Coats - Glenn Conjurske
Coats
by Glenn Conjurske
“Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.”
Observe, first, who it was who made these coats. These were nothing which Adam and Eve devised for themselves, as their aprons had been. It was “the Lord God” who made them. If Adam and Eve had made the coats for themselves, we had need pay no regard to them, any more than we need regard their aprons. But it was God who made them, and the acts of God, in establishing man’s estate upon the earth, come to us with the force of commandments. What God did was not merely for the present moment, nor merely for Adam and Eve, but was to set a precedent for all men for all time. This I take to be an axiom, which needs no proof.
Further, the evident purpose of these coats was to cover their nakedness. This is transparent upon the face of the scriptural account. God gave them no commandment to cover their nakedness, but his act in covering them had the force of law. Though he never commanded Adam and Eve to cover their nakedness, yet if they had cast away their coats the day after God had clothed them, this would certainly have been the equivalent of casting away the authority of God. So also, if they had done it a week or a year after God had clothed them. And so also if men lay aside their clothing today. God’s act has the force of law, and he has never rescinded it.
Observe, next, what it was which God made for them. He made them coats. It has been often observed—-and very rightly—-that God was not satisfied with their fig leaves, but made them coats of skins. But it seems to be generally overlooked—-though it is equally true—-that God was not satisfied with their aprons, but made them coats. If the only thing we are to learn from this account is that their fig leaves were not good enough, but that they must have garments of skins, procured only by the death of the animals, then God might as well have made them aprons of skins. But he made them no aprons—-nor shirts, nor shorts, nor skirts, nor tank tops, nor swimming suits, nor vests, nor jackets—-but coats. He made them, that is, a garment which actually covered their nakedness. He made no hats, nor veils, nor socks, nor gloves, but left them to do as they pleased about heads and faces and hands and feet, for the nakedness of those parts he evidently did not regard—-but as for the rest of their nakedness, he made them a garment which covered it.
But what was it which the Lord actually made? What were these “coats”? The Hebrew lexicons give us but little help here, being more occupied with learned conjectures than with common sense. Most of them which I have consulted tell me that the tn#T)K% is a garment worn next to the skin. So then, what the Lord actually made them was leather underwear! Well, no doubt Adam and Eve wore these coats next to their skin, for I suppose they were the only garments they had, but then it is equally plain that these were their outer garments, in which they appeared clothed from day to day. Moreover, Scripture uses the term everywhere else of outer garments, and there is not a single place where there is any likelihood that it refers to an undergarment.
The word is used most commonly of the priests’ garments, but also of Joseph’s “coat of many colours.” And in II Sam. 15:32, “Hushai the Archite came to meet him with his coat rent, and earth upon his head.” Men did not rend their underwear, but their outer garments.
The same word is used again in II Sam. 13:18, where it says of Tamar, “And she had a garment of divers colours upon her: for with such robes were the king’s daughters that were virgins apparelled.” This is plainly her outer garment, and it is here equated with a robe, for it was not a jacket, but a long coat—-a coat, that is, which covered and clothed its wearer. The purpose for which God made these coats for Adam and Eve, be it remembered, was to cover their nakedness, and the coats which he made were certainly such that they fulfilled their purpose.
And again I insist, this act of God has the force of a commandment to us. It is wrong to go unclothed, and it is equally wrong to go partially clothed. God made them coats, not aprons, and we have every bit as much right to go unclothed as we have to go half clothed. I very much like the following account, which appeared in a secular book nearly a century ago. Jennie Manley was a country girl who went to Detroit to visit her aunt and uncle, who tried to introduce her into “fashionable society.” The author had met her, and knew her aunt, and says, “Mrs. Standfaord told me that while the ladies were together that evening one remarked to Jennie `why do you not wear low cut dresses Miss Manley, you have such a lovely form?’
“Jennie looked her square in the face and says, `Why do you wear any dress at all?’ This society lady says in reply, `Oh, that would be indecent.’ Jennie Manley remarked to this butterfly of fashion, `that is exactly why I do not wear low cut dresses.”’
But we live in a different generation—-a generation distinguished from former generations by its more thorough disregard for the bands and cords of the Lord—-and it would be an idle dream to imagine that the church has not been influenced by that disregard. Certain “Bible camps”—-with more of “camp” than “Bible,”—-require the women to wear modest swimming suits. They require them, that is, to go no more than about half unclothed. But I very much doubt that a modest swimming suit has ever existed—-at least not since the advent of the twentieth century. The same book from which I have just quoted contains a drawing of a beach scene, where the women are clad in their swimming suits. This book, recall, was published in 1902. The swimming suits of the ladies contain full skirts down to the knee, and are in fact little different from the dresses which some Christian women wear today, especially those of the younger generation. Yet the author, whom I have no reason to think was godly, captions the picture, “`MODESTY, WHERE ART THOU?’ A sight where modesty is not seen, and where virtue nears the abyss of shame.” Yet Christian women today will wear swimming suits which contain less than half the material in those—-and much too tight also—-and yet call them modest.
But they must know very well that they are not modest. There is a “Bible camp” ten miles from where I sit, where the women are required to wear modest swimming suits, and wear robes over them to go to and from the beach—-and so disrobe before the onlookers on the beach. But why the robes, if the swimming suits are modest? For all the delinquency of the modern church, the scripture remains, “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats…, and clothed them,” and it is hard to tell how the presence of a lake gives anyone license to ignore this. An independent Baptist preacher spoke well enough when he said, “Yes, I believe in mixed bathing. Put on your overcoats, and dive in.” But if you cannot go near a lake without going half naked, you had better leave the lake to the fishes. The act of God in clothing mankind teaches us to be covered. Within my memory the same “Bible camp” required the men to wear shirts to swim—-but I suppose they had to abandon that, when they realized that the men were dressed more modestly than the women.
Yet the text says, “Unto ADAM also and to his wife the Lord God made coats.” He did not make a coat for Eve, and a pair of pants for Adam—-nor a coat for Eve, and a shirt and shorts for Adam. He made coats for both of them. He covered the nakedness of both of them. The man has no more right to go half clothed than the woman. God clothed them both with the same kind of garment, covered them equally. I would grant—-yea, contend—-that it is much more harmful for a woman to go half clad than it is for a man. A man may go half clothed and do little damage by it, whereas the moment a woman exposes herself but a little, she becomes a fiery dart to work havoc in the hearts of men. But we are not to be governed merely by consequences, but by principle. The fact is, God clothed Adam as much as he did Eve. He thereby taught us that it is wrong to go naked—-wrong for the woman, and wrong for the man. And mark, he did this at a time when there was no damage to be done by the nakedness of either Eve or Adam. They two walked alone upon all the wide earth, and they two were man and wife. Are we to suppose the beasts were to be stumbled by their nakedness? The act of God did not regard consequences, but principle. If any contend their nakedness might have stumbled the angels, I suppose there are as many angels today as there were then, and at any rate he clothed both of them alike. But we need not trouble ourselves about the reasons of the Almighty. The fact is, he clothed them both with coats—-equally covered them both—-and this he surely did to establish the standard for the dress of the human race. No man has a right to apply this standard to women, and exempt himself, for God made no distinction at all between them.
But the apostle Peter went fishing “naked” (John 21:7)—-which surely no woman would have done. But understand, Peter was not stark naked, but had only laid aside his outer garment. So Liddell and Scott: “in common language v meant lightly clad, i.e. in the tunic or under-garment only.” Abbott-Smith: “scantily or poorly clad.” Thayer: “clad in the undergarment only.” And so all lexicons. Peter was not stark naked, but only without his outer garment. He was doubtless wearing more than many Christian men—-and women—-often wear today, yet it is plain that he was ashamed to meet the Lord in that condition—-for it is not for nothing that Scripture relates so small a matter as his putting on his coat. As soon as he heard “It is the Lord,” he immediately put on his coat, and dove into the sea to swim, to go to the Lord. If he must remove his coat to work, how much more to swim, yet he was ashamed to meet the Lord thus clad.
Glenn Conjurske