Modesty in an Immodest Age

Modesty in an Immodest Age By Mark Mayberry 9/26/2010 Introduction The question, What shall I wear? usually focuses on personal preference regarding function and style. However, a more serious concern must also be addressed: What does God think about our choices in clothing? Is there a divine standard of modesty that is applicable for males and females? This study will spotlight four related areas of thought: First of all, we will learn that God wants our clothing to be modest. Secondly, we will find that the Lord is not always satisfied with man s choice of clothing. Third, we will discover that the Bible condemns all forms of public nakedness. Finally, we will note the distinct relationship between modesty and marriage. If we are submissive and obedient, these principles will impact our choices of clothing and attire. Let us, therefore, show spiritual discretion in this and all other areas of life (Phil. 1:9-10; Col. 1:9-10). God Wants Our Clothing to be Modest God wants our clothing to be modest. In writing to Timothy, Paul said, 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; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works (1 Timothy 2:9-10, KJV). Four significant Greek words appear in this passage: modest is derived from kosmios, apparel is from katastole, shamefacedness from aidos, and sobriety from sophrosune. An understanding of these terms will help us distinguish between that which is modest and that which is immodest. Greek Word: KOSMIOS AIDOS SOPHROSUNE KJV Modest Shamefacedness Sobriety NKJV Modest Propriety Moderation ASV Modest Shamefastness Sobriety NASB Proper Modestly Discreetly RSV Modestly Sensibly Seemly NRSV Modestly Decently Suitable Kosmios Defined The Greek word kosmios is translated as modest (KJV, ASV, NKJ), modestly (RSV, NRS), and proper (NASB). BAGD say it refers to that which is respectable, honorable. BDAG 1

define it as (1) pertaining to having characteristics or qualities that evoke admiration or delight, an expression of high regard for person, respectable, honorable persons; (2) pertaining to being appropriate for winning approval, appropriate, used with an impersonal noun, yet with reference to a person, whose special status is probably signaled thereby. Strong/Thayer say it refers to that which is well arranged, seemly, modest. Swanson says it identifies that which is (1) modest, moderate and well ordered; (2) proper, respectable. Thomas defines it orderly. Trench says this proper order extends not only to dress and demeanor but also to the inner life, which expresses itself in outward conversation [p. 364]. This word appears twice in the New Testament (1 Tim. 2:9; 3:2). The word modesty has to do with that which is seemly or appropriate. It is derived from kosmos, which is usually translated world. However, Peter also uses it to describe the proper adorning of a Christian woman (1 Pet. 3:3-4). Just as we live in an orderly world, a universe governed by divinely ordained natural laws, so also Christians should dress in an orderly manner, as governed by God s unchanging spiritual law. The concept of order necessitates the idea of law. Herein lies a fundamental truth: Regardless of the age, dispensation, or covenant, God has always prescribed modesty and prohibited nakedness. The clothing of a faithful Christian must be well ordered, seemly and appropriate. We must avoid the dual sins of over-dressing and under-dressing. One s outward attire is a reflection of one s inner spirit. Instead of announcing our gaudiness and pride, instead of proclaiming our lust and licentiousness, the clothing that we wear should speak of our commitment to that which is respectable and honorable, as befitting those who are sanctified and holy (1 Tim. 2:9-10; 1 Pet. 3:3-4; cf. Isa. 3:16-26). Katastole Defined The Greek word katastolē, translated as clothing in most versions, appears only here in the New Testament. This compound word is derived from the root kata, down and stello, to arrange, to prepare. BAGD says it refers to deportment, outward, as it expresses itself in clothing. BDAG say it carries the idea of subjugation. Like the verb katastello, the basic idea is keeping something in check, hence the use of this term in the sense of reserve, restraint. The verb stello means to furnish, equip, a sense that extends itself to the putting on of garments. Hence katastole readily serves to express outward attire, either the character one exhibits in personal deportment or something to cover the body, namely attire, clothing. dress in becoming manner (1 Tim. 2:9). The writer skillfully moves from the literal sense of garments to personal characteristics of modesty and self-control as appropriate adornment. Strong/Thayer say it refers to (1) a lowering, letting down; (2) a garment let down, dress, attire. Swanson defines it as in modest apparel, in modest dress, i.e., adj. symbol of modest behavior. Thomas says it refers to a garment. Commenting on the meaning of katastolē, Kittle says, So far as may be seen the noun katastolē appears first in Hippocr. De Decentia, 5, 8 in the sense modesty, propriety. The intr. meaning is thus appropriate, ordered conduct and the trans. action with a view to ordered conduct. The further sense of clothes, clothing derived from the fact that decorum finds a first visible expression in clothing. 2

Aidos Defined The Greek word aidos is translated as decently (NRS), modestly (NASB), propriety (NKJ), sensibly (RSV), shamefacedness (KJV), and shamefastness (ASV). It occurs once in the New Testament (1 Tim. 2:9). BAGD say it refers to (1) modesty of women; (2) reverence, respect. BDAG say This term expresses the opposite of considering or treating something in a common or ordinary manner; a respect for convention. Specifically, it describes (1) modesty of women; (2) reverence, respect. Strong/Thayer say it refers to a sense of shame or honour, modesty, bashfulness, reverence, regard for others, respect. Swanson says it describes modesty, decency. Thomas says it refers to a sense of shame. Trench says, AIDOS does not refer merely to the avoidance of open and manifest baseness, It refers to complete control over the passions and desires, so that they are lawful and reasonable. He continues, In 1 st Timothy 2:9, ADIOS refers to that shamefastness or modesty that shrinks from exceeding the limits of womanly reserve, as well as from the dishonor that would justly attach to doing so [p. 83-85]. Faithful Christians adorn themselves decently, modestly, sensibly and with propriety. Their dress and decorum reflect a spirit of shamefastness. Just as modest clothing harmonizes with godly character, so immodest apparel suggests a spirit of insolence and impertinence (Prov. 7:10-23; Isa. 3:16-17). Instead of manifesting a brazen attitude, the people of God are restrained by a sense of shame that is deeply rooted in their character. While many people have lost the ability to blush (Jer. 6:15; 8:12), true disciples shrink back from anything that would be dishonorable, avoid anything that would leave the wrong impression, and shun anything that would cast doubts regarding their judgment, character and integrity. All that they do reflects a spirit of reverence and respectfulness. Sophrosune Defined The Greek word sophrosune is translated as discreetly (NASB), moderation (NKJ), seemly (RSV), sobriety (KJV, ASV), and suitable (NRS). BAGD say it means (1) reasonableness, rationality, mental soundness; (2) good judgment, moderation, self-control. BDAG say define it as (1) generally soundness of mind, reasonableness, rationality; (2) practice of prudence, good judgment, moderation, self-control as exercise of care and intelligence appropriate to circumstances. Strong/Thayer say it refers to (1) soundness of mind; (2) selfcontrol, sobriety. Swanson says it refers to (1) sound judgment, think sensibly; (2) moderation, self-discipline. Thomas defines it as soundness of mind, self-control. Trench says this word refers to that habitual inner self-control, with its constant reign on all the passions and desires, that hinders temptations from overcoming the checks and barriers that AIDOS proposes [p. 85]. This word appears three times in the New Testament (Acts 26:25; 1 Tim. 2:9, 15). It dictates a disposition of discreetness, demands a spirit of sobriety, and directs us toward that which is seemly and suitable. Primarily, moderation speaks of soundness of mind or sanity. When Jesus entered the country of the Gerasenes, which is opposite Galilee, he encountered a demonic who for a long time had not worn clothes or lived in a house, but dwelt in the tombs (Luke 8:26-35). After the Lord cast out the demons that had tormented him, the man is pictured as sitting at Jesus feet, clothed, and in his right mind. This story suggests a modern parallel: When in the 3

presence of one who is immodestly dressed, faithful Christians are sorely tempted to exclaim, Are you out of your mind?! This is especially true when the offender is supposedly a Christian. The Holy Spirit used kosmios, aidos, and sophrosune to portray the dress and demeanor of a faithful Christian. We need to instill in the hearts of men who profess to be holy and women who profess to be godly an appreciation for the meaning of these terms. Translating their meaning from Greek into English, scholars use the words decency, discreetly, moderation, modest, modestly, proper, propriety, seemly, sensibly, shamefacedness, shamefastness, sobriety, and suitable. Taken as a whole, these terms portray an unmistakable sense of moderation and modest reserve. Rather than pushing us toward the brink of indecency and excess, they lead us away from all that is inappropriate and unseemly. Cumulatively, these words make it impossible for us to justify the various forms of immodest attire so prevalent in our culture. The ancient Roman world was as decadent and immoral as our own time. However, the gospel of Christ had a dramatic effect upon the morals and mores of society. The ISBE (1915) contains an interesting comment on the changes in character and condition of women wrought by Christianity: They no longer needed the former splendor of outward adornment, because [they were] clothed with the beauty and simplicity of Christ-like character. They exchanged the temples, theaters, and festivals of paganism for the home, labored with their hands, cared for their husbands and children, graciously dispensed Christian hospitality, nourished their spiritual life in the worship, service and sacraments of the church, and in loving ministries to the sick. Their modesty and simplicity were a rebuke to and reaction from the shameless extravagances and immoralities of heathenism. That they were among the most conspicuous examples of the transforming power of Christianity is manifest from the admiration and astonishment of the pagan Libanius who exclaimed, What women these Christians have! [s.v. Woman ]. God is not Always Satisfied with Our Choices Certain eternal and unchanging principles are set forth in the opening chapters of Genesis. In the beginning, God created man as a free-moral agent (Gen. 1:26; 2:16-17). In the beginning, God placed man in a position of dominion over all the creation (Gen. 1:26; 9:1-2). In the beginning, God instituted marriage and ordained the proper relationship between husbands and wives (Gen. 2:20-24). In the beginning, God emphasized the gravity and guilt of sin (Gen. 3, 4 & 6). In the beginning, God accentuated the difference between authorized and unauthorized worship (Gen. 4:1-7). In the beginning, God stood in judgment of man s vice and violence, wickedness and corruption (Gen. 6-8). In the beginning, God ordained capital punishment in order to ensure social justice and a respect for human life (Gen. 9:5-6). Christians recognize that the Law of Moses has been superseded by the Gospel of Christ (Eph. 2:14-15; Col. 2:13-14). Nevertheless, the aforementioned principles predate the covenant of blood that was instituted at Sinai. They are founded in the very character of God Himself. Because they express the unchanging will of God, these ethical ideals are eternally valid. Thus, we should not be surprised to discover that they are reflected in the Patriarchal, Mosaic and 4

Christian dispensations. The New Testament repeatedly refers back to the opening chapters of Genesis to emphasize the unchanging nature of certain truths, especially in those passages that relate to marriage, the roles of men and women, and modesty (Matt. 19:3-9; Mark 10:1-12; 1 Cor. 14:34-35; Eph. 5:25-33; 1 Tim. 2:9-15). Let us give special consideration to how the third chapter of Genesis addresses the issue of modesty. In their original ignorant and innocent state, the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed (Gen. 2:25). However, after eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve realized they were naked and were ashamed (Gen. 3:6-7). Please note that nakedness is not something shameful in the private and personal relationship of a husband and wife (Heb. 13:4). Rather, shame and embarrassment occurs when third parties are present. Adam and Eve were ashamed when God came to visit with them in the cool of the evening (Gen. 3:8-10). Man s Choice of Clothing When Adam and Even realized they were naked, they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings (Gen. 3:7). Some Bible versions say aprons (KJV, ASV, RSV), while others say coverings (NKJ), loin coverings (NAS), or loincloths (NRS). The Hebrew word chagor or chagorah occurs 8x in the Old Testament (Gen. 3:7; 1 Sam. 18:4; 2 Sam. 18:11; 20:8; 1 Kings 2:5; 2 Kings 3:21; Prov. 31:24; Isa. 3:24). According to OT usage, it refers to a girdle, a belt, a sash, a loin-covering, a loin-cloth, or to armor that would cover the midsection of the body. Thomas says it refers to a girdle, loin covering, belt [2290ab]. BDB say it refers to a (1) belt, girdle; (2) a girdle, loin-covering, belt [292a]. Gesenius identifies it as a binding, hence a girdle, a belt; a girdle, an apron [p. 260]. Strong defines it as (1) girdle, belt; (2) girdle, loin-covering, belt, loin-cloth, armour. [2290]. Swanson says it describes a (1) covering, i.e., a garment made of plant leaves (Gen. 3:7), note: the amount of skin covered is not known, but at least the private parts of the body; (2) leather belt, used to hold implements of war; (3) sash, i.e., an ornamental band around the waist, likely made of some precious cloth; (4) chagar chagowrah means to be of fighting age, formally, gird up a belt [2514]. Hebrew CHAGOWR KETHONETH KJV Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. God made coats of skins, and clothed them. NKJ Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. For Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them. ASV Adam and Eve sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons. God made for Adam and for his wife coats of skins, and clothed them. NAS Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. NRS Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. God made garments of skins for the man and for his wife, and clothed them. RSV Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves together God made for Adam and for his wife 5

and made themselves aprons. garments of skins, and clothed them. God s Choice of Clothing Yet, their original efforts to correct this problem were wholly inadequate. Adam and Eve still felt ashamed at their naked condition even though they had made loin coverings for themselves (Gen. 3:7, 10). Moreover, the Lord was not satisfied with their feeble efforts. To correct this deficiency, God gave them modest clothing (Gen. 3:21). According to the KJV and the ASV, God made coats of skins for Adam and Eve and clothed them. The RSV, NASB and NRS say that God made garments of skins. The NKJ says that God made tunics of skin, and clothed them. The Hebrew word kethoneth or kuttoneth occurs 29x in the Old Testament (Gen. 3:21; 37:3, 23, 31, 32, 33; Exod. 28:4, 39, 40; 29:5, 8; 39:27; 40:14; Lev. 8:7; 8:13; 10:5; 16:4; 2 Sam. 13:18; 13:19; 15:32; Ezra 2:69; Neh. 7:70, 72; Job 30:18; Song of Sol. 5:3; Isa. 22:21). When used elsewhere in the OT, this word identifies Joseph s coat of many colors, the priestly garments worn by the Levites, and the typical clothing of both men and women. Thomas says it refers to a tunic [3801]. BDB also define it as a tunic. Moreover, it was the principal ordinary garment of man and woman, worn next the person, having long skirts and sleeves [509a]. Holladay says it identifies a long shirt-like (under-) garment. [p. 167]. Gesenius says the word refers to a tunic, an inner garment next to the skin; also worn by women; generally with sleeves, coming down to the knees, rarely to the ankles) [p. 420]. Strong says it refers to a tunic, an under-garment, a long shirt-like garment usually of linen [3801]. Swanson defines it as (1) tunic, garment, i.e., clothing as a covering more complete than a loincloth, a basic garment reaching the knees and so a common garment for common wear and work; (2) unit: (kutonet pas) special tunic, i.e., long robe with long sleeves, with a special focus that this garment is not work clothing. Note: a good argument can be given that tunic was special because it was a richly ornamented robe [4189]. The TWOT says it refers to a tunic, a long shirt-like garment, usually of linen [1058a]. Israelites typically wore an inner and outer garment (Matt. 5:40; 21:6-8; 24:18; Acts 22:22-23; 2 Tim. 4:13). Both were similarly shaped, except the outer garment was somewhat heavier. According to Revell, the cloak [i.e., the outer garment], was typically a large square of cloth with armholes. It fell to or below the knee. [s.v. Cloak ]. Contrast Standards How were the God-made garments different from the loincloths of Adam and Eve? First of all, animal skins were more permanent than fig leaves. Secondly, they were more effective in covering the body. The concealment afforded by fig leaves was flimsy and faulty, but animal skins provided an opaque, nontransparent covering. Finally, while the fig leaves covered only the generative portions of the body, the tunics that God made covered the body from the shoulders to the knees. In the third chapter of Genesis, God established clothing specifically, modest clothing as a permanent institution among men and women. 6

It is also instructive to note that God prescribed tunics for the Israelite priests (Exod. 28:4, 40). Jesus wore a tunic (John 19:23-24), as did the disciples (Luke 9:3). Dorcas made tunics for the widows (Acts 9:39). Hence, from the beginning to the end of Holy Writ, God approved of tunics as decent apparel. In fact, they continue to be worn in the Middle East even today, and they still cover the body as they did in Bible times. Of course, the significant point here is not to bind a particular style of clothing, but rather to show the consistent manner in which God required the human body to be covered. So long as our garments effectively cover the body from the shoulders to the knees, they may vary dramatically in style and texture, composition and color. Yet, a few words of warning are in order. Christians should endeavor to remain properly covered while standing and sitting, when physically active, and while at rest. Let us be mindful of the potential exposure that may occur from different viewing angles. If a woman s top is too loose or too low, she is in danger of exposing cleavage, especially if someone else is situated at a higher angle. If her blouse is too loose, she is in danger of exposing her undergarments, especially if someone else is standing at her side. Also, she may inadvertently expose her thigh if she does not exercise caution when sitting in a cross-legged position. It does little good for someone to be covered from the shoulders to the knees, if their clothing is so form-fitting that it simply changes the color of their skin. It does little good for someone to be covered from the shoulders to the knees, if their clothing is sheer or transparent, thus exposing the body. It does little good for a woman to wear a knee-length skirt if a slit extends half-way up the side or the back. It does little good for men to wear jogging shorts that extend to the knees when standing, but expose most of their thigh if they are careless when sitting. Let us consistently apply these principles to men and women, boys and girls, young and old. Modesty is required of both holy men and godly women. The Bible Condemns All Forms of Public Nakedness The Hebrew and Greek words that are translated naked or nakedness can have several distinct meanings: First of all, these words may refer to one who is completely nude and bereft of any clothing (Gen. 2:25; 3:7; Job 1:21; Eccl. 5:15; Mark 14:51-52). Secondly, these words may refer to a state of partial nakedness or inadequate dress. Often these words are used to describe someone who is raggedly, poorly or inadequately clad (Gen. 3:10; Deut. 28:48; Job 22:6; 24:7, 10; Isa. 58:7; Ezek. 18:7, 18; Matt. 25:35-44; Acts 19:16; Rom. 8:35; 1 Cor. 4:11; 2 Cor. 11:27; James 2:15). Even after Adam and Eve had sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings, he said, I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself (Gen. 3:7-10). They were ashamed because their attempt at covering themselves was inadequate. 7

On other occasions, these words can describe someone who, having taken off his mantle [or outer garment], is clad only in his tunic [or inner garment]. Even though other clothing was worn under the cloak, and the cloak might be taken off when working in the heat, a man without his cloak was spoken of as naked. After his resurrection, Jesus appeared unto his disciples at the Sea of Tiberius. When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher s coat unto him, (for he was naked), and did cast himself into the sea (John 21:7, KJV). The NKJ says Simon put on his outer garment (for he had removed it). The NASB says he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work). Thomas defines the Greek word ependutēs, derived from ependuomai [to have on over], as an outer tunic [1903]. BDAG say it refers to a garment put on over another garment, outer garment, coat. The cloak [outer garment] also served as a covering at night. In Job 22:6, in which Eliphaz accuses Job, saying, For thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother for nought, and stripped the naked of their clothing (KJV). Several modern versions echo this rendition, saying, you have stripped the naked of their clothing (NKJ, NRSV, ESV). This correlates with the Mosaic stipulation of returning a pledged cloak before sunset (Exod. 22:26-27). Finally, these words may carry a metaphorical, symbolic or figurative meaning. Nakedness may express desolation (Jer. 49:10), the soul without the body (2 Cor. 5:1-4), the things that are exposed to the All-Seeing eyes of God (Heb. 4:13). It may describe the carnality of a local congregation (Rev. 3:17-18), the degradation of a soul unprepared to meet its Maker (Rev. 16:15), or the utter desolation that would befall imperial Rome (Rev. 17:16). While it may be difficult to determine which specific meaning applies in a given context, nevertheless, in all cases, except for Genesis 2:25, nakedness carries a distinct sense of shame. Adam and Eve were ashamed to meet with God after they ate of the tree of knowledge (Gen. 3:8-10). Dishonor is clearly manifest when Noah became drunk and uncovered himself (Gen. 9:20-27). Foreshadowing the overthrow of Egypt and Ethiopia, Isaiah said that prisoners from both countries would be lead away captive, naked and barefoot, to the shame of Egypt (Isa. 20:3-4). Lamenting over the Chaldeans, the prophet pictures the humiliation of the virgin daughter of Babylon: She sits on the ground, stripped of her skirt, with her nakedness uncovered and her shame exposed (Isa. 47:1-3). Micah uses similar language to describe the destruction of Israel and Judah (Mic. 1:11). Because the citizens of Jerusalem had given themselves over to idolatry, they would experience the humiliation of a harlot whose lewdness and nakedness is uncovered before the eyes of her lovers (Ezek. 16:35-39; 23:28-30). Finally, the shame and disgrace of nakedness is twice alluded to in the Book of Revelation. Jesus admonished the church at Laodicea to buy from me white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed (Rev. 3:18). Emphasizing the need for continued watchfulness, the Lord said, Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his clothes, so that he will not walk about naked and men will not see his shame (Rev. 16:15). Each of these examples presupposes that nakedness outside the marriage relationship is dishonorable. If such were not the case, then all symbolism and significance is lost. Recognizing that the Biblical concept of nakedness refers not only to complete nudity but also to a state of being partially unclothed, an important question now arises: What parts of the body must be covered to insure that we are not exposing our nakedness? 8

The garments that God provided Adam and Eve reached from the shoulders to the knees. The need for modest apparel has existed down through the ages, from the Garden of Eden until today. A thorough study of Scripture reveals that, in order for clothing to be modest, it must cover the thighs, the hips, the waist and the chest. Modest Apparel Should Conceal the Thighs The Levitical priests wore linen trousers/breeches that reached to the knees (Exod. 28:40-43). Note that such garments were worn underneath additional outer layers of clothing. Yet, they were required so that, under all conditions and circumstances, the priest would be modestly clothed. What area was to be covered by the trousers? The text says they shall reach from the loins even to the thighs. Does this mean that the garment merely extended into the thigh area? No, they fully covered the thigh. The Old Testament repeatedly uses from to expressions that would define a range of things from one extreme to another, including everything in between (Job 2:7; Lev. 13:12-13; Num. 6:4; 2 Sam. 3:10; Jer. 31:34). Accordingly, the ISBE (Revised) says, breeches were a garment, extending from the waist to or just below the knee or to the ankle, and covering each leg separately [s.v. Breeches ]. Moreover, the altar was to be without steps so as to prevent indecent exposure while climbing up to offer sacrifice (Exod. 20:25-26). This commandment demonstrates that God required a higher moral standard than heathen religions, which were characterized by immodesty and immorality. As an aside, this passage reminds us of the need for modesty in all positions and postures: standing, sitting, kneeling, bending, etc. Another passage worth considering is God s description of the overthrow of Babylon, wherein Isaiah likens that cruel northern nation to a woman whose nakedness is exposed. He said, Take off the skirt, and uncover the thigh (Isa. 47:1-3). This language clearly implies that a woman s skirt should cover her thighs. If the thighs are visible, her nakedness is uncovered. Therefore, the people of God should avoid wearing any clothing in public that would expose or accentuate the thighs. Examples of inappropriate clothing include typical high-school/college cheerleading uniforms, mini-skirts, slit-skirts, shorts, swimsuits, etc. The point can also be seen in New Testament terminology. Paul said, Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments (1 Tim. 2:9, NASB). As previously noted, the Greek word katastolē, translated clothing, occurring only here in the New Testament, and refers to one s garments or outward attire. The noun katastolē is derived from the verb katastellō [to keep down], which itself is a compound of kata [down] and stellō [to arrange, prepare, gather up, hence to restrain]. The Greek word stolē [apparel] is derived from the aforementioned root word stellō. Thomas defines stolē as equipment, apparel [4749]. BDAG say this word, like its root, refers to a robe, especially, a long, flowing robe. This word is found in various New Testament passages (Mark 12:38; 16:5; Luke 15:22; 20:46; Rev. 6:11; 7:9, 13; 7:14; 22:14) 9

In commenting on 1 st Timothy 2:9, Adam Clark says, The apostle seems to refer here to different parts of the Grecian and Roman dress. The stolē seems to have been originally very simple. It was a long piece of cloth, doubled in the middle, and sewed up on both sides, having room only for the arms; at the top, a piece was cut out, or a slit made, through which the head passed. It hung down to the feet, both before and behind, and was girded with the zona round the body, just under the breasts. It was sometimes made with, sometimes without, sleeves; and, that it might sit the better, it was gathered on each shoulder with a band or buckle. Some of the Greek women wore them open on each side, from the bottom up above the knee, so as to discover a part of the thigh. These were termed phainomeerides, showers (discoverers) of the thigh; but it was, in general, only young girls or immodest women who wore them thus [Clark s Commentary, s.v. 1 Timothy 2:9 ]. Before moving on to the next point, let us quote from Brother Connie Adams who made the following comments at the Hebron Lane Church of Christ in Shepherdsville, KY on 9/2/97: I want to say one more thing about Christians and shorts. Brethren often have potlucks. I m often hesitant about attending potlucks in warm weather, because I know before I go that some of my brothers or some of my sisters will show up in attire which, so far as I am concerned, is immodest. They often come in what s called walking shorts. The problem with shorts is that they don t have as much material in them as a skirt does. A woman can have a skirt down to her knees, and when she sits down, she s got enough cloth that she can protect herself and not be exposed to everybody. But you don t have enough cloth with shorts. Those who wear walking shorts are fairly modest when they are standing up. But there is one thing about these walking shorts. Sooner or later, walkers get tired, and they have to sit down. Then when they sit down at a picnic table, and they cross their legs, it all the sudden becomes a leg show. I m calling it what it is. It s a leg show, and brethren didn t used to go to leg shows! Christians used to know the difference between right and wrong on this subject, but somehow, it seems we don t know the difference anymore. Modest Apparel Should Conceal the Hips & Waist We gain some insight into this issue by the harsh actions of Hanun, the son of Nahash, king of the Ammonites. When David sent ambassadors to console the Ammonite king on the death of his father, Hanun dishonored David s ambassadors by shaving off half of their beards and cutting off their clothes in the middle, thus exposing their hips. Upon hearing of this scandalous disgrace, David declared war against the Ammonites (2 Sam. 10:1-4). Another example would be that of Isaiah, who walked naked and barefoot three years as a sign against Egypt and Ethiopia. This example showed that Israel should not make alliances with such nations because they would also be led away captive, naked and barefoot, with their buttocks uncovered (Isa. 20:1-4). Notice again that nakedness is defined as exposing the hips. Therefore, Christians should avoid wearing any clothing in public that would expose or accentuate the hips. Many modern bathing suits expose more of the hips than they conceal. Tight clothing can also expose the buttocks. Many folks wear clothing so tight that the effect is the same as if they were naked. Leotards, Spandex, and tight fitting jeans only change the color of 10

one s skin. The world understands how men react to such clothing. Conway Twitty once popularized a ribald song about the angel who was a devil in her tight fitting jeans. Let s not foolishly deceive ourselves in this regard. One other point can be made from Exodus 28:42, which teaches that the priests were to be covered from the loins/waist to the thigh. Recognizing the inclusive nature of this passage, not only does it indicate that an uncovered thigh is nakedness, it shows that an uncovered loin/waist is also counted as nakedness. Hence, the waist must be covered as well. Bare midriffs are condemned based on this principle. Modest Apparel Should Conceal the Chest A woman s breasts should give pleasure to her husband, not be put on open display for enjoyment of every carnal-minded man who walks along (Prov. 5:15-20). Again the same principle of modesty applies to this portion of the anatomy: A public display of the chest is equated with nakedness (Ezek. 16:7-8). Therefore, Christians should avoid wearing any clothing in public that would expose or accentuate the chest/breasts. This would prohibit men from appearing in public without a shirt. It would also exclude various kinds of female attire: haltertops, sundresses, see-through blouses, low-cut styles that reveal cleavage, sleeveless tops with armholes that are too large, and strapless evening gowns [also called gownless evening straps ]. Answering Common Objections Modesty cannot be defined. Some would say that modesty cannot be defined. However, Christians are commanded to dress modestly (1 Tim. 2:9-10; 1 Thess. 4:3-4). God has never given a command that cannot be understood and obeyed (Deut. 29:29; Eph. 5:17). God commanded baptism. God ordained a pattern for the work, worship and organization of the church. Can we understand our duty in that regard? If so, we can understand our responsibility in this area. Each person determines modesty for themselves. Some would say, Each individual defines modesty for themselves. If a man, woman, boy or girl looks in a mirror and determines that he/she is modest, no one has the right to say otherwise. If this premise is correct, every person becomes a law unto themselves (cf. Judg. 21:25). Yet, man is not morally autonomous (Deut. 12:8; Psa. 12:3-4; Prov. 14:12). The righteous trust not in themselves but in God s revealed word (Prov. 3:5). It s the only thing on the rack. Some would say, It s the only thing on the rack. I d like to wear modest clothing, but stores don t carry anything modest. I have no other choice. First of all, the assertion is false. One may have to shop the clearance rack instead of the hot and sassy section, but modest clothing is available. One cannot be a servant of Christ and a slave to fashion (Matt. 6:24; Gal. 1:10). Even 11

if the assertion was true, it is no excuse for wrong-doing. If the grocery store only sold marijuana-laced brownies, would you buy and serve them to your family, saying, It s the only thing on the shelf? No, you would learn how to bake brownies from scratch. In like manner, godly women will do whatever is necessary to properly clothe their families. What does the Bible say? The husband/father is command to provide for his family (1 Tim. 5:8). The wife/mother is to clothe her family (Prov. 31:10, 13, 19, 21-22). A man should learn how to work; a woman should learn how to shop, or alternatively, to sew. Circumstances determine modesty. Some would argue that modesty is situational, that circumstances determine appropriateness: In other words, you may wear a swimsuit at the beach, but not at the mall. No shirt, no shoes, no service is seemingly more authoritative than Scripture. How does one provide a Biblical answer to this assertion? In one sense, clothing needs to be appropriate to the activity. We wear certain clothing when working in the garden, and other attire at a wedding. However, purity and holiness are demanded in all circumstances (2 Cor. 7:1; 1 Pet. 1:14-16). Conscience determines modesty. Many would argue that conscience determines modesty. If a person is sincere, they will make the right choices. However, the conscience must be properly educated. Paul was sincere, but mistaken in his assessment of Christ and the church (Acts 23:1; 24:16; 26:9-15; 1 Tim. 1:13). Custom determines modesty. Others argue that custom defines modesty. Our custom accepts bathing suits; therefore, bathing suits are acceptable. Certain primitive cultures fully expose the breasts. Does that make it right? If it was a custom to go nude, could we all go nude? To ask the question is to answer it. God has decreed that nakedness is shameful (Isa. 47:1-3; Rev. 3:18; 16:15). It s your problem, not mine! Some would justify immodesty attire by saying, It s your problem, not mine. If I wear shorts, and someone looks with lust, he/she has a heart problem. Yes, if a man looks upon a woman to lust after her, he is guilty of sin (Matt. 5:27-28). The eyes, heart and mind must be controlled (Job 31:1). However, no one should cast a stumbling block in the pathway of another (Luke 17:1-2). I accept only modern definitions. Some would say, I will accept only modern definitions of relevant words. They reject the Biblical definition of modesty in favor of looser modern definitions. In discussing this subject, some would bring an English dictionary to the table, but refuse to consider any reference works that address the Biblical words or their lexical meanings. If such an approach is valid in determining modesty, why wouldn t it be a valid method of defining the mode of baptism? The 12

Random House Dictionary of the English Language (2nd Ed. Unabridged) says baptize means to immerse in water or sprinkle or pour water on in the Christian rite of baptism. Are we going to accept the broader modern English definition, or are we going to respect the meaning of the ancient Biblical text? Elders cannot establish a dress code. Some would say that elders cannot establish a dress code. However, God is the One who issued the command and established the code (Deut. 11:1; 2 John 6). Just as parents are charged with enforcement of standards in the home, elders have a similar obligation in the local church. Therefore, we are commanded to obey our spiritual overseers (1 Tim. 5:17-18; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:1-2). Like subordinate officers on a field of battle, their duty is to execute the orders of their commander. Elders watch for danger, enforce order, and command obedience to the Biblical pattern regarding the work, worship, organization, and moral purity of the church. If they cannot enforce standards in this area, they cannot enforce standards in any area. You are binding the Old Testament. Some argue that the aforementioned passages cannot be used today to define nakedness because they come from the Old Testament. Since the Old Covenant has been set aside, we are told that it cannot be used to define and illustrate terms that are used in the New Covenant. However, this is patently false. Yes, the Law of Moses has been nailed to the cross, but let us also recognize that the things that were written beforehand were written for our learning (Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:6, 11). Many important concepts are set forth in the Old Testament. Hebrews 11 refers back to the examples of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Jacob, Joseph, Moses, etc. Their collective examples illustrate and define the obedient nature of saving faith. Many principles of truth, first affirmed in the Old Testament, are repeated in the Gospel of Christ. They are binding today, not because they are contained in the Old canon, but are commanded in the New. When laws are repeated in the New Testament, we may rightly use the Old Testament as a basis for our understanding of those laws, unless something in the New Testament modifies or expands its meaning. Nakedness stands condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Modesty is commanded in the Patriarchal, Mosaic and Christians dispensations. We go to the Old Testament, not for authority, but for definitions. Murder is defined in the Old Testament. The Law of Moses distinguishes between intentional murder, manslaughter, etc. (Exod. 21:12-14; Deut. 19:4-5). This definition is assumed in the New Testament. The New Testament presupposes the Old Testament definitions and distinctions. There is no need for the New Testament to redefine such concepts. The same is true of adultery. God defined this word in the Old Testament (Exod. 20:14; Lev. 20:10; etc.). However, when the New Testament was written, the Lord did not have to go back and redefine the word. The Old Testament meaning was carried forward into the Christian age. If someone today gives a new and radically different meaning to the word adultery (such as those who redefine adultery as 13

mere covenant breaking), that ought to be a warning signal to those who know and love the truth. The same thing is true regarding other significant words, actions or concepts (Exod. 20:12-17). In affirming that preachers of the gospel could receive financial support, Paul said, I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things? Then he quoted from Deuteronomy 25:4, which says, You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing (1 Cor. 9:9-10). Was Paul binding the Old Testament? No, he was emphasizing a principle that has remained unchanged from generation to generation. The same is true regarding the issue under discussion. Israelites were to be unrelenting in their opposition to idolatry. Moses said, You shall not worship their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their deeds; but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their sacred pillars in pieces (Exod. 23:24). He added, But thus you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire (Deut. 7:5). Although these words apply directly to the nation of Israel, a political theocracy, nevertheless, there is a spiritual application that must be made the Christian era: namely, we must militantly oppose false religions. Paul said, We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5). In like manner, God s assessment of nakedness has not changed. In referencing the Old Testament, we are not seeking to bind the covenant of circumcision, but to define and illustrate eternal, unchanging principles. God s commendation of modesty and condemnation of immodesty remains constant from dispensation to dispensation. God created the human body with its assorted appetites, including man s innate craving for sexual gratification. Men have always been stimulated when viewing the form of a naked or inadequately clothed female. The same could also be said of women concerning men. Are we to believe that people in the Old Testament experienced such longings, but today we are not affected by similar desires? Does the fact that we live in the Christian dispensation make us physiologically different? Of course not! Clothing was not given because of the temperature in the Garden, but rather because of the temperature [i.e. passions] in the body. The male-female attraction is a universal, unchanging characteristic of human nature. God s regulations concerning public exposure of nakedness can change only in as much as human nature has changed since the creation. So far, it does not appear that human nature has changed. The Relationship Between Modesty And Marriage Sexual Fulfillment should be Found within Marriage God created the sexual impulse, and ordained that the expression and fulfillment of this desire should occur only within the relationship of marriage (Prov. 5:15-20; Heb. 13:4). Let us realize that the very concept of modesty is tied to the sacredness of the marriage relationship. Not only is one s body to be preserved for his or her spouse in the sexual relationship, but the body is also to be covered until one enters into the marital relationship. Sadly, too many people miss the point of modest dress. When a person exposes their body in public, they are exposing something that 14

belongs to their spouse or their future spouse. If you have exposed yourself to others, you have given your mate used goods. You are not giving him/her anything that hundreds of other men/women have not seen before. Therefore, except in the privacy of the marital relationship, we should not dress in ways that would be visually stimulating to members of the opposite sex. In all other circumstances, husbands and wives should be chaste and pure in their public dress and demeanor (2 Cor. 11:2; Titus 2:3-5; 1 Pet. 3:1-2). Immodest Dress Outside of Marriage Is Lascivious Immodest clothing is wrong for the same reason that dancing and pornography are wrong: They are all lascivious, i.e., sexually suggestive. Smutty movies tend to produce lusts. So does dirty dancing. So does immodest clothing. Each is a different manifestation of the same problem. Therefore, let us resolve to avoid that which is lustful, lewd, and lascivious (Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 4:17-24; 1 Pet. 4:1-4). Purity requires a distinct effort by both men and women. Like the patriarch Job, we should determine not to look lustfully at members of the opposite sex. He said, I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl (Job 31:1, NIV). Lecherous and licentious thoughts are just as sinful as overt immorality (Matt. 5:28). However, we should wear modest clothing ourselves, so that we do not cast a stumblingblock in the pathway of another (Rom. 14:13). God will not deal lightly with those who lead others to sin (Luke 17:1-2). Therefore, let us glorify God in our bodies and our spirits (1 Cor. 6:19-20). Conclusion Our study leads us to an inescapable conclusion: God intends for men and women to be clothed in public. Far too many professing Christians want to see how short, how low, how tight, how revealing they can wear their clothes. They push the limits of modesty and decorum. How do you distinguish between modest and immodest clothing? If your clothing exposes the thighs, the hips, the waist, or the chest, it is immodest. If you have to pull it up, tug it down, walk funny, or if your clothing is so form fitting that it only changes the color of your skin, it is immodest. This matter requires eternal vigilance. One generation may show admirable restraint in their dress and demeanor, but unless parents diligently impress their children with the importance of modesty, the next generation will show considerably less reserve. Before long, Christians have moved from being a modest people to a grossly immodest people. Brethren, we are drifting Sources: BAGD = Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated By W. F. Arndt & F. W. Gingrich. 2nd ed. Revised & Augmented by F. W. Gingrich & F. W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, c1957, 1979. 15

BDAG = Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Clark = Clark, Adam, Clark s Commentaries. electronic ed. BibleSoft, 1996. Gesenius = Gesenius, H. W. F. Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament. 1857; Reprint ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979. Holladay = Holladay, W. L. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1971. ISBE (1915) = Orr, James, ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 1915 ed. Seattle, WA: BibleSoft, 1996 ISBE (Revised) = Bromiley, Geoffrey, ed. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Revised ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988, 2002. Kittle = Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley & Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1971, 1999. NASB or NASB95 = New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update Edition. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995. Revell = The Revell Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1990. Strong = Strong, James. The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. electronic ed. Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship, 1996. Swanson = Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Hebrew. electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997. Thayer = Thayer, Joseph. Thayer s Greek Lexicon and Brown, Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon. Seattle, WA: BibleSoft & Ontario, Canada: Woodside Bible Fellowship, 1993, 1996. Thomas = Thomas, Robert L., New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries: Updated Edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1991, 1998. Trench = Trench, Richard Chenevix, ed. Robert G. Hoerber, Synonyms of the New Testament. 1876; Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989. 16