We hear a great deal about the sin of David, but seldom does anyone mention the sin of Bath-sheba. And it is true enough that David's sin was very great, and Bath-sheba's very small. David's sin was deliberate and presumptuous; Bath-sheba's only a sin of carelessness. David committed deliberate adultery and murder; Bath-sheba only carelessly and undesignedly exposed herself before David's eyes. We have no doubt that David's sin was great, and Bath-sheba's small.
Yet it remains a fact that Bath-sheba's little sin was the cause of David's great sin. Her little sin of ignorance, her little thoughtless and careless exposure of herself, was the spark that kindled a great devouring flame. "Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth!" (James 3:5) On the one side, it was only a little carelessness —only a little thoughtless, unintentional exposure of herself before the eyes of David. But on the other side, adultery and guilt of conscience; murder and the loss of a husband, besides the death in battle of other innocent men; great occasion for the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme; the shame of an illegitimate pregnancy, and the death of the child; the uprising and death of Absolom; and the defiling of David's wives in the sight of all Israel; and the sword never departing from David's house. (IISam. 12:11-18) Again I say, "Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth!" None of this great evil would ever have taken place if Bath-sheba had only been careful not to display her body in the sight of a man. Observe: she neither designed nor foresaw any of this evil, yet she was the occasion of it all. She did not display herself purposefully or wantonly: she only did it ignorantly and thoughtlessly. Yet the results of her little sin of ignorance were just the same as if it had been purposeful wantonness.
Now the reason for my writing all of the above is this: there are many Christian women today who are guilty of the same carelessness as Bath-sheba was. Godly women, who would recoil with horror from the very thought of wantonly displaying their bodies, do nevertheless carelessly and thoughtlessly display themselves habitually by the manner in which they dress. I do not write to accuse them of intentional wantonness. I believe they are as innocent of that as Bath-sheba was. But neither can I altogether excuse them from blame in the matter. The whole world is well aware that certain kinds of feminine dress are provocative and tempting to the eyes and heart of a man —and are Christian women alone altogether naive and ignorant? This
can hardly be; and yet I do not write to blame them, but to instruct them —provoke them to love and good works, to make them thoughtful where they have been thoughtless before, to make them careful for the spiritual welfare of the weakest of their brethren, where they were careless about it before, to make them wise where before they were simple.
The first thing which must be understood is that nakedness before the eyes of others is wrong. It is wrong in a man, and it is wrong in a woman. When Adam and Eve sinned, God made "coats of skins, and clothed them." (Gen.3:21) The sole reason for His clothing them was to cover their nakedness, as the Genesis account makes plain. Observe, he clothed them with coats. They were already wearing aprons, which probably covered as much as, or more than, much of the clothing which is worn today, yet in spite of their aprons they were still naked in their own eyes, and in God's. And God did not clothe them with shorts, or swimming suits, or "tank tops", or "halter tops", or anything of the sort —nor with jackets either, but with coats. He did not clothe Eve with a coat, and Adam with a pair of shorts. He clothed them both with coats —whence we may assuredly gather that nakedness is just as wrong in a man as it is in a woman.
But if it is equally wrong for a man to expose his nakedness as it is for a woman, it is not equally dangerous, for men are much more susceptible to be tempted through the "eye-gate" in this particular, than are women. But when a woman exposes herself only a little, she becomes a fiery dart to tempt the heart of every man who sees her. Like it or not, this is the plain fact. And because this is a fact, you are not at liberty to dress any way you please.
"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body...as well as in your spirit."But if you dress in such a way as to expose your body, or parts of it, to the lustful gaze of every man who chooses to look at you, you certainly do not glorify God in your body. And if
I Cor. 6:19-20
you fear God and love your neighbor, you dare not dress so. You dare not thus use your body as an instrument of unrighteousness to allure the eyes, and tempt the hearts of men.
Many men are wicked, and will lust after you in spite of anything you can do to prevent it. They have "eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin". (I Peter 2:14) Should you therefore help them to sin? Should you put further temptation in their way? Will God excuse you if you do?
Other men, godly men, are not wicked, but only weak. David was not wicked. He was a man after God's own heart. But in the presence of an unclothed woman, he was weak —and it would be a rare man who was not. Though the brethren in Christ are not wicked, yet they may be weak. And the devil does all he can do to weaken them further. They are forced to live in a world where they are continually bombarded with sights which are designed by the enemy of their souls to weaken their morals and destroy their purity of heart. And must Christian women help the devil to do his work? Must they make themselves a temptation to their brethren even in the congregation of God? O that you could understand the fierce and bitter conflict in the souls of your brethren, when you provoke them by the careless display of your body. Oh, that you could hear their pleadings with God for help and deliverance from the power of those temptations. Oh that you could see their tears of shame and repentance when the temptation has overcome them, and they have sinned with eyes and heart and mind. Never again would you plead for your right to dress as you please.
The fact is, you have no such right. You have no right to destroy, by your careless dress, the brother for whom Christ died. You are bought with a price, and are not your own. You are duty-bound to glorify God in your body —to clothe that body, not as you will, but as God wills. And a little of real love for the souls of your brethren would remove for ever from your heart the desire to dress as you please. For, "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities, (that is, the weakness), of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me." (Rom.15:1-3) Christ was willing to deny Himself all of the glories of heaven, and bear the reproaches of ungodly men in order to save your souls, and will you plead for your right to please yourself in your dress? Can you not deny yourself a little of comfort to save another man's soul? Can younot bear a little reproach for being "old-fashioned" or "out of style", in order to help another in his battle against sin?
You may think that I am making too much of too little. You may suppose the case is not so serious as I have represented it to be. But consider: you are a woman, and cannot experience the passions of a man. You have your own passions, but they are not the same as a man's. They are, (generally speaking), not so strong as a man's. Neither are they so easily inflamed as a man's. Nor are they excited in the same manner as a man's. If you are ever to understand the masculine side of this question you must simply take a man's word for it. You cannot experience it yourself. And the plain fact is, a man's passions are easily provoked by the sight of a careless woman, as was plainly the case with David and Bath-sheba, when he beheld her washing herself. Most men, 'tis true, will be better able to resist your allurement than David did Bath-sheba's. They will not go so far as David did. But how do you know that they can resist the thought and desire of it? How do you know that they do not sin with their eyes andheart and imagination? There is great pleasure to a man in merely looking, even though he goes no farther. You know very well that the Bible says, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart", (Mat.5:28), and will you say that this is not a serious matter? It is serious, for it is sin, and sin is serious. Sin blights and deforms and ruins and destroys and damns. And if you would know just how serious a matter this is, you need only read the very next verse, which says, "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." Here is a most solemn statement in the Bible concerning the seriousness of sin, and it is spoken with reference to the very sin which you may so lightly and thoughtlessly occasion by your careless dress. This is not a light matter, and you dare not treat it lightly.
At this point you may say, "Amen, all true; but I do not need to hear it, for I dress modestly." Are you quite sure of it? If you follow the fashions and practices of this age, you assuredly do not dress modestly, for modesty is ignored by many of them, and purposefully thrown to the winds by many other. And it may be that you, being a woman, and not able to see yourself through a man's eye, are unable to perceive that which may really be tempting and provocative in your own dress. God would have you to be "wise as serpents, and harmless as doves". (Mat.10:16) But if you unthinkingly dress as the rest of the world does, you are assuredly neither wise nor harmless. Not wise, for however ignorant and innocent you may be, you are following a system of fashion which is deigned by wicked men to break down and destroy the morals of men. Not harmless, for however little you may intend in it, you thus make yourself a fiery dart in the hands of the wicked one to tempt every man who sees you. You willpardon my plain speaking, then, if I give you some specific instructions in order to make you wise. That being done, I have confidence that the godliness of your own heart will make you harmless.
As said before, the obvious design of God in making clothing for Adam and Eve was to cover their nakedness, and any clothing which fails to do so cannot be right. Bare backs, bare midriffs, bare legs and thighs, are wrong —wrong in the sight of that God Who clothed Adam and Eve with coats to cover their bare bodies. Shorts, halter tops, swimming suits, and anything and everything else which intentionally leaves you partially exposed, have no place in the dress of a woman professing godliness. Whatever the rest of the world may do, you are bound to do right. And what ever the rest of the church may do, you are bound to do right. And the things that I have just mentioned are so obvious and so flagrant a violation of the purposes of God in clothing you, that there ought not to be a moment's question as to what is right. But, (alas), the standards of the church are sunk so low in our day that there are actually Christians and preachers who will defend such things. They will actually defend what they call "mixed bathing" —that is, men and women freely mixing together in a state of almost nudity. Have they no shame? Have they no sense? I do not believe they will defend such things when they stand before the judgment seat of Christ. If they have no shame now, they will have some then. Meanwhile we need say no more about forms of dress which so obviously thwart the purposes of God. Let us turn our thoughts to some things which, while less flagrant, nevertheless violate the evident purpose of clothing.
There is more of this article that gets more specific on the different cuts and fashions on her website, see http://momof9splace.com/sinof.html scroll down to the first bold heading, "short dresses" to continue reading where this article leaves off.
No comments:
Post a Comment