Are The Specifics of Modesty Given In The Scripture

Perhaps I should clarify. I don't like to take the trash out in my undershirt, because I don't want people seeing me in my undershirts. But I have no problem if my wife or kids see me in an undershirt. Is that proposing two standards of modesty?

 

This is a very tricky subject because it can lead to legalism or it can lead to liberalism very quickly depending on what side you go.

I don't see how particular styles of clothing can be said Biblically wrong because that is not stated in the Bible.

I have my own beliefs but there are NOT exact "standards" of dress in the Bible.
There are principles but not rules for everyday dress.
Others feel free to have different opinions on particulars but be careful forcing those on others unless they are actually Biblical.

As to the particulars, I have to as a husband and a father decide these things and to be honest, it is quite a responsibility.

Any suggestions would be welcomed!

 

Loose enough to know you are a lady and tight enough to know you are a woman. The same goes for men.

 

Sounds like you want some verses 'bout modesty, so here's one to chew on for a while (somewhere in Deuteronomy--I can never remember the references):

"A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all that do so are an abomination unto the Lord." If a guy wears a dress, he's called gay, so.....

I don't think you have to worry about being around your husband or wife. I mean, you're married, for Pete's sake!

Hey, I'll admit it. Sometimes it's hard being modest--especially when every other girl out there is dressing sexy and she seems to be the star of the show. But, # 1, I'm a Christian, so I have to dress modestly so others will see a difference, and #2, us gals don't need to be attracting the wrong kind of guys who only want to use us because we're hot. Besides, it's our duty to try and protect the good, decent Christian guys out there who are trying to keep themselves pure.

BUT--that doesn't let you creeps off the hook. Start controlling your eyes and your minds for a blessed change!!!!

DRF

 

*Shrugs* I've been told that I and my friends are immodest for wearing all black. Even though body parts are covered up. As long as you're not showing anything that shouldn't be shown, or that has to be pried on with a crowbar, I don't see what the problem is.

 

Now this was a real knee slapper, I guess the standard is sealed in the scroll??? :laugh:

On this same note, the style of clothe we currently wear is no where close to the dress in biblical times. So any standard we choose would have to be secular.

 

I don't know of any objective standards in the Bible for modesty (the passage about men wearing women's clothing, etc. does not seem to have to do with modesty, imo).

I think the reason there is no objective, spelled out standard is because it does vary by culture and in time. Wearing skirts above the ankles at one time was immodest. So we have to go with something else.

My thoughts on this are that if you're dressed to be provocative (to stir lust), or are revealing what should not be seen according to the normal standards of the culture, then it's immodest. This would be different in other cultures as there are places where very little clothing is worn. It is not provocative to them but here it would be.

I was once in a country where it was considered immodest for women to wear pants or short skirts, even though in the US at the time it was okay. So I didn't wear pants or short skirts (I was not a Christian then either).

 

I have friends who have daughters. The jeans that the stores have for girls make my skin crawl. The clothes makers are trying to make our daughters, nieces, etc, look like bimbos and floozies. That is disgusting IMHO.
Faithgirl

 

Ex 28:42
And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

Yes yes, I know this was written to the priests in Bible times,but it does give some indication of what God considers nakedness.

Also, I do not understand this thinking that "style" has anything to do with this issue. Someone mentioned that in Bible times the style of clothing was different than ours is today. That has nothing to do with modesty. If God's idea of "naked" is exposing the thigh, than I should think that would carry over no matter what "style" of clothing is being worn.

I know some people might have a more knowledgeable take on this, but Ive understood that "thigh" referred to the entire upper leg above the knee......
Along the same lines, Ive also seen some who claim that "palm" refers to the entire hand and wrist area. If true, then it is another indication that our def. of "thigh" is not necessarily the same as the Jewish understanding of the term.

 

I agree. We find most of our clothes for our girls at second-hand stores or my mother makes them. We can hardly ever find anything in retail stores that we are willing to let our young ladies wear.

 

I am the one who meantioned bible times. If we used your scripture and discussion about nakedness I can wear a thigh length palm leaf to Church and be considered modest. Or should I just wrap my thighs and leave the rest of 350 pounds uncovered? I know that is exagerated but that what literal interpritions do.

Considering middle easterners wear robe type garments, I can't see them having trouble showing the thigh.

"Normal standards of culture" should have no bearing on the Church. The Church, though in the world should always be separate from the world. Then take our culture for instance, it's ok to show a woman from Africa breast but it's R rated if she is american. Do we really want to use societies standard in the Church?

 

No LeBuick, that is not what a literal interpretation does. That is extremism. I never claimed that the verse I quoted gives us God's idea of nakedness in its entirety....only an indication of it. Obviously that verse is only talking about one part of the body.

But I agree, our culture should have no bearing on the issue of modesty. It has always bothered me that if a person is living in a grass hut in Africa it seems to some to be ok to photo them half naked and put them in a magazine about "African culture", and if it was a white person here in the States that would be porn.

 

“ Every man dies, not every man really lives! William Wallace; Braveheart”

Love the movie Braveheart, considered trying to figure out how to use an avatar I found from this movie till I saw you already using the theme in your signature!!! NOW, you realize there are some immodest scenes in that picture, DON”T YOU!

Most probably, I decided to let my kids watch this movie but grabbed a blanket and through it over their heads and telling them to close their eyes during a couple of “soft” nude scenes. Why the violence if justified is more acceptable and part of the human body to be seen like while a man and his wife meet in the woods (which btw he did marry her first) was not acceptable?; wonder about the message that sends, one being more acceptable than the other, either can be seen as dark or light IMO.

Here too. Violence is portrayed in the Bible both as sin and good, similar to sexual relations and nakedness, being discussed in the Bible, consider descriptive accounts by Solomon in SOS. Both situations, violence or nakedness, can be ugly or beautiful, and either can turn at a moments notice depending on what is in the heart and the intent and has to do with the nature that God gave us all and the choices we make.

Nothing personal, just razzing a little about Braveheart, and thinking that it is very much an individual’s outlook in how these things are perceived.

Do you think this verse applies?

(Luk 6:45)Agoodmanoutofthegoodtreasureofhisheartbringeth forththat which is good;andanevilmanoutoftheeviltreasureofhisheartbringeth forththat which is evil:foroftheabundanceofthehearthismouthspeaketh.

I don't know why this keeps happening in my scripture posts!

 

So, LeBuick, why is it okay for women to show their ankles today? Around 1850, it was immodest for women to show their ankles, and certainly their knees! So what standard should I use to say it's okay to wear a skirt that shows my ankles?

 

That's my whole point, why did the churches standard change just because society changed? I don't have the answer to that, but because of this I can honestly say the definition we are trying to apply to the word modesty in the Church is really a secular standard.

 

Here is a idea...

Read the main passage that all point to when it comes to modesty.

Do you men lift up your hands and say grace when you go to burger king to eat lunch? It says "EVERYWHERE" pray this way. The same idea applies to both verse.

Does any person here wear a wedding ring? My wifes ring cost more then a car...is that costly? I think it is. Same verse...same idea.

Any ladies here do their hair? Thank God mine does. Same verse...same idea.

How about pearls? Any one wear pearls? Same verse...same idea.

Now...what does modest mean?

The meaning has been posted 2-3 times.

Let me end by asking this. Going by this passage, would it be wrong for a women to wear a white robe to church walk down the street carring a large wooden cross on her back each Sunday and carry a Bible the size of a land deed book in this day and age ..while living in the USA?

 

Marcia,

your last post did make a good point....our standards changed because society changed. But if we look at the Bible we see a standard that has not changed ever.

From the verse I posted earlier I see a part of God's standard of nakedness would be the thigh. At least above the knee. So the standard of ankles being immodest was not a necessary standard Biblically. That doesn't mean it's wrong to not show your ankles of course, but its an extreme not required of us Biblically.

The same goes the opposite direction. Just because a society feels there is no problem with people walking around in colored underwear does not mean that it is alright with God.

 

She'd fit right in in San Francisco.

 

you're right Jarthur,

its immodest for a lady to call attention to herself through her clothing, her jewelry, etc. So theatrical displays of piety are a form of immodesty, too.

The same would be true for a man, right?