The Stroke of The Clock

Explain the oriental custom of rending robes.

People were ready enough to use the outward signs of mourning when, as in the present instance, locusts appeared to devour their crops, or when any other judgment threatened them.

They failed in mourning as to the Lord, and in rendering spiritual homage to his chastising rod. Hence the language of the text.

Let us revolve in our minds,—

I. THE GENERAL DOCTRINE THAT TRUE RELIGION IS MORE INWARD THAN OUTWARD.

The expression “Rend your heart, and not your garments”, casts somewhat of a slur upon the merely outward.

1. This respects forms and ceremonies of men’s devising. These are numerous and vain. “Not your garments” may in their case be treated in the most emphatic manner. Will-worship is sin.

2. It bears also upon ordinances of God’s own ordaining if practiced without grace, and relied upon as of themselves effectual.

   • Among good things which may become unprofitable we may mention—
   • The regular frequenting of a place of worship.
   • The practice of family prayer in one’s own home.
   • The reading of Holy Scripture.
   • The holding of an orthodox creed.
   • The practice of private prayer.
   • The attendance upon sacraments.
   • All these good things should have their place in our lives; but they do not prove saint-ship: since a sinner may practice them all, after a sort. The absence of a true heart will make them all vain.

II. THE FURTHER DOCTRINE THAT MAN IS MORE INCLINED TO THE OUTWARD OBSERVANCE THAN TO INWARD MATTERS.

Hence he needs no exhortation to rend his garments, though that act might in certain cases be a fit and proper expression of deep repentance, and holy horror for sin.

Man is thus partial to externals—

1. Because he is not spiritual, but carnal by nature.

2. Because the inward is more difficult than the outward, and requires thought, diligence, care, humiliation, etc.

3. Because he loves his sin. He will rend his robes, for they are not himself; but to rend off his beloved sins is like tearing out his eyes.

4. Because he cares not to submit to God. Law and gospel are both distasteful to him; he loves nothing which necessitates the obedience of his heart to God.

   • Many throng the outer courts of religious observance who shun the holy place of repentance, faith, and consecration.

III. THE PARTICULAR DOCTRINE THAT HEART-RENDING IS BETTER THAN ANY EXTERNAL ACT OF PIETY.

1. Heart-rending should be understood. It is—

   • To have the heart broken, contrite, tender, sensitive.
   • To have the heart grieving over past evils.
   • To have the heart rent away from sin, as by holy violence.
   • To have the heart torn with holy horror and indignation in the presence of temptation. The sight of sin should rend the heart, especially when it is seen by the light of the cross.

2. Heart-rending is to be preferred to external observances, for—

   • These are not commanded for their own sakes.
   • They are good or evil as the heart may be.
   • Their observance may co-exist with sin, even with great sin.
   • Outward signs may even be Antichrists keeping us from Christ.
   • They can never supply the place of Jesus himself.

3. Heart-rending should be practiced. “Rend your hearts.”

   • This would need a great tug. Can a man rend himself?
   • This drives us to look to a higher power.
   • This is met only by Jesus. Looking to him whom we have pierced, our hearts are rent.
   • This, when fully done, leaves us at his feet, who alone “heals the broken in heart, and binds up their wounds.”

Ad Rem

An old Hebrew story tells how a poor creature came one day to the Temple, from a sick bed, on tottering limbs. He was ashamed to come, for he was very poor, and he had no sacrifice to offer; but as he drew near he heard the choir chanting, “You desire not sacrifice; else would I give it: you delight not in burnt-offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” Other worshipers came, pressed before him, and offered their sacrifices; but he had none. At length he prostrated himself before the priest, who said, “What will you, my son? Have you no offering?” And he replied, “No, my father, for last night a poor widow and her children came to me, and I had nothing to offer them but the two pigeons which were ready for the sacrifice.” “Bring, then,” said the priest, “an ephah of fine flour.” “Nay, but, my father,” said the old man, “this day my sickness and poverty have left only enough for my own starving children; I have not even an ephah of flour.” “Why, then, are you come to me?” said the priest. “Because I heard them singing, ‘The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit.’ Will not God accept my sacrifice if I say, ‘Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner’?” Then the priest lifted the old man from the ground, and he said, “Yes, you are blessed, my son; it is the offering which is better than thousands of rivers of oil.”—“The World of Proverb and Parable,” by E. Paxton Hood.

If this hypocrisy, this resting in outward performances, was so odious to God under the law, a religion full of shadows and ceremonies, certainly it will be much more odious under the gospel, a religion of much more simplicity, and exacting so much the more sincerity of heart, even because it disburdens the outward man of the performances of legal rights and observances. And therefore, if we now, under the gospel, shall think to delude God Almighty, as Michal did Saul, with an idol handsomely dressed instead of the true David, we shall one day find that we have not mocked God, but ourselves; and that our portion among hypocrites shall be greater than theirs.—William Chillingworth.

As garments to a body, so are ceremonies to religion. Garments on a living body preserve the natural warmth; put them on a dead body and they will never fetch life. Ceremonies help to increase devotion; but in a dead heart they cannot breed it. These garments of religion upon a holy man are like Christ’s garments on his own holy body; but joined with a profane heart, they are like Christ’s garments on his crucifying murderers.—Ralph Brownrig.

Rending the clothes was a common and very ancient mode of expressing grief, indignation, or concern; and as such is frequently mentioned in the Scriptures.… It is said that the upper garment only was rent for a brother, sister, son, daughter, or wife, but all the garments for a father or mother. Maimonides says that the rents were not stitched up again until after thirty days, and were never sewed up well. There is no law which enjoins the Jews to rend their clothes; yet in general they so far think it requisite to comply with this old custom as to make a slight rent for the sake of form.—Pictorial Bible.