The Heart of Modesty
- 8 views
There are three words in 1 Tim 2:9 that are mentioned here. In the KJV they are modest (kosmios), shamefacedness (aidos), and sobriety (sophrosyne). It’s this second term that speaks to dressing with a “sense of shame or honor, modesty bashfulness, reverence, regard for others, respect.” [Outline of Biblical Usage per Blue Letter Bible] So, dressing with a sense of shamefacedness is dressing in a way that is honorable, that avoids the shame of nakedness, and that is bashful about exposing what is inappropriate. There are plenty of verses in the Bible that connect shame with inappropriate covering or dishonorable covering (what is often referred to as “nakedness” and does not normally mean being completely nude), and thus helps inform what modest covering actually entails (for both men and women).
“There are plenty of verses in the Bible that connect shame with inappropriate covering or dishonorable covering (what is often referred to as “nakedness” and does not normally mean being completely nude)…”
That being said, it’s not like we can or should expect everyone to share the same ideas of what causes shame. Proverbs warns us of the strange woman, who has no shame, as a quick example.
Unbelievers have a radically different opinion of what it shameful from what believers do. Believers themselves can differ on what should and should not cause shame based on their individual liberties and the level of their conscience and how informed it is; I’m certain that if we discussed specific examples of what should and shouldn’t ‘cause shame’ that the SI members would be divided about it. Paul comments on this in 1 Cor. 10 - some people were horribly offended by the idea of eating meat offered to idols, and some had no compulsions about avoiding it.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
1. Laws of nakedness in the Bible would seem to apply here.
If you’re talking OT laws, then no, they do not. The OT laws have been done away with, and the only references to ‘naked’ or ‘nakedness’ that I found in the NT are in Romans 8:35, Revelation 16:15, & Revelation 17:16. None of them apply in this discussion.
We have to stop pulling passages that are clearly written for the nation of Israel as a part of the Mosiac Law and forcing them into an New Testament context in order to defend whatever current practice we have. End of story.
It is an even stranger position to take that we must rigidly apply Scriptures only to the exact context in which their truth is expressed. We don’t live in the 1st century. The 1st century context informs us as to meaning but not to application. If you want to insist it informs us as to application, then the Scriptures have nothing to say to us at all. We don’t live in the same context.
How is it ‘strange’ to rigidly apply specific principles for specific people at a specific point in God’s work from hundreds/thousands of years ago to only that context? I’d be pretty concerned if we took the OT laws on say, the handling of dead bodies and applied them to the church. Aren’t the books of Galatians and Hebrews clear enough on this?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
…is the definition of aidos. One use in Scripture not referencing coverage directly, and a few from Homer/etc.. that also…do not seem to address coverage. And here is the third word.
As Ron’s comment towards the top notes well, we have to be careful that we read these definitions in their historical and literary context, not from our cultural preconceptions. There is indeed a Biblical case for coverage, but it’s going to be a bit more sophisticated than to simply see the word “modesty” in the definition and assume that it refers to covering up. As I noted above, it’s more than likely that, had they been told explicitly to cover up private areas with clothing, their response would be as if we were told to breathe—“you’re telling us this why, exactly?”.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Jay] That being said, it’s not like we can or should expect everyone to share the same ideas of what causes shame. Proverbs warns us of the strange woman, who has no shame, as a quick example.That’s true. The Bible refers to those who have been given up to a debased mind and to the dishonoring of their bodies. Christians, though, ought to have a renewed mind based on revelation from God’s word regarding these matters. I don’t believe it is nearly as subjective as some make it out to be. If the Bible says something is shameful, shouldn’t we agree?
[Jay] If you’re talking OT laws, then no, they do not. The OT laws have been done away with…The OT and the Mosaic Law are still authoritative Scripture. It may not be authoritative directly or in the same way as it was to Israel but we can’t just dismiss OT Law as having no bearing on our daily NT lives. Should we just excise Lev 18 from our Bibles? Or when the passage says over and over again, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your
I, too, believe that the Hebrew idiom used in Leviticus 18 means something, and it beautifully illustrates the difference between many uses of the Torah and the right use. Very often, people will quote, say, Leviticus 19:28’s prohibition on tattoos and ritual scarring and say “that settles it” without understanding why it might be wrong to have a tattoo, but we’re OK violating Leviticus 19:27’s prohibition of cutting the corners of one’s beard.
Looking at the word picture of Leviticus 18, however, ought to force us to do a little bit of Biblical theology to get to systematics. What does it mean to uncover nakedness? Is it just the sex act, or is there an assumption that when X body parts are uncovered, that fornication is coming? Which parts? Is it just the Hebrews, or do we think about the same way in our culture? Is this a universal, or near-universal? What other passages would give us this hint, or modify our views?
In many ways, we’re left with the issue of “covering up” much in the same place we find ourselves vis-a-vis abortion; how do we address practices that were unthinkable to our ancestors in the faith, and hence are not discussed in Scripture? We are usually working from word pictures or narrative passages, trying to suss out what God thought of the matter, and then trying to see if we’ve got a reasonable parallel to today’s life.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The OT and the Mosaic Law are still authoritative Scripture. It may not be authoritative directly or in the same way as it was to Israel but we can’t just dismiss OT Law as having no bearing on our daily NT lives. Should we just excise Lev 18 from our Bibles?
You’re right. The next time I head to the Temple to offer a burnt offering, we should get coffee afterwards and discuss this further.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I agree. I’ll meet you in the court of the gentiles, by the fifth pillar, after morning prayers. Unless, of course, you come into contact with a corpse. If so, I’ll just catch you next week. Watch out for lepers. By the way, I’m running low on cash this week, so if you could spot me a turtledove for a sacrifice, I’ll get you back next month.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Let us remember that Deuteronomy 22:5 addresses that problem of Israelite women wearing pants.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Ron Bean]Let us remember that Deuteronomy 22:5 addresses that problem of Israelite women wearing pants.
Ron, that’s “breeches,” not pants.
[T Howard]Ron Bean wrote:
Let us remember that Deuteronomy 22:5 addresses that problem of Israelite women wearing pants.
Ron, that’s “breeches,” not pants.
Actually, neither, just that which pertains to the opposite sex, no? And figuring out what that is can be another whole ball of wax—and whether I’m obligated or not, I’m very comfortable saying that I apply this by not wearing a bra or skirt! (kilt, on the other hand….just kidding, I don’t own one)
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Anyone want to defend the Mosaic principle of ensuring that only one type of clothing fabric is used in all your clothing, from Leviticus 19:19?
Come on, guys. The liberals and unbelievers have been making these kinds of arguments against us, particularly when it comes to homosexual activity, for dozens of years now. There should been all kinds of good answers for these questions.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay] Anyone want to defend the Mosaic principle of ensuring that only one type of clothing fabric is used in all your clothing, from Leviticus 19:19?Are you claiming they actually have a good point? That Lev 18:22 or Lev 20:13 have no legitimate say any more? Your mocking post earlier came across loud and clear, so I’m not all that inclined to engage further on this, but I’m still surprised at what appears to be your position.Come on, guys. The liberals and unbelievers have been making these kinds of arguments against us, particularly when it comes to homosexual activity, for dozens of years now. There should been all kinds of good answers for these questions.
[Jay]Anyone want to defend the Mosaic principle of ensuring that only one type of clothing fabric is used in all your clothing, from Leviticus 19:19?
Come on, guys. The liberals and unbelievers have been making these kinds of arguments against us, particularly when it comes to homosexual activity, for dozens of years now. There should been all kinds of good answers for these questions.
Jay, I think we need to remember that the people you’re talking about are going to respond with Leviticus 19:27 (and the like) anytime a conclusion from Scripture is reached that does not meet with their desires. Your point about not abusing the law is well taken, but the proper use of God’s Word simply does not ensure that the group to which you refer is going to take it seriously. This kind comes out, really, only by prayer and fasting.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
All joking aside, I do think the issue of the law for today is, as they say, “complicated.” And, speaking of 1 Peter 3:1-6, Peter’s point is not modesty per se. It’s about submission to husbands - which is a whole new can of worms! Jay never did get me that turtledove for my burnt offering; I settled for a young pigeon instead. I got it for a good deal from a guy in the courtyard.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Discussion