Bible Modesty - Part 1

[Helen]

No one ever responded to my post:

Let me tell you a story about something that happened in Taiwan when the Christian missionaries went there. They not only imparted Bible, but insisted on some cultural changes. One of them was that toddlers and babies wear pants/diapers. Up until that time, they had been allowed to run around naked. So the people, thinking that Christianity was also tied to culture, started making sure their little ones were dressed.

And the little ones started dying.

Not just getting sick. Dying.

Taiwan is quite humid in the late spring and summer. Fungus infections which cannot thrive in the open air were killing the children.

If your idea of feminine modesty demands dresses and not pants, then that is what you must follow yourself in your own home. If my idea of feminine modesty is not yours, don't hold me to your ideas. As long as I am feminine and modest, and as long as any Christian girl is, then back off. Behavior is a whole lot more important.

 

[Scott J]

​

Because of Its Immodesty​

. . . women adorn themselves in MODEST apparel . . . --1 Tim. 2:9

Clothing was instituted BY GOD (Gen. 3:21) to HINDER and PREVENT SIN—NOT to encourage it. Forgive us, but may we speak plainly? Any clothing that accents or emphasizes or exposes the woman's buttocks, breasts, crotch, or delicately formed thighs (Isa. 20:4; 47:3,4) is not only immodest but is downright sexually provocative to the lusts of sinful men. Pants on women, not only appeal to the lusts of men by emphasizing their private parts, but they also appeal to the Lesbian society, when they are placed in a masculine context.

continued​

1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

The context of this proof text isn't underdressing or even dressing provocatively. The context is that women shouldn't be show offs trying to draw attention to themselves. The motive of making that attempt based on wealth or to lord over other women is far more apparent than any sexual connotation.

The most direct application is that women should dress humbly and neatly.

Women should not dress in ways that tempt men but the most direct application to this text doesn't seem to involve that- it seems to involve pride and haughtiness.

The most troubling part of your diatribe is that it seems to reveal a similar pride and haughtiness... an "I'm better than you" type of attitude based on a personal and private interpretation of the scriptures that somehow twists what God said into "women shalt not wear pants".

For most of the period that the Bible was being written both men and women wore robes or other similar basic garments.... Were they wrong for all that time without the benefit of your wisdom?

If it was not wrong for any of that time for both men and women to wear robes... how is it now sinful for both to wear pants?

 

[Herb Evans]

1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 1Ti 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

The context of this proof text isn't underdressing or even dressing provocatively. The context is that women shouldn't be show offs trying to draw attention to themselves. The motive of making that attempt based on wealth or to lord over other women is far more apparent than any sexual connotation.

The most direct application is that women should dress humbly and neatly.

Women should not dress in ways that tempt men but the most direct application to this text doesn't seem to involve that- it seems to involve pride and haughtiness.

The most troubling part of your diatribe is that it seems to reveal a similar pride and haughtiness... an "I'm better than you" type of attitude based on a personal and private interpretation of the scriptures that somehow twists what God said into "women shalt not wear pants".

For most of the period that the Bible was being written both men and women wore robes or other similar basic garments.... Were they wrong for all that time without the benefit of your wisdom?

If it was not wrong for any of that time for both men and women to wear robes... how is it now sinful for both to wear pants?

Sorry, but the robes were different, and did you ever hear of a woman girding up her loins. The woman's robe was veil like. The "lineless" philosophy has pernmeated Christendo. Check out your young ladies and how their blouses are lowerin to imitate the stars and their cleavage. If you know to do good and do it not, to you it is sin (and me). But now you are making the issue Herb Evans rather than the issue. I am used to that, however, and need not defend myself against your charges. -- Herb Evans

 

[Aaron]

Sorry, but the robes were different, and did you ever hear of a woman girding up her loins. The woman's robe was veil like. The "lineless" philosophy has pernmeated Christendo. Check out your young ladies and how their blouses are lowerin to imitate the stars and their cleavage. If you know to do good and do it not, to you it is sin (and me). But now you are making the issue Herb Evans rather than the issue. I am used to that, however, and need not defend myself against your charges. -- Herb Evans

I'm more with you than against you on this one Herb. You really struck a chord though. 12 pages in one day! Woo hoo! :thumbs:

 

[donnA]

See here is the other side of the problem with this debate. We have those that say no slacks for women. Then we have the polar opposite that says I have no repsonsibility to my Christian brother or sister.

Donna while we are all supposed to seek self-control in our areas of struggle, I don't think the attitude of that's your problem so I can do as I please is Biblical either.

If wearing a skirt that barley covers your gludious maximus (to church even) causes men to stumble (which it does some men) then you need to care enough for your brothers in Christ not to wear such material whether you think it is appropriate or not.

It's extremely arrogant to think that we have no responsibility to each other. Again with this type of mindset it is no wonder Christendom is in the sad shape that it is.

You prefer legalism instead of grace then?
Nothing of mine is showing no matter what I wear to church.
Sad shape, sad shape becasue people prefer legalism over grace for one, people condone twisting scripture and adding to it if need be to make their point that isn't in scripture in the first place. Such as long and flowing, which as has been shown here many many times in the past isn't in the bible, it is man made legalism. The amount of hatred some christian men have for women is ugly, and not in the least bit scriptural, so don't pretend it is.

 

[Herb Evans]

You prefer legalism instead of grace then?
Nothing of mine is showing no matter what I wear to church.
Sad shape, sad shape becasue people prefer legalism over grace for one, people condone twisting scripture and adding to it if need be to make their point that isn't in scripture in the first place. Such as long and flowing, which as has been shown here many many times in the past isn't in the bible, it is man made legalism. The amount of hatred some christian men have for women is ugly, and not in the least bit scriptural, so don't pretend it is.

The same grace saves us also teaches us how to live, based on the scriptures.

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

“A scriptural basis for the Israeli government’s exemption of ORTHODOX Jewish women for military service.” – Time Magazine on Deuteronomy 22:5

-- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

I'm more with you than against you on this one Herb. You really struck a chord though. 12 pages in one day! Woo hoo! :thumbs:

Thanks (wiping a tear from the corner of my eye). -- Herb Evans

:godisgood:

 

[J. Jump]

You prefer legalism instead of grace then?

Not at all. I just don't prefer your definition of grace. Grace is not I can do anything I want and big whoppie do if it causes you problems. Grace is dying to self not indulging one's self.

Sad shape, sad shape becasue people prefer legalism over grace for one, people condone twisting scripture and adding to it if need be to make their point that isn't in scripture in the first place.

Exactly. So with that in mind can you show me in Scripture where it says grace allows us to do anything we want even if it is a stumbling block to others. I don't think I've seen that portion of Scripture.

The amount of hatred some christian men have for women is ugly, and not in the least bit scriptural, so don't pretend it is.

Obviously you were pretty selective in what you retained or even read of my post. I happen to disagree with those that say no pants. But I don't agree with your "I have no responsibility if what I wear bothers you then too bad get over it" attitude either. I don't think either are Scriptural.

But like I said you are more than welcome to show me where grace relieves us of any and all responsibility to our fellow brother and sister in Christ.

 

[Herb Evans]

Nakedness - Part 1

Nakedness and the Clothing that Covers It​

Does the Bible define nakedness and how it ought to be covered?

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. –Gen. 2:25

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. --Genesis 3:7

Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. --Genesis 3:21

Nakedness is not based upon man's culture, man's teachings, man's opinion or some Baptist law. Clearly from the Bible we can see that nakedness is discussed and defined. And clearly from the Bible we can see that man's views do not line up with God's. Prior to sin, man was naked and he was not ashamed. After man sinned, he was naked and was ashamed. So he covered what he believed was nakedness. Adam made Eve and him aprons to wear.

An apron by today's definition is a piece of cloth worn on the front of the body to protect it. Apron is also the name of the cloth that is used to wrap around the bottom of a table to hide the legs. The word "apron" in the Bible means "girdle, loin-covering, belt, loincloth." It is very possible that just the front of Adam and Eve were covered. It is very possible that just the front loin area of Adam and Eve were covered. And Adam believed he covered their nakedness. Adam, a man, defined nakedness as no less than the front loin area, and no more than the frontal part of both man and woman. Even to go beyond the definition of "apron" we could exaggerate and say that it was like a towel wrapped about their body from under the armpit to below the loin. I believe that would be an exaggeration of what Adam believed to be nakedness. God defined nakedness as something quite different. He clothed them with coats. Not an apron, but a coat.

By all definitions of a coat, a coat covers more than any apron. A coat covered their nakedness. Go to the store and purchase an apron and a coat, and it is very obvious the two are quite different. Now, we need not know what Adam's apron looked like, because it covered the wrong definition of nakedness. But what we do need to discover is what God's coats covered. If from the Word of God we can uncover what He covered then we will have found God’s definition of nakedness.

This is not man's teaching, this is not man's opinion, if we can discover from the Bible what God calls nakedness, and what God commanded to be covered - then we will know what the right "Clothing Convictions" are to be. God's Definition - Gen 3:21 - when they were naked.

1. God made Adam and Eve a coat. (Gen. 3:21)
2. Moses made Aaron a coat according to God's design. (Exodus 28:4; 29:5)
3. Jacob made Joseph a coat. (Genesis 37:3)
4. The 3 Hebrew boys had coats. (Daniel 3:21)
5. Hannah made Samuel a coat every year.
6. Job wore a coat. (Job 30:18)

7. Peter was naked and covered himself with his coat. (John 21:7) The Coat

Job 30:18 --By the great force of my disease is my garment changed: it bindeth me about as the collar of my coat.

So does the Bible give any clues as to what was covered? The base of the neck is where a biblical coat starts; the collarbone area is where a coat starts, anything below that would fall within the definition of what God calls nakedness. If we do not use facts from the Bible to establish what a coat is, we are left to personal preference and personal opinion. Clearly Job 30:18 mentions "the collar of my coat." If the collarbone area, or the base of the neck is not the starting point for nakedness, then what Bible verse describes where nakedness begins?

The Knee​

Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon. -- Exodus 20:26

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

Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. --Isaiah 47:2

The knee is where the nakedness stops: So where does nakedness stop? The ground? The ankle? Mid-calf? The knee? Mid-thigh? The loin? So does the Bible give any clues as to what was covered? Going up steps to the altar exposed the nakedness under the garment of the priest. So, God made a provision for the priest, breeches to cover their nakedness. And the pants went from the loins to the thighs. To the top of the thigh? To the middle of the thigh? or to the thigh? From the foot to the knee is called the leg, from the knee to the loin is called the thigh. Leg and thigh are not the same, they are defined as two separate parts of the limb. So to expose anything that is at the knee or above is to expose one's nakedness. From the base of the neck to the knee is the vertical covering required to hide one's nakedness.

The Shoulders Covered, Covers Nakedness​

It shall have the two shoulder pieces thereof joined at the two edges thereof; and so it shall be joined together. --Exodus 28:7

And the curious girdle of the ephod, which is upon it, shall be of the same, according to the work thereof; even of gold, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen. — Exodus 28:8

And the other two ends of the two wreathen chains thou shalt fasten in the two ouches, and put them on the shoulder pieces of the ephod before it. --Exodus 28:25

And he put them on the shoulders of the ephod, that they should be stones for a memorial to the children of Israel; as the LORD commanded Moses. -- Exodus 39:7

But, what about the arms? Does the Bible give any clues as to what is to be covered? We do not define a coat as something that is sleeveless. We call that a vest. Of the coats in the Bible, and the garments used to cover nakedness by God, do any of them cover any portion of the arm? The ephod was a piece of clothing that the LORD commanded Moses to have for the priests. It was part of their covering.

The ephod covered the shoulders. The shoulder is defined as "the joint where the arm connects to the body." If the shoulder being covered is not part of covering the nakedness of man - then what is the limit on the arm? The wrist? The forearm? The elbow? The bicep?

continued​

 

[Herb Evans]

Nakedness - Part 2

Nakedness and the Clothing that Covers It (continued)​

The Loins and Thighs​

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

He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on. ---Lev. 16:4

What is the Bible verse that gives us a principle of what should be covered, to hide our nakedness? Remember is it a coat that God made, not a vest and not an apron. So, with nakedness defined, should men and women use the same garments to cover their nakedness? Does the Bible give us any clues as to how we are to cover this defined nakedness? From the Old Testament it is easy to establish what a man's garments ought to be. The word breeches found (5) times in the Bible is always attributed to a man's attire to be used to cover his nakedness. Breeches are by definition a garment that covers from the loins to the thigh. The question is not what material must be used, nor even does the garment have a zipper, a crotch, buttons, pockets or cuffs. The question is "What garment did God say a man was to use to cover his nakedness?" Breeches.

Men versus Women’s Clothing​

So what are breeches? Can we get some reasonable definition of what they are? From the Webster's dictionary we know they were trousers, and not speedos. They were not to be skintight but loose enough to allow movement and no sweat, Ezek. 44:18. From a Bible dictionary we know that breeches are trousers, pants, drawers that were worn under the coat to hide nakedness. So breeches are a legged garment that extends at least to the thigh - down to the knee.

But Ehud made him a dagger which had two edges, of a cubit length; and he did gird it under his raiment upon his right thigh. — Judges 3:16

Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. --Job 38:3

The 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 abomination unto the LORD thy God. --Deut. 22:5

So, is a man's clothes and a woman's clothes the same? Is there any other information found in the Bible to tell the design of the man's garment known as breeches? Yes, we have quoted the verse already, Leviticus 16:4 and the term "gird" denotes that the garment was not loose like a dress, but rather it was legged like traditional pants are today.

The term "gird up thy loins" is used with men more times than not. In the occasions where it is applied to women, it is in reference to mourning and sackcloth. So the man's garment is legged, girded about the loins and extending to at least the knee to conceal the thigh, his nakedness. The top limits of the garments are that they must conceal below the base of the neck (the collar) and cover the shoulders.

Though some may say that this verse is not applicable because it is part of the law, the words that I want you to glean are these –"woman's garment." Though there may be some discussion (men's opinions) as to what pertains to a man or not - the Bible is clear that women have distinguishable garments.

We must look to the New Testament to discover what God has said about women's apparel. At the least, it must cover their nakedness, which we know is the same nakedness as a man's. But cover it with what? In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array . . . --1 Timothy 2:9

The phrase "modest apparel" is unique, this is the only place that it is used, and it pertains strictly to a woman. Can we with confidence know what "modest" means and what this "apparel" means? If we can determine their meaning we will have established the right clothing for women. Modest means limited, well arranged, of good behaviour, restrained and not lewd. Apparel means to put down, to lower, to put or keep down one who is roused or incensed, to repress, restrain, appease, quiet. But, the interesting word is the word "apparel", its use here is quite important for discovering the proper modest attire for a woman. The use
of it in 1 Timothy 2:9 is unique in that the word "apparel" means "a lowering, letting down, a garment let down, dress"; the word gives the indication by its root word's meaning that the apparel is "to put down, to lower, to put or keep down one who is roused or incensed, to repress, restrain, appease, quiet." This long (lowered) and flowing (dress) garment is definitely not breeches nor does it denote any girding about the loins like breeches. God has chosen the garment for the woman to be something that "keeps down the rouse or arousal."

The primary reason for a woman's garment is to cover her God defined nakedness; the second reason is to prevent arousal. We know from Matthew 5:28 “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” that a man is a creature of sight. A woman must guard her nakedness with modest apparel as to not be guilty of adultery with the man that would lust after her. Is it clear what God has defined by nakedness? Is it clear what God commanded be covered? I believe it is. I believe it is also clear from the Word of God that men's and women's clothing are distinguishable and that a man's covering involves breeches, or pants, while that of a woman involves a modest apparel that conceals her form.

--By Pastor David Stogsdill

Oregon Bible Baptist Church

 

[Aaron]

Nakedness is not based upon man's culture....

Very good! It's true, if society is the standard of modesty, then God would have had no occassion to make Adam and Eve clothes of His own standards. Remember this is before Moses.

 

[Aaron]

Obviously you were pretty selective in what your retained or even read of my post. I happen to disagree with those that say no pants. But I don't agree with your "I have no responsibility if what I wear bothers you then too bad get over it" attitude either. I don't think either are Scriptural.

But like I said you are more than welcome to show me where grace relieves us of any and all responsibility to our fellow brother and sister in Christ.

Good luck. You will find that self-will and not Scripture is the driving force behind the cacophony of protests in this thread.

 

[Herb Evans]

Good luck. You will find that self-will and not Scripture is the driving force behind the cacophony of protests in this thread.

Amen! I'm going to do as i please, no matter what that preacher says. Man, I would have hated to pastor some of those churches. I would have never lived to this age. You know when you throw a rock down a dark alley and hear a yelp, you know that you hit something. Well, that rock must have had a mighty big ricochet. -- Herb Evans

 

[Helen]

No one ever responded to my post:

Let me tell you a story about something that happened in Taiwan when the Christian missionaries went there. They not only imparted Bible, but insisted on some cultural changes. One of them was that toddlers and babies wear pants/diapers. Up until that time, they had been allowed to run around naked. So the people, thinking that Christianity was also tied to culture, started making sure their little ones were dressed.

And the little ones started dying.

Not just getting sick. Dying.

Taiwan is quite humid in the late spring and summer. Fungus infections which cannot thrive in the open air were killing the children.

If your idea of feminine modesty demands dresses and not pants, then that is what you must follow yourself in your own home. If my idea of feminine modesty is not yours, don't hold me to your ideas. As long as I am feminine and modest, and as long as any Christian girl is, then back off. Behavior is a whole lot more important.

 

[Scarlett O.]

No one ever responded to my post:

Let me tell you a story about something that happened in Taiwan when the Christian missionaries went there. They not only imparted Bible, but insisted on some cultural changes. One of them was that toddlers and babies wear pants/diapers. Up until that time, they had been allowed to run around naked. So the people, thinking that Christianity was also tied to culture, started making sure their little ones were dressed.

And the little ones started dying.

Not just getting sick. Dying.

Taiwan is quite humid in the late spring and summer. Fungus infections which cannot thrive in the open air were killing the children.

If your idea of feminine modesty demands dresses and not pants, then that is what you must follow yourself in your own home. If my idea of feminine modesty is not yours, don't hold me to your ideas. As long as I am feminine and modest, and as long as any Christian girl is, then back off. Behavior is a whole lot more important.

Point well taken, Helen.

Modesty, as long as it is being observed, has no cookie-cutter pattern.

 

[tinytim]

I'm more with you than against you on this one Herb. You really struck a chord though. 12 pages in one day! Woo hoo! :thumbs:

Wow,,, I missed it! See what happens when I go away for a few hours...

And the reason there are 12 pages in one day, is because good Bible believing Baptists know when to stand up against this legalistic hogwash.

...

It is all based in pride. You may say, "I'm more holier than you, because I won't let my wife wear slacks" What you are saying is.... "I'm prideful, and know nothing of God's grace"

Jesus died to set us free... some here are trying to bind us up.
Satan would be happy, if we, that beleive the Bible, would just set by and allow others to "bewitch" the believers.

That is why so many Bible Believing Baptists jumped on this thread to let the world know that God gives grace, not legalism.

I just wished I would have had a chance to chime in...
Oh, wait I just did...
Now I wonder if I will get another PM calling me a "Jerk"...

 

[Amy.G]

Amen Bro. Tim!:thumbsup:
I just realized the title of this thread is Bible modesty part 1....you mean there's a part 2? :tonofbricks:

 

[AresMan]

Amen Bro. Tim!:thumbsup:
I just realized the title of this thread is Bible modesty part 1....you mean there's a part 2? :tonofbricks:

Herb Evans has a vast archive of essays that he has written for many years. Most of the threads he starts here (and in other fora) are a dump of one of his essays (drawn at random?)

 

[tinytim]

Obviously, those that danced around the golden calf needed Moses back to give them a mini-lecture. -- Herb Evans

I've read Moses, and you, sir, are no Moses....

 

[Liz Ward]

Well Well

I've just looked in on this board for the first time in months if not years (I usually stick to Yahoo groups) and I saw an old name which I remember with some affection - Herb Evans. And it seems he's banned. Whatever happened???

Liz