblical guidelines for women to follow in dress are as follows:
1. It should not pertain unto a man
2. It should be modest
3. Women should dress with shamefacedness.
4. Women should dress with sobriety and moderation.
"Apparel" today is a very general term that means "any article of
clothing." In 1611 the word "apparel" meant "loose, long flowing
garment?" Look it up in an old Oxford English Dictionary that has
the archaic meanings of words. Furthermore, the Greek word is
katastole which is an EXACTING WORD, and it is the ONLY place in
the Bible where it is used. There are lots of words for clothing,
attire, etc., but this word comes from a verb form which means "to
lower." It denoted a loose-fitting outer garment, which was LONG.
Paul used this word specifically to tell women that they are to wear
a long, flowing garment—not a short, tight one. Hence, a women
should wear DRESSES. Pants, miniskirts, tight dresses, etc. are not
flowing garments.
Deuteronomy 22:5 teaches the following: “The woman shall not wear
that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a
woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD
thy God.”
The question then arises, does the Old Testament still apply? Isn’t
that part of the Mosaic Law that Christ did away with? There are
certain things that God abhors and despises. Included in those
things are idolatry, deviant sexual behavior, a proud look… the list
goes on. Included is the breaking down of the distinction between
the genders in clothing. All of these things are eternally wrong
because of their nature. Therefore they are not mere Old Testament
prohibitions, but abiding principles based on the nature of God
himself.
In the scripture, "Breeches" were an article of clothing designed by
God for the priests who were all men. The word does not occur very
often in scripture, but in every case it's men's apparel (Exodus
28:42, Leviticus 6:10; 16:4). According to the Hebrew lexicon,
"breeches" means "trousers that extend to the knee, below the knee,
or to the ankles."
Just because our culture approves a certain practice, does not mean
that God’s blessings are on it. Any form of dress that breaks down
the distinction between male and female is to be avoided because it
is an abomination to God. The Word of God, not peer pressure or
cultural approval, is our only safe guide.
In Bible days, women did not wear crotched garments. Not only that,
women in any society did not wear pants until close to the middle of
this century. Even the garments worn by men and women in Bible days
were different. The woman wore a long flowing robe, and men wore a
shorter and tighter robe. Underneath the woman's robe would be
nothing. Underneath the man's robe would be a pair of short pants
that would go down to the knees. Whenever a man would have to do
some type of labor, such as to team up an ox, pull a trailer or dig
a hole, he would pull up his skirt and tuck it in his pants that
were under his skirt, and that was called in the Bible "girding up
your loins."
Until the last 70 years, most people in this country recognized that
pants were men’s apparel and that dresses were women’s apparel, and
they dressed accordingly. Our culture’s acceptance of cross-dressing
has resulted largely from the influence of television, the placement
of women in the workforce, and the pressures of twentieth century
feminism. The spirit that brought about this change is clearly
contrary to what the Bible teaches.
Pants are also symbol of authority, as evidenced by the saying " I'm
the one who wears the pants in the family." The feminist movement
has made great inroads into the thinking and mindset of women and
men around the world. It is for this reason that even women in the
business world wear pants sometimes and dresses at other
times--depending upon what they are trying to accomplish. When a
women wants to be on the same level as a man, she will usually wear
a pant suit to try to eliminate the gender difference. Pants cause a
woman to act and walk differently. This difference falls short of
the scriptural teaching of shamefacedness and modesty.
As more could be said on the subject, suffice it to say that the
Lord requires there to be a clear distinction between the genders.
The scriptures teach that a woman be holy, modest, decent, and
humble. Christians are not to conform to the world (Rom 12:1-2) but
are to be examples of godliness and purity. For some of these stated
reasons, the women in the Church of God do not wear pants, but
modest dresses and skirts.
-Bro.
Michael Smith (6/5/06) |
