Jump to content
IGNORED

Defining Modesty


FactSeeker

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  13
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   16
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/16/2017
  • Status:  Offline

What is our dress standard? I was prompted to question this for a couple of reasons, and a major reason is I read that until 1937, it was illegal for men to be topless. Now, society in general and I think most of the church is okay with it.

First, I won’t accept 1Ti 2:9 because of the context, and the greek. Regarding the context: “modesty” is defined in the same verse: not with gold, pearls, etc. It’s not about the amount of skin showing, but about excessiveness. The argument for clothing could go both ways, if we use this verse. First, dressing with too much on (relative to who/what’s around) could be immodest because it draws attention to us (i.e. if you don’t show enough skin at the beach.) However, it could also be argued that showing too much (shorts that are very short at walmart) is immodest. In any regard, that’s not the primary context of this verse. Second, the greek word that people argue from is not translated as modest, but as apparel (of course, I’m not going to argue from what the translators did.) Apparel is the word καταστολη, and the standard argument is that the prefix κατα on στολη means long/cast down/flowing. Perhaps it does in general, I don’t know greek that well. But first, what would that mean? The στολη was already long, so this serves no purpose to the argument that our clothing must be long (and well-covering.) More importantly, though: καταστολη didn’t have the meaning they make it to. Καταστολη was a specific article of clothing, worn over the στολη, and it only came down about to the waist (see Clark’s commentary, I believe he’s the one that addressed this.)

Second, causing others to stumble … This is a reasonable argument, but I don’t think it applies. Of course, we’re not to sin and teach others to do the same. We’re also not to tempt another to sin against his conscience by his seeing us do the very thing he thinks is wrong. However, I don’t think this extends to dress standard. For comparison: if I buy a Gallardo Lamborghini and then invite my brother to ride with me, have I tempted him to stumble and am I guilty for doing so? Because, of course – he’s likely to be jealous. Now, if my goal is to incite that – my heart is evil. But, if I’m merely sharing this beautiful creation with him, as I would if I invited him to visit the grand canyon with me during a sunset, I haven’t sinned even though I know he’ll be tempted to covet.

Third, Genesis 3 … This is the strongest argument, in my opinion. Adam and Eve ate, and then they knew they were naked and they made themselves loin cloths. So, their initial (now ontological, you might say) reaction was to cover their genitals. However, after making these loin cloths, they still considered themselves naked (the reason they hid from God.) In addition, God clothed them with both tops and bottoms. I don’t see the tops being required as clear-enough, because there are other possibilities still. They covered themselves with fig leaves, and it’s possible (even probable, I imagine) they weren’t very well covered. I’ve seen videos of primitive people who cover their genitals with similar things, and if they bend forward -it’s not a pretty sight (this correlates well with the priests who had to wear relatively long bottoms so the people underneath them wouldn’t look up and see their genitals.) They may have seen themselves as still being in a relative state of nudity; as Saul was naked because he wasn’t in his kingly attire, or Isaiah because he was in his underwear (supposedly.) Also, God’s making tops for them may have related to the curse: now there would be thorns to cut them, etc. In any case, these counter arguments relate ONLY TO WHETHER A TOP IS REQUIRED. I think this verse is very clear that the genitals must be covered (and considering the priests wore long bottoms *in order to* hide the genitals shows that this region is either solely sinful to expose, or especially sinful to expose, in my opinion. I’m not sure which of those two, though) and I think that Rev 3:18 (I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.) implies that full nudity is not merely shameful, but also sinful. However, I acknowledge that it’s an implication and I might be stretching. In closing on this point, I’m not stating that Gen 3 is insufficient to prove tops must be required, but I’m throwing out ideas I’d like to have challenged. Right now, I’m not bold on this section one way or the other – and I’d like to be. Help me to understand it rightly.

Note: I’ve seen no justification for men to be allowed topless and not women. I’m fine with whatever the scriptures teach, I’m fine with banning both men and women from being topless, but none of my studying has shown discrepancy to be allowed here. Either both men and women need to cover their chests, or neither do. Some people quote verses about breasts, but they’ve always been non-sequiturs. Or, they’re taken entirely out of context: a woman’s breasts are fondled and they use that to prove they shouldn’t be displayed.

Second note: Please do not take our culture into account. That is: don’t tell me that men should be allowed to go topless in our culture but not in a more modest one because it offends the sensibilities of that culture. That may be true, and it may be a correct answer: but it’s not what I’m trying to learn. I’m trying to learn whether the scripture has a minimum standard that applies to all cultures, and what that standard is.

 

I was also going to ask about defining lust, but I realized my post is very long. I hope to address that another time, in another OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  96
  • Topic Count:  304
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  18,094
  • Content Per Day:  4.65
  • Reputation:   27,773
  • Days Won:  327
  • Joined:  08/03/2013
  • Status:  Offline

Blessings FactSeeker

   Welcome to Worthy,yes it is quite long-lol    As far as the dress code here at Worthy,you can wear anything you are comfortable in.....of course you know I am just kidding,lol

I just wanted to sat "WELCOME".....I'll be back in a while to answer properly                                                With love-in Christ,Kwik

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  34
  • Topic Count:  1,989
  • Topics Per Day:  0.49
  • Content Count:  48,687
  • Content Per Day:  11.89
  • Reputation:   30,342
  • Days Won:  226
  • Joined:  01/11/2013
  • Status:  Offline

Dressing modestly is not only for Church but at all times 1 Timothy 2:9-10. It reveals the godliness of the heart and honors God.

 

Welcome to Worthy :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  907
  • Content Per Day:  0.37
  • Reputation:   264
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/10/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Modesty is an individual choice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  7,689
  • Content Per Day:  2.41
  • Reputation:   2
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  06/30/2015
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, missmuffet said:

Dressing modestly is not only for Church but at all times 1 Timothy 2:9-10. It reveals the godliness of the heart and honors God.

 

Welcome to Worthy :)

Amein.  As YHWH Says, So It Is.  Nothing is individual about this, nor societal.

It looks like seeking facts is not at all a way to learn YHWH'S WAY.  In the OP are several discrepancies,  serious ones, mainly from paying attention to what society or different groups of men say instead of

simply honoring YHWH and YHWH'S WORD.  SIMPLE AND TRUTH.   No discrepancies,  no doubts, no contradictions in YHWH'S WORD PLAIN and CLEAR, as BREATHED and as REVEALED by YHWH.

All the discrepancies, doubts and contradictions come from the enemy, and from men, thinking the way of men.

Those , all those, who Honor YHWH,  above all else,  learn and know the TRUTH from YHWH, in their hearts first, and their spirits and their minds --- we (in CHRIST) HAVE the MIND OF CHRIST) - perfectly PURE and HOLY, by YHWH'S WORD, YHWH'S PURPOSE, and ACCOMPLISHED BY YHWH;   contrary to all the ways and mores of men / mankind/ the world/ carnal society.     All those things opposed to YHWH, will always contradict YHWH'S WORD.  They are all opposed to YHWH, and reject JESUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  96
  • Topic Count:  304
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  18,094
  • Content Per Day:  4.65
  • Reputation:   27,773
  • Days Won:  327
  • Joined:  08/03/2013
  • Status:  Offline

Blessings FactSeeker

      Welcome again,glad to have you here with us Brother......I understand why you do not want to discuss 1 Timothy 2:9......this had little to do with our culture as everything to do with the pagan temple prostitutes of that time,place....I think the point of being modest in apparel really has everything to do with your second addition ..."causing no one to stumble "because of what you were going to discuss,though you didn't  LUST.....

    Personally I don't thing the Adam & Eve wearing fig leaves & then covering their private parts is anything for us to consider because Adam & Ever were by themselves,they did not know shame until they ate from the tree of knowledge(good & evil)and they were ashamed & hid from God .....& yes,you did mention the guilt of their sin,I agree......God did clothe them but again I think it is irrelevent because they had only each other & their children....so we don't get much help there,do we?

    Well,if we do consider 2 Timothy 2:9 and the "reason" it is Written we do understand that these women they were referring to were enticing to men,they adorned themselves to seduce,I have no doubt that they revealed their legs by having a split in the garment & probably wore there garments in a way to accentuate their figure.....I believe this is what modesty means,not to wear anything that accentuates any particular part of the body that would be attractive to the opposite sex    I think it is that simple and I do not believe that anything about "society today" has any relevance on Gods WAYS....being Godly,pleasing & acceptable to God    

    When I was younger(& from youth),I dressed in very risque clothing,I was raised in Ny in a very "fashion conscious" family...everything was very trendy,sexy & over the top......when I really surrendered to the Lord I was not even yet aware of these things,I thought I looked just wonderful,lol  The funny thing is I NEVER thought about it or made any efforts to change,one day Holy Spirit laid it on my heart that this was not the way a woman of GOD was to look.....Hmmm,I though,okay...it hjust seemed so distasteful in my eyes with the Heart & Mind of Christ.....my point is that I don't believe we have a specific verse of Scripture or Written Instruction on what is "modest" but I do know that when we seek Him & only want to please Him because we love Him we Receive Wisdom & Understanding and see through His Eyes......I don't look frumpy by any means but I dress modestly,nothing real clingy,nothing short or low cut  and thats how a woman should dress.....the men,of course their chests should be covered & I think its just as immodest for them to were those tight top & leotard bottoms with there biceps bulging.....plus its just vanity & pride anyway(carnal minded)

    Well,I doubt I was helpful but theres my little 2 cents......to be Godly,Holy,is Represent Christ,His Body,not ours.......it does not matter what the world deems acceptable

                                                                                                                With love-in Christ,Kwik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My definition of modesty is that people see MY FACE FIRST .  I dont want to draw attention to my body but to my face.  If I have made the effort to be modest and I am not accentuating body parts that another could lust over; I am honoring the LORD. I am not responsible for those who will lust anyways. Some just do and that is the nature of their hearts. I like what Kwik said. I agree ! 

 

As far as lust is concerned: 

I can look at a man and think he is an attractive man but the moment I allow my thoughts to start going any further than that I am lusting.  It is a very fine line and I dont cross it. If I were to  find myself crossing that fine line , I take captive my thoughts to the obedience of Christ and I ask God to forgive me. 

 

Welcome to worthy,

Blessings :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  13
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   16
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/16/2017
  • Status:  Offline

4 hours ago, missmuffet said:

Dressing modestly is not only for Church but at all times 1 Timothy 2:9-10. It reveals the godliness of the heart and honors God.

 

Welcome to Worthy :)

Did you see my first point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  34
  • Topic Count:  1,989
  • Topics Per Day:  0.49
  • Content Count:  48,687
  • Content Per Day:  11.89
  • Reputation:   30,342
  • Days Won:  226
  • Joined:  01/11/2013
  • Status:  Offline

6 minutes ago, FactSeeker said:

Did you see my first point?

I do not support your view on 1 Timothy. I do not deny any part of scripture. I take all scripture literally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  17
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  13,256
  • Content Per Day:  5.40
  • Reputation:   1
  • Days Won:  62
  • Joined:  07/07/2017
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/25/1972

3 hours ago, simplejeff said:

Amein.  As YHWH Says, So It Is.  Nothing is individual about this, nor societal.

It looks like seeking facts is not at all a way to learn YHWH'S WAY.  In the OP are several discrepancies,  serious ones, mainly from paying attention to what society or different groups of men say instead of

simply honoring YHWH and YHWH'S WORD.  SIMPLE AND TRUTH.   No discrepancies,  no doubts, no contradictions in YHWH'S WORD PLAIN and CLEAR, as BREATHED and as REVEALED by YHWH.

All the discrepancies, doubts and contradictions come from the enemy, and from men, thinking the way of men.

Those , all those, who Honor YHWH,  above all else,  learn and know the TRUTH from YHWH, in their hearts first, and their spirits and their minds --- we (in CHRIST) HAVE the MIND OF CHRIST) - perfectly PURE and HOLY, by YHWH'S WORD, YHWH'S PURPOSE, and ACCOMPLISHED BY YHWH;   contrary to all the ways and mores of men / mankind/ the world/ carnal society.     All those things opposed to YHWH, will always contradict YHWH'S WORD.  They are all opposed to YHWH, and reject JESUS.

Amen and praise the LORD peoples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...