clothed with strange apparel, Zeph. 1:9

Coram Deo · #1 (**permalink**) 04-02-2007, 07:18 PM

What are your thoughts on this passage of Scripture?

I was reading William Perkins "On the Right, Lawful, and Holy Use of Apparel", and he brought up this passage in one of his seven rules of Apparel..

he said

Quote:

"Fifthly, mens’ attire is to be framed a prepared, according to the ancient and received custom of the country, wherein they are brought up and dwell.

Touching this rule, it is demanded, Whether, if a man see a fashion used in other countries, he may not take it up here, and use it?

Answer. He may not. For God hath threatened to visit all such as are clothed with strange apparel, Zeph. 1:9. ....... And if this be so, then what disorder is that, when men of one country frame themselves to the fashions and attires, both of men and women of other nations? This one sin is so common among us, that it hath branded our English people with the black mark of the vainest and most new-fangled people under heaven. If a stranger comes into our land, he keeps his ancient and customable attire, without varying or alteration. We, on the contrary, can see no fashion used, either by the French, Italian, or Spanish, but we take it up, and use it as our own."

Interesting...... Any thoughts? or any other deductions from Zeph 1:9?

Michael

satz · #2 (**permalink**) 04-02-2007, 08:03 PM

I have read "On the Right, Lawful, and Holy Use of Apparel" and with respect to Mr Perkins, I think some of his conclusions were a bit of a stretch.

With regards to God's anger at Israel wearing the clothing of other nations, I think we need to remember that at that time there was a nation that was considered God's nation and other nations were considered entirely pagan, a distinction that does not hold true today. The distinction between Israel/Gentile nations is, imho, simply different from the difference between Italy and France (for example). I think some commentators have also seen the strange apparel as representing not simply taste in fashion, but a going after the sins, favor and worship of those pagan nations.

Coram Deo · #3 (**permalink**) 04-02-2007, 08:09 PM

But are we (The church) not considered God's New Holy Nation?

We are called a Holy Nation, seperated from the pagan world around us..

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

I have read "On the Right, Lawful, and Holy Use of Apparel" and with respect to Mr Perkins, I think some of his conclusions were a bit of a stretch.

With regards to God's anger at Israel wearing the clothing of other nations, I think we need to remember that at that time there was a nation that was considered God's nation and other nations were considered entirely pagan, a distinction that does not hold true today. The distinction between Israel/Gentile nations is, imho, simply different from the difference between Italy and France (for example). I think some commentators have also seen the strange apparel as representing not simply taste in fashion, but a going after the sins, favor and worship of those pagan nations.

satz · #4 (**permalink**) 04-02-2007, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunaer

But are we (The church) not considered God's New Holy Nation?

We are called a Holy Nation, seperated from the pagan world around us..

I would not disagree with you at all, but I don't see how this would support the proposition Mr Perkins was putting forward. As I understand it, his emphasis was on the clothing of our physical countries of origin or residence.

No Longer A Libertine · #5 (**permalink**) 04-02-2007, 08:22 PM

Lord help the poorly dressed.

Some of us just don't match, we're not obscene just not well coordinated people.

As for the world and their skin fest i think it is pretty clear as Christians should be earnestly adopting more modest attire in all occasions.

Coram Deo · #6 (**permalink**) 04-02-2007, 08:23 PM

Just playing alittle reverse roles here (I won't say Devil's Advocate), Should the Christian at all except the styles of clothing from the nations of the Earth or should we be more plain, simple, grave, and sober. Should we be altering our style every generation or two because of the culture in support of this verse.

Not so much refering to modesty at this point, which I am sure everyone will think I jumped off the deep end... lol

I just never saw this verse before and am inquiring... I am unsure yet what I feel about it....

Michael

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

I would not disagree with you at all, but I don't see how this would support the proposition Mr Perkins was putting forward. As I understand it, his emphasis was on the clothing of our physical countries of origin or residence.

satz · #7 (**permalink**) 04-02-2007, 08:40 PM

Interesting question...

At this point of time, I am leaning toward saying that the NT application for this verse is not so much as regards clothing, but with the friendship and love of the world. I am always open to correction of course.

Regarding clothing, I think the problem is what exactly are the 'styles of clothing from the nations of the Earth' ? The bible does not set out a dress or style code for NT christians. My present position, and again I am open to correction, is whatever you see in the stores, or wherever, if it is modest and does not violate any other scriptural principle, go for it. Just as Paul told the Corinthians not to worry about where the meat they bought from the shambles came from, I do not believe we need to worry too much about the origin of modest clothing we see in the shops.

I would be wary about taking the plain and simple approach too far, even if it is in reaction to the world's horrible excesses. One characteristic of the virtuous woman was she was clothed in 'silk and purple' (Pr 31:22), even if silk and purple is often used in the bible as the identifying mark of worldly excess (Luke 16:19, Rev 17:4, 18:16). Dressing well or attractively is not in itself wrong, even if it is one of the areas where we are most prone to sin by excess.

Coram Deo · #8 (**permalink**) 04-02-2007, 09:00 PM

I am just not sure at this time yet... I consider all scripture, old and new to be relevant for today except when aborgated by further relevation of the new testament.

As for the Silk and purple, I have heard that used metaphorally out of proverbs 31... So I am unsure there...

But I agree modesty, and WHAT is modesty is far more important especially in this day and age.... Even among Reformed Christians this needs to be answered.....

Michael

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

Interesting question...

At this point of time, I am leaning toward saying that the NT application for this verse is not so much as regards clothing, but with the friendship and love of the world. I am always open to correction of course.

Regarding clothing, I think the problem is what exactly are the 'styles of clothing from the nations of the Earth' ? The bible does not set out a dress or style code for NT christians. My present position, and again I am open to correction, is whatever you see in the stores, or wherever, if it is modest and does not violate any other scriptural principle, go for it. Just as Paul told the Corinthians not to worry about where the meat they bought from the shambles came from, I do not believe we need to worry too much about the origin of modest clothing we see in the shops.

I would be wary about taking the plain and simple approach too far, even if it is in reaction to the world's horrible excesses. One characteristic of the virtuous woman was she was clothed in 'silk and purple' (Pr 31:22), even if silk and purple is often used in the bible as the identifying mark of worldly excess (Luke 16:19, Rev 17:4, 18:16). Dressing well or attractively is not in itself wrong, even if it is one of the areas where we are most prone to sin by excess.

Augusta · #9 (**permalink**) 04-02-2007, 10:36 PM

Michael, your inner fundy is showing again.

I actually do believe in modest clothing, I personally wear skirts to the shin or ankle except around the house or when I am doing heavy work.

Semper Fidelis · #10 (**permalink**) 04-02-2007, 11:19 PM

Let's try to apply it to the NT Church, which is no longer a single tribe or nation. Instead of wracking our brains on whether or not it applies let's just decide what the proper garb is for the Church.

What uniform do you propose?

I'm not trying to put you on the spot here. My point is that it is very nice to theorize on this and make strained application of a disputable text but quite another to figure out how one would actually carry this out.

Let's say that this is about the culture you're from. My wife is half Puerto Rican, a quarter Scotch, and a quarter Irish. Can she wear a kilt one day out of four, green the next and then must wear tropical clothes the other 50%?

Or perhaps the kinists are right and this verse supports the idea that we should not be marrying outside our race. Yet another way we offend God because we're not sticking with our own people and end up wearing the clothes of a strange land.

Should I be telling all the Japanese that I meet wearing moderate Western styles in Church now that they are sinning against a Holy God? Nobody wears Kimonos anymore out here anymore and that's the "ancient" clothing described.

I know you didn't write this but GIVE ME A BREAK!

Coram Deo · #11 (**permalink**) 04-03-2007, 12:29 AM

That's pretty funny..... Look what I started by talking about my Old Fundy Days.... lol

I have Theological convictions about skirts and dresses down to the ankles and up to the neckline... Of course I know I will get the Whaa from everybody.... and it will most likely end in agree to disagree....

Michael

Quote:

Originally Posted by Augusta

Michael, your inner fundy is showing again.

I actually do believe in modest clothing, I personally wear skirts to the shin or ankle except around the house or when I am doing heavy work.

Coram Deo · #12 (**permalink**) 04-03-2007, 12:37 AM

I prefer the Puritan Uniform please....

My wife tells me I am for the Amish clothing, but I keep telling her no, its Puritan/Reformed.... So then I tell her Reformed Amish....

This will mostlikely lead into another Culture vs. anticulture war, which everyone has there own thoughts about and nobody ever wins... So I think I will abstain!

As for bringing up the race card, again everyone as there own thoughts and that is a emotional topic that get majorly heated to the brink of World War 3. Again, I will abstain..

Michael

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Let's try to apply it to the NT Church, which is no longer a single tribe or nation. Instead of wracking our brains on whether or not it applies let's just decide what the proper garb is for the Church.

What uniform do you propose?

I'm not trying to put you on the spot here. My point is that it is very nice to theorize on this and make strained application of a disputable text but quite another to figure out how one would actually carry this out.

Let's say that this is about the culture you're from. My wife is half Puerto Rican, a quarter Scotch, and a quarter Irish. Can she wear a kilt one day out of four, green the next and then must wear tropical clothes the other 50%?

Or perhaps the kinists are right and this verse supports the idea that we should not be marrying outside our race. Yet another way we offend God because we're not sticking with our own people and end up wearing the clothes of a strange land.

Should I be telling all the Japanese that I meet wearing moderate Western styles in Church now that they are sinning against a Holy God? Nobody wears Kimonos anymore out here anymore and that's the "ancient" clothing described.

I know you didn't write this but GIVE ME A BREAK!

Semper Fidelis · #13 (**permalink**) 04-03-2007, 12:46 AM

It's nothing against you Michael but this English guy's application of the passage is absurd. It has nothing to do with culture or anticulture wars. One doesn't have to embrace modernity and mini-skirts to disagree with this fellow. What he's saying is that if your wife wears a modest dress that reflects a traditional Mexican style that she's sinning against God.

This is one of those applications that is quite easy for a homogenous culture that this writer lived in (and likely preferred). Everybody just wear what Englishmen have always worn. No need to worry about Spaniards or French here in England after all when people don't get around much or move much.

Talk about the logistics of just encouraging people to carry this out in a multi-cultural environment. All the black people wearing one thing, a husband wearing Italian clothes while his wife wears Spanish, etc...

satz · #14 (**permalink**) 04-03-2007, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunaer

I am just not sure at this time yet... I consider all scripture, old and new to be relevant for today except when aborgated by further relevation of the new testament.

As for the Silk and purple, I have heard that used metaphorally out of proverbs 31... So I am unsure there...

But I agree modesty, and WHAT is modesty is far more important especially in this day and age.... Even among Reformed Christians this needs to be answered.....

Michael

Hi,

I hope nothing I said sounded like I don't consider all scripture in both Testaments to be relevant today. I do believe that OT scriptures do need to be read in light of the NT, and while some of them can be applied almost directly, some will only teach general principles instead of strict direct application.

You concern with this verse seems to have strayed from the quote you gave in the original post. As I said earlier, I don't think that is a good interpretation, although it is not the one you seem to be interested in. If you are pushing for application along the lines of christians should not wear strange apparel in the sense of the world's clothing, I think I would agree, though as you have observed, identifying exactly what is the world's clothing is likely to be a whole can of worms.

Regarding silk and purple, I think it is used in scripture as a representation of fine clothing and luxury, I know some commentators have seen its use in certain passages to be representative of spiritual blessings, though I see no reason to take anything other than the literal interpretation of its use in Pr 31. I do believe scriptural modesty does not necessarily entail a 'plain' look... it may look plain in comparison to the world's excesses, but dressing attractively (not in the sexual way of course) is not incompatible with bible modesty.

Coram Deo · #15 (**permalink**) 04-03-2007, 12:58 AM

That was exactly what he was fighting according to his writings... English man and woman wearing different fashions from different countries which he abhorred... one year it was the Spanish style, another year the French, another year Italian, etc...

But I think maybe the verse in question might be more in reference to Changing Fashions so much, being too concerned with one's clothing that changes so much in the world... Why should we as Christians need to keep adapting to the culture and change our clothing every time it changes to keep in fashion and spend so much money on the latest fads of clothing.

Michael

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

It's nothing against you Michael but this English guy's application of the passage is absurd. It has nothing to do with culture or anticulture wars. One doesn't have to embrace modernity and mini-skirts to disagree with this fellow. What he's saying is that if your wife wears a modest dress that reflects a traditional Mexican style that she's sinning against God.

This is one of those applications that is quite easy for a homogenous culture that this writer lived in (and likely preferred). Everybody just wear what Englishmen have always worn. No need to worry about Spaniards or French here in England after all when people don't get around much or move much.

Talk about the logistics of just encouraging people to carry this out in a multi-cultural environment. All the black people wearing one thing, a husband wearing Italian clothes while his wife wears Spanish, etc...

Coram Deo · #16 (**permalink**) 04-03-2007, 01:05 AM

Your ok, I knew you believed in relevantly of both testaments today but I just wanted to be careful because even among the Reformed we have a tendancy to start to throw things in "That was in that culture content" or "Not for us today" stuff... i.e. Headcoverings, or even some modesty issues that come from the Old testament...

My thoughts are straying from the quote, but I am just trying to get a complete feel for that passage of scripture... Personally I think Perkins goes alittle to far but still wonder about the "Fashions" issue in regard to that passage.....

Michael

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

Hi,

I hope nothing I said sounded like I don't consider all scripture in both Testaments to be relevant today. I do believe that OT scriptures do need to be read in light of the NT, and while some of them can be applied almost directly, some will only teach general principles instead of strict direct application.

You concern with this verse seems to have strayed from the quote you gave in the original post. As I said earlier, I don't think that is a good interpretation, although it is not the one you seem to be interested in. If you are pushing for application along the lines of christians should not wear strange apparel in the sense of the world's clothing, I think I would agree, though as you have observed, identifying exactly what is the world's clothing is likely to be a whole can of worms.

Regarding silk and purple, I think it is used in scripture as a representation of fine clothing and luxury, I know some commentators have seen its use in certain passages to be representative of spiritual blessings, though I see no reason to take anything other than the literal interpretation of its use in Pr 31. I do believe scriptural modesty does not necessarily entail a 'plain' look... it may look plain in comparison to the world's excesses, but dressing attractively (not in the sexual way of course) is not incompatible with bible modesty.

Semper Fidelis · #17 (**permalink**) 04-03-2007, 01:54 AM

Here's a picture of Michael "Thundarr" Daniels in "ancient" garb. Appropriate for Church? I think I prefer a coat and tie my friend.

turmeric · #18 (**permalink**) 04-03-2007, 08:02 AM

I think all of you guys oughta wear those Calvin hats if you want to be truly pious. Plus they're just WAY cool!!

Coram Deo · #19 (**permalink**) 04-03-2007, 09:16 AM

Rich,

You have way too much Fun with that Picture at my expense.... LOL

Stop teasing my ancestors "The Germans"......

Michael

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Here's a picture of Michael "Thundarr" Daniels in "ancient" garb. Appropriate for Church? I think I prefer a coat and tie my friend.

Rev. Todd Ruddell · #20 (**permalink**) 04-03-2007, 08:32 PM

It is also true that the Israelites were commanded to wear certain articles of clothing to distinguish them from the rest of the people upon the face of the earth, for they belonged to the Lord. They were to have a certain kind of fringe on their cloaks, blue ribbands at the borders of their garments, etc. I think the lament of the prophet, and the pronouncement of judgment from the Lord, is that instead of maintaing their unique status as the peculiar or special people of God, they desired to be "just like the nations around them". It was their singular privilege to be distinguished by God Himself as His own people, but they cast off that privilege to dress like the ungodly nations.