Systematic Theology - Church

Fringes or Tassels

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Systematic Theology

Lesson: Government

Genre: Speech

Track: 18

Dictation Name: 18 Fringes or Tassels

Year: 1960’s – 1970’s

Let’s begin with prayer.

O Lord our God, we give thanks unto thee for the blessings of the year past. Indeed thy hand has been upon us for good all the days of our life, for thou art he who dost make all things work together to them that love thee, to them who are the called according to thy purpose. We thank thee that all the griefs, the sorrows, the troubles, and the sins in our past, thou hast taken and turned into blessings for us. Teach us, therefore, evermore to rejoice and to give thanks, knowing how great is thy government, how certain thy grace, and how unfailing thy mercies. In Jesus name. Amen.

Our scripture this morning is from Numbers 15:37-41, and our subject Fringes or Tassels. “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue: and it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the Lord, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring: that ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God. I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the Lord your God.”

Our subject this morning is, as far as scripture is concerned, a minor one. Certainly the subject of fringes or tassels is minor as compared to the doctrine of the atonement, and many another doctrine. On the other hand, we have to say that nothing that God says is a minor subject. When God speaks, his word is law. Thus, it is important to understand even the minor things of scripture.

What we have here is a law. It has no equivalent in the New Testament. It was very important in Old Testament times and to one and all in New Testament times. Our Lord criticized the Pharisees in Matthew 23:5 because they made large their tassels, increasing their size greatly in a show-off maneuver. On the other hand, we know our Lord wore tassels, or fringes, and people were healed even by touching the tassels, according to Matthew 9:20, and Matthew 14:36.

Before we go into the meaning of these tassels, or fringes, let us see what the law specifies concerning them. Each tassel, we are told, had to include a thread of blue. Now, blue is the color of the sky and of royalty, as in Esther 8:15, and divinity. God’s throne in the ark was wrapped in blue. The tabernacle used blue cloth extensively. There was blue in the clothing of the high priest, and much more could be said of the color blue. The blue in the tassel was to remind the wearer of his membership in a holy nation, to remind him that he was, as Exodus 19:6 tells us, a member of a royal priesthood. It reminded him thus of his priestly calling, and his royal nature in Christ. The Old Testament believer thus, had to wear this reminder of who he was, and of his call to holiness, and to obedience to God’s law. Everywhere that he went, he was thus identifiable and always had something to remind him of his obligation.

Now, very simply, the meaning of this law can be summarized thus: no man can be a secret believer. Faith must be manifest in all our being. The Lord criticized the Pharisees for trying to make up for their lack of holiness by having bigger tassels. They tried to replace faithfulness by advertising, but he did not say the wearing of the tassels was wrong. The tassels had a kind of double function. They called attention to the fact of the privileged status and duties of the believer and, on the other hand, they made him identifiable to others. Thus, the Hebrew could be spotted, and he could also be hated, for his mark of glory. Wherever he went, he was identifiable by his clothing.

Now, this is an important fact, because in Antiquity in many areas, and to this day in some parts of the world, in the Middle East, for example, people speak two, three, sometimes four languages fluently, like a native, without an accent. They grew up in an area where all those languages are used. All of them come readily and naturally to them. They are not identifiable by their speech or accent. This was the way it was in Old Testament times and New Testament times, and so the believer had to identify himself by his tassels. Now Paul makes an oblique and indirect reference to this fact. We should note, by the way, that Paul dressed in Jewish garb with tassels as did all Jews in the church in the New Testament era. In writing to the Romans, or to the church at Rome, which was a mixed group meeting in various homes, he had in mind the fact that the churches in Rome, or the church in Rome had two mixed groups. One was made up of Jews who were very much hated in Rome, so they were despised for their nationality. Then, there were, in Rome, we are told, a somewhat higher proportion of slaves than elsewhere, although there were also some very distinguished people, including some in Nero’s cabinet, but slaves were despised. Now, these two groups and the others in the church at Rome, had added a third indignity or reproach. They had become Christians. So everyone was held in contempt for their faith, and some of them had a double contempt facing them, for being a Jew or for being a slave. Paul speaks to this fact, that their condition is regarded as a shameful one, and he says in Romans 1:16, “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth. To the Jew first and also to the Greek.” Paul speaks more than once, of the offense of the cross, which was felt by all believers, that they were rather to glory in the cross.

Now, Paul in all of this, has in the back of his mind, the tassels, the fringes. When a Jew went anywhere, he was identifiable. He would be respected or he would be hated on sight, because of those tassels. It could be, therefore, something for a very sensitive Jew to feel ashamed about, and we do know from rabbinic literature that some of them who were out in the Gentile world would not wear their garb, being ashamed, and Paul says, “I am not ashamed of the cross of Christ, nor of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation.” So, very early the Christians use the cross to supplant the tassel, to say to the world, “I identify myself. You may despise this, the sign of the cross, but to me, it is the power of God unto salvation and I glory in it.”

Now, let’s look back at the tassels of the Old Testament again, and of the New Testament era. Failure by a Jew to wear the tassels meant one of three things. First, he had forsaken the covenant. He was no longer a Jew. Second, it could mean that he was ashamed, and third, it sometimes meant that he was trying to save his life.

Now, the rabbis of old said that the tassels did two things. First, they required holiness because they marked the man, identified him so that a certain kind of conduct was expected of him. Second, they marked the wearer as God’s property, but the rabbis then went on to say a great many things more about the wearing of the tassels, that they reminded the wearer of the divine presence. “Thou God seest me.” They reminded him also of the love and grace of God and also of God’s law, which he was duty-bound to keep, and the tassels were a reminder to him of his obligation. In fact, Rabbi Nathan, one of the old rabbis of those days, told the story of a man who went to a particularly famous prostitute, and before he could undress, his tassels caught his eye, and that stopped him which amazed the prostitute; and it ended up with her becoming a proselyte. The tassels thus, served a very important function.

I’d like to read to you a statement by Rabbi Simeon Ben Yochai who said, concerning Proverbs 3:9, “Honor God with thy substance. That is, by dedicating to him gleanings, forgotten sheaves, corners of the field, tithes, dough by making a booth, and a Loolab, the palm branches, by Shofar, that is, the ram’s horn blown on the Jewish New York, and phylacteries and fringes, by feeding the poor and giving drink to the thirsty.” That’s an interesting fact. The very fact that a man had the tassels put him under an obligation and created an expectation in others. Remember the parable of the Good Samaritan? The very fact that these men, priest and Levite, who went by that man who had been robbed and left badly hurt by the side of the road, was an indictment of them because they wore the tassels, the fringes on their clothing. This put them in obligation to obey God’s law, to be merciful, to help others, so that you can see something of the meaning of the tassels. They identified a man as having an obligation under God. The tassels were thus, a badge of faith. They placed a man under obligation to manifest his faith, and this is no small matter. It reminded a man that he lived in God’s world by God’s law. Rabbi Phinehas said, concerning this, “Whatsoever you do, the commandments accompany you. If you build a house, there is Deuteronomy 22:8, the law of the battlements. If you make a door, there is Deuteronomy 6:9, concerning the text that must be on the door. If you buy new clothes, there is Deuteronomy 22:11, concerning linsey-woolsey. If you have your hair cut, there is Leviticus 19:27, concerning the corners of the beard. If you plough your field, there is Deuteronomy 22:9, concerning ass and ox together. If you sow it, there is Deuteronomy 22:9, concerning mixed crops. If you gather the harvest, there is Deuteronomy 24:19, concerning the forgotten sheep. God said even when you are not occupied with anything but just taking a walk, the commands accompany you, for there is Deuteronomy 22:6, concerning a bird’s nest.” Thus, the law concerning the tassels was a requirement that a Christian show his colors.

Now, all that I have said thus far has to do with a way of life, but we are dealing with a doctrine of the church. Why then are tassels important to this doctrine? Very early, the Christian church saw the significance of this and it wrestled with this as a church. Now, the Christians were not about to adopt the tassels because that would have marked them, after the first generation passed away, as Jews, and they belonged to the new covenant people, the new Israel of God. How were they to identify themselves?

A number of things were done throughout the history of the church. For Christians to identify themselves at all times, the wearing of a cross was one that was very early adopted. It is significant that some time shortly after 438 A.D., a very interesting law was passed by Theodosius II. What had happened was that the Empire had become Christians. The pagan temples were being taken over by the state and given to the Christian church to make restitution for the churches that had been regularly destroyed, for the Christians’ properties that had been confiscated, church treasuries that had been seized, and for the persecutions and loss of lives. It was simply a small act of restitution, but there was a problem. These pagan temples had, up to the moment of their seizure, which very often happened very quietly, been working pagan temples. There were pastors who were of a compromising spirit, who were ready to say, “We will say nothing. Let the crowds come. Let the pagans come. Little by little we will Christianize them,” and it was very easy for the pagans to keep going to such a church, because the pastor was not pushing his faith too aggressively, and they could go there with a pagan heart to perform a pagan duty, and at this point, Theodosius II said, “Every pagan temple that is taken over will either have a cross above it, or it will be destroyed. Show your colors. No compromise. Either carry a cross or be destroyed.” This was how churches began, one by one, all of them, to have a cross. It was either that or be destroyed in the origin of this custom, but its meaning was that they were to show their colors, to identify themselves.

Now, many other rules were attempted over the centuries to require Christians to show their colors, to find some kind of substitute for the wearing of tassels. Again and again, the church worked to pass sumptuary laws. Now, the sumptuary laws are a long and tangled history, and there is no question that very often they became an expression of a caste or class status, but what the sumptuary laws required of everyone that they limit the amount of money they could spend on clothing, that they dress well, but simply. This kind of thing has been perpetuated into the modern age. The Quakers, of course, were among the last to hold to it, but they have given it up, but the Mennonites and the Amish, in most cases, still retain them. It is interesting that it was not only required by the church of Christians, but it became a mark of classes within Christendom. Judges to wear robes, academicians to wear gowns, so that people know who and what you are and that you behave in terms of your calling, so the identifying garb idea was tried repeatedly over the centuries.

Now, much more could be said about the history of the church and its attempt to substitute something for the wearing of tassels. When I wrote Institutes of Biblical Law, I did not see the meaning of the tassels, and did not do more than pass over it. Our Lord says in Matthew 7:20, “By their fruits shall ye know them,” but the fruits include practical, faithful service, also not being ashamed of the Gospel, and of course, this is what the law of the tassels is all about. It tells us that our faith must be visible in all our lives, that we dare not use it.

Now, let’s bring the wearing of the tassels up to date, and let me say this, all that I am saying about tassels is far from being the last word. It’s barely a preliminary word in the subject. One of the great problems of our time has to do with the tassel question. How is a Christian college, or seminary, or graduate school identified? Unhappily, it’s by wearing the tassels of the enemy today, by going to a humanistic accreditation committee for accreditation, and then being able to say in your announcements that you are accredited by such-and-such an agency, by the Western Regional Accreditation Committee, or the American Bar Association, or what have you. All of this is a wearing of the wrong tassels, is it not? The identification of the enemy. The wearing of the tassels thus, does have far reaching implications. Just as there were faithless pastors in the early days who sought to get by and affect a syncretism with paganism as a means of prospering, by eliminating a cross, by being simply vaguely religious and sneakily Christian at best. So today, all around us, we have schools, we have agencies, we have academic institutions on the advanced level, that are trying to leave off the cross and say, “We will prosper better with the world if we do.” I submit that every such attempt is a violation of the law of fringes or tassels.

Thus, the question is an important one. God, in his law, required that every covenant man be identifiable. He still requires it, not with tassels, but by the totality of our lives, by a number of very practical ways. This is why I believe the law of the tassels is very important to the life of the church, and the life of the believer in our day. Let us pray.

O Lord, our God, who of thy grace and mercy has given us thy word, thy law. Give us grace to take thine every word seriously, to know that thy word is truth, and to conform the totality of our lives unto thee. We pray, our Father, that thy church and all its agencies, schools, and institutions may, in our day, be not ashamed of the cross of Christ, of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but might indeed move under the sign of the cross, separating itself unto thee and confessing its faith. Grant us this, we beseech thee. In Jesus name. Amen.

Are there any questions now concerning our lesson? Yes?

[Audience] Well, Rush, I’ve never noticed a Jew wearing tassels, but I’ve seen a lot of them wearing a small hat. What is the significance of that. Is there any relationship to the tassels?

[Rushdoony] Yes, you would have to see an orthodox Jew, who is truly orthodox in the old fashioned sense to see the tassels anymore, and in some cases, it’s worn only for special occasions, worship. The small skullcap is worn by Jews in synagogue worship, and of course, Paul tells us that it is shameful for a man to worship God with his head covered, but this was done as a sign of mourning is my recollection, by the Jews after the Fall of Jerusalem, and it has remained. By the way, the organ was originally a temple instrument, and its use was abandoned after the destruction of Jerusalem. The churches continued it. So, the organ is an Old Testament instrument. Yes?

[Audience] Rush, I wanted to get a clearer picture of where are the tassels. Are they at the end of a cord that you tie, is that what Jesus wore, too?

[Rushdoony] No, they were at the bottom of the tunic, the garment.

[Audience] Would they be like white with a blue strand in them?

[Rushdoony] I don’t know what the other color was, probably white, but there would be a blue, a ribband, or large thread, in the tassel, always. Yes. Yes?

[Audience] Do you think it’s proper for the ministers, priests, what have you, to wear some kind of identifying clothing, such as a robe, the clerical collar, and so forth?

[Rushdoony] The question is, is it right for the minister, priest, or pastor to wear an identifying garb. Yes, I see nothing wrong with it. I think it’s an excellent thing because it identifies them always in terms of their calling and puts them under a duty to conform themselves to that calling. It is sad that, in recent years, there has been quite a rebellion against that to the point that even nuns, for a time, were going around with no identifying garb, as though there was something wrong with their calling. Now, originally, the entire idea of an identifying garb was that it be a matter of honor, that while it might incur the reproach of the world, the notion was that it was a privilege. So, we have, at that point, gone astray. We have become so humanistic that now we follow the styles of the world, very often set by homosexual clothing designers, and anything which departs from that we look down on. Now, there was nothing against dressing well, in the law. In fact, there are hints that the Old Testament believers were better dressed than most people of their day. So, this is not comparable to what sometimes sumptuary laws required, overly plain dress. What it did require was that the Christian be identifiable, and this is the kind of thing that is now regarded as anathema. We have gone so far that now, if you identify yourself as a Christian businessman, that is against the law in many areas. You cannot identify yourself. Yes?

[Audience] The significance of things such as you just spoken on is meaningful. I wanted to ask, in terms of Paul frequently, it seems to be that some of his instruction, which is presumably to be taken literally, is a bias and I find this quite frequently, that I am, in my own mind, inclined to want to understand the significance, or the symbolism, or the meaning behind what is suggested, or in Paul’s case, not suggested, edicted, and at the same time, question to what, you know, degree are we allowed to say that that’s Paul’s bias? By way of example, you might suggest that women must have their heads covered when they are in church, and that it is a sin for a man to have his head covered. For these reasons, or those reasons, I feel that so many times it’s really something that is either related through his strong bias or opinion, and/or to the trends and customs of the times.

[Rushdoony] Yes. The question is one that many people have raised in our time, and they’ve insisted that there is a great deal in the Bible, and in Paul, that is cultural conditional, and that is an important question. Is that true? You cited the one case of a woman’s head being covered, and a man’s should be uncovered, although a slave could cover his head if he were a male, because it meant that he was refusing the role of a man. Now, the question of a woman having her head covered, in public, was one that was very seriously considered at least here in the West, into my childhood and youth. A woman always went out with her head covered, and especially earlier in Frontier America, its meaning was very clear. The covering of the head did not mean an indignity for a woman. It meant she was under protection and authority, that no man could lay a hand on her, and this is why, in Antiquity in one country after another, a prostitute was forbidden ever to cover her head, because that gave her an authority and a prestige that she was not entitled to. So, in more than one country over the centuries, for a prostitute to cover her head was to be very seriously sometimes, punishable by law.

Now, in the West, for example, where you had a very high masculine population and a rough one, and a very low female population, the woman always appeared in public with a covering over her head. Even if she went out into the garden, she would have one. This meant, very simply, that any time she had a problem, any decent man in the area was duty-bound to come to her defense. This is why Paul speaks of it as power on one’s head, authority, that she commanded it by virtue of her status as a godly woman. So, it had a very important significance, you see, and it’s a pity we’ve lost it, because at the same time, what we have lost is something that once was taught every boy. It was his duty to be a defender and a protector of good women, that this was an absolutely mandatory part of being a man. So that you do not find, when you go back say, to the literature of the early part of the last century, the teasing and tormenting of girls by boys, a rarity. They were taught to show respect.

Now, at the same time, this does not mean that either Paul or anyone else felt that women were of any lesser intelligence or anything of the sort, because Proverbs 31 gives us an excellent picture of the biblical portrayal of the godly woman. Her husband sits in the gates. That means he was either a judge or a member of the city council, because all hearings had to be public, in the open. She took over the business. She ran it. She handled the farms, they were people of substance. She ordered merchandise from afar and took care of the wholesaling and retailing. She’s portrayed as a very competent woman. She could be more competent than the man, very often.

We know that one wealthy couple that Paul was very fond of were Priscilla and Aquila, and at least two churches met in their homes, because they had homes, I think, in two or three cities. They were quite wealthy people, and from the references, it’s obvious that, of the two, it was Pricilla who was the leader, so to speak. This did not mean she was not in subordination, as far as authority was concerned, to her husband, but as one of the old Calvinistic writers of the early years of the 19th century, here in this country, said that subjection does not imply inferiority. I’ve often worked under men whom I had to obey, that I certainly didn’t feel inferior to. I felt they were inferior. That didn’t make any difference to me, they were in charge, so I worked under them.

So, when Paul is dealing with these things, what he is, in effect, saying, is that the woman does command something, and the covered head is the emblem to the world that she is entitled to command it. It’s a very important thing that we’ve lost, and I think the relationship of the sexes has suffered greatly. Does that help? Yes, was there another question?

[Audience] I was just going to comment that, as I understand it, in Mexico, because of the anti-clerical, anti-church attitude of that government, it’s illegal for a priest to wear a collar outside of the church. If he goes down the street, he has to take it off, I assume the same for nuns, I don’t know, but that’s the anti-Christian bias of Mexico.

[Rushdoony] Yes, and I’m glad you brought that up, because in Mexico, the church has been much more readily subverted. Well, our time is almost up. Let us conclude with prayer.

We thank thee, our Father, that thy word is truth, and thou hast called us to be the people of thy truth, power, grace, and salvation. Make us faithful, grant that our faith be, at all times, manifest in our lives and beings. In Jesus name. Amen.

End of tape