SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Modesty for men! But how far?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
PosterThread
Flash_red
Member



Joined: 2006/9/19
Posts: 7
Moody Bible Institute

 Re:

Quote:
Sorry, but you are not correct. Paul spoke of a standard for modesty in 1 Timothy 2:9.


Thanks bro Doug. I apologize for the lack of clarification. I meant a clear directive specifically for men from Christ himself. I understand the ideas of double layering, and I also apologize for the "liberal argument." Please remember that different translations have a different word in 1 Timothy 2:9 (Greek word "himation" meaning clothing, cloak, robe). Perhaps I could explain more of what I meant by that. Christ desires that we shun the fashion fads and immoral clothing of the world when He calls us to be set apart for Him. Nor should we, as believers, in any way adorn ourselves in a self-glorifying manner. The thing I fear is that strong, well-intentioned Christians would become a new form of hyperspiritual with regards to dress standards. Rather than bearing with patience the weaknesses of fellow believers and seeking peace and mutual edification, we would become the "Christian elitists" who scorn and mock those who dress immodestly. I know this may sound ridiculous or even stupid, but I have this silly fear. By completely abstaining from modern dress, would not people be drawing attention to themselves by how strange they look to the modern eye? Are we suppose to dress in the exact same manner as Jesus did? The line between modesty and immodesty is definite, and we should not dress like the world in every way yet some say (as one example) that any type of jeans is immodest on women!?! I need to be taught where these ideas come from so that I may pray about it and search the Scripture for Christ's desire for me. Thanks for the corrections!


_________________
Eric

 2006/9/26 15:46Profile
Dougmore
Member



Joined: 2006/8/30
Posts: 122


 Re:

No problem Flash,

You said,

Quote:
I need to be taught where these ideas come from so that I may pray about it and search the Scripture for Christ's desire for me.



This scripture can be located in Deuteronomy 22:5. "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto men, neither shall a man put on a women's garment: for all that do so are abominable unto the Lord thy God."

A little digging into history shows that until not to long ago, (concerning jeans/pants) they were only worn by men. Through most of human history men and women have had differing apparel, not just styles. It wasn't until our parents/parents generation has this Biblically inspired division among men and women taken shape. It can be summed up to satan trying to undermine Gods divine authority and the authority given to govern man.

Talk to you in future posts, bro Doug

 2006/9/26 21:01Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: Modesty for men! But how far?

Quote:
2. In the beginning of the church the followers of Christ were clothed far more than the modern watered down church.



Hi Doug, has it occurred to you that they were not likely dressed any different than anyone else in their day? No need to go into semantics here, but think your whole premise is flawed. You cannot start with an assumption derived from a couple of off hand mentions of clothing in scripture and then set that up as a straw-man to knock back down. ([i]"Please give input on this subject, (scripture to refute this claim)[/i]"),
Quote:
The point is that God intends us men to be double layered.


That's quite an assumption.
Quote:
1. How was our Lord Jesus clothed? In a pair of shorts and no shirt? Not at all. Just the thought sounds like a hippy Jesus and blasphemous.


Considering that we don't wear tunics these day's how are you going to support the rest of your hypothetical? Besides, other than the particular constraints associated with my present employment, or in other words, submission to those above me, I would still have my long "hippy" hair, it just happens to work for the shape of my head and I prefer it to be quite honest. All that to say I think you are putting far too much emphasis on the wrong thing. If this is such a bother to you I can understand your convictions, but remember they are yours;

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Col 2:19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Col 2:23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

1Pe 2:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

Didn't feel it necessary to speak of the semantics as the overt ought to be enough for each man bearing his own conscience. If you really wanted to get an understanding of the dress in the times of the Lord and the apostles I believe it is available with a bit of research. But as it stands here I think you are making some very poor comparisons.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2006/9/27 0:27Profile
Dougmore
Member



Joined: 2006/8/30
Posts: 122


 Re:

Hi crsschk,

you said,

Quote:
has it occurred to you that they were not likely dressed any different than anyone else in their day?



That is a good question. Back when I still watched tv I remember seeing a special on the history channel about Roman culture. The historians that described the forms of dress spoke of the pagans walking about with little to no clothing on (not all). As for Jewish culture in that day, a harlot could be seen easily even though they were wearing the same or close apparel. They would slice a slit from the waist down the garment so that their legs could then be seen.

As it stands now, you have given me no counter argument except the same liberal one that I used all my life until God reached down and snatched away the desires to be worldly. What we do on the outside of our bodies is just as important as the inside.

You said,
Quote:
But as it stands here I think you are making some very poor comparisons.



No offense brother but you have given absolutely no counter argument to refute what little I do have. Can you give accurate scripture to refute this argument. I must say that the burden of proof rests on you. As I said before, only counter scripture that is applicable to this one subject. Have you any? I'm totally honest with you brother, I want more knowledge on this subject. I want an effective argument to demolish this argument so as to prove it right or wrong.

Quote:
why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,



The early disciples were subject to this, why not ourselves? I am more than happy to submit to God and His commands and the teachings of the apostles. (Including lifestyle)

As for hair, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (1 Cor. 11:14). Not trying to rag on you or anyone else but I am exhorting.

Quote:
Considering that we don't wear tunics these day's how are you going to support the rest of your hypothetical?



The principal apply's today. The question is not about tunics, but rather how one would wear it. Understand me? The same is true for us 2000 years later. Why so much opposition to this if you have it all figured out? Please give clear concise evidence so as to prove this argument false.

Quote:
then set that up as a straw-man to knock back down.


Sure I can. I want advice in argument format.

In Christ Jesus, bro Doug

 2006/9/27 16:07Profile
elias
Member



Joined: 2004/7/13
Posts: 7
cumberland,Virginia

 Re:

I've already told this to you Dougmore, so this is mostly for the benefit of the others.

It seems hard for me to believe that this would be something we are supposed to be doing since all there is in scripture to support it is an allusion in John 21:7. Also, nakedness is a sin; Whenever God spoke of nakedness in scipture or gave commands against it, he never mentioned this as falling within the category of nakedness. I believe tat if God wants us to do something {or not to do something} he clearly lays it out in scripture. Especially if it is a sin, such as nakedness. I

 2006/9/29 16:57Profile
Dougmore
Member



Joined: 2006/8/30
Posts: 122


 Re:

elias,

Are you able to bring scripture to the table that clearly contradicts the practice dual covering? We both would agree that God has given commands that deal with double covering, women's dress, and women's hair and covering. It is in the nature of God to have this for man. I understand that this is not a clear command and may for that matter not be one at all. But the early church did do this, and when we see other scriptures relating to dual covering. not to mention those that threw off a layer were considered naked. (In the eyes of man and God)

To conclude, this may be a Spirit led conviction and most of all we must not let it divide the body.

The fact that the disciples were double covered at that time reveals how far man has fallen from the fear of God and appearance in front of others.

In Christ, bro Doug

 2006/9/29 21:35Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

[i]Joh 21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now 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.[/i]

[b]His fisher’s coat[/b] - His upper or outer garment or tunic, in distinction from the inner garment or tunic which was worn next the skin. In the case of Peter it may have been made of coarse materials such as fishermen commonly wore, or such as Peter usually wore when he was engaged in this employment. Such garments are common with men of this occupation. This outer garment he probably had laid aside.

[b]He was naked[/b] - He was undressed, with nothing on but the undergarment or tunic. The word does not require us to suppose a greater degree of nakedness than this. See the Mar_14:51 note; also 1Sa_19:24 note.

[b]Did cast himself into the sea[/b] - With characteristic ardor, desirous of meeting again his Lord, and showing his affection for him.

Albert Barnes

[b]he girt his fisher's coat unto him[/b]. The Greek word επενδυτης, here used, is manifestly the אפונדת of the Hebrews; and which, the Jewish writers say (b), was a strait garment, which a man put on next his flesh to dry up the sweat; and a very proper one for Peter, who had been toiling all night, and very fit for him to swim in; and, by what follows, appears to be put on him next his flesh:

[b]for he was naked[/b]; for to suppose him entirely naked, whilst fishing, being only in company with men, and those parts of nature having a covering, which always require one, was not at all indecent and unbecoming:

[b]and did cast himself into the sea[/b]; the Syriac adds, "that he might come to Christ"; and the Persic, "and he came to Christ"; showing his great love and eagerness to be with him; and, as fearless of danger, risks all to be with Christ; his love being such, that many waters could not quench, nor floods drown.

John Gill



[b]Dress[/b]

1. Materials used. The earliest and simplest an apron of fig-leaves sewed together (Gen. 3:7); then skins of animals (3:21). Elijah’s dress was probably the skin of a sheep (2 Ki. 1:8). The Hebrews were early acquainted with the art of weaving hair into cloth (Ex. 26:7; 35:6), which formed the sackcloth of mourners. This was the material of John the Baptist’s robe (Mt. 3:4). Wool was also woven into garments (Lev. 13:47; Dt. 22:11; Ezek. 34:3; Job 31:20; Pr. 27:26). The Israelites probably learned the art of weaving linen when they were in Egypt (1 Chr. 4:21). Fine linen was used in the vestments of the high priest (Ex. 28:5), as well as by the rich (Gen. 41:42; Pr. 31:22; Lk. 16:19). The use of mixed material, as wool and flax, was forbidden (Lev. 19:19; Dt. 22:11).
2. Colour. The prevailing colour was the natural white of the material used, which was sometimes rendered purer by the fuller’s art (Ps. 104:1, 2; Isa. 63:3; Mk. 9:3). The Hebrews were acquainted with the art of dyeing (Gen. 37:3, 23). Various modes of ornamentation were adopted in the process of weaving (Ex. 28:6; 26:1, 31; 35:25), and by needle-work (Judg. 5:30; Ps. 45:13). Dyed robes were imported from foreign countries, particularly from Phoenicia (Zeph. 1:8). Purple and scarlet robes were the marks of the wealthy (Lk. 16:19; 2 Sam. 1:24).
3. Form. The robes of men and women were not very much different in form from each other.
a. The “coat” (kethoneth), of wool, cotton, or linen, was worn by both sexes. It was a closely-fitting garment, resembling in use and form our shirt (Jn. 19:23). It was kept close to the body by a girdle (Jn. 21:7). A person wearing this “coat” alone was described as naked (1 Sam. 19:24; Isa. 20:2; 2 Ki. 6:30; Jn. 21:7); deprived of it he would be absolutely naked.
b. A linen cloth or wrapper (sadin) of fine linen, used somewhat as a night-shirt (Mk. 14:51). It is mentioned in Judg. 14:12, 13, and rendered there “sheets.”
c. An upper tunic (meil), longer than the “coat” (1 Sam. 2:19; 24:4; 28:14). In 1 Sam. 28:14 it is the mantle in which Samuel was enveloped; in 1 Sam. 24:4 it is the “robe” under which Saul slept. The disciples were forbidden to wear two “coats” (Mt. 10:10; Lk. 9:3).
d. The usual outer garment consisted of a piece of woollen cloth like a Scotch plaid, either wrapped round the body or thrown over the shoulders like a shawl, with the ends hanging down in front, or it might be thrown over the head so as to conceal the face (2 Sam. 15:30; Esther 6:12). It was confined to the waist by a girdle, and the fold formed by the overlapping of the robe served as a pocket (2 Ki. 4:39; Ps. 79:12; Hag. 2:12; Pr. 17:23; 21:14).
4. Female dress. The “coat” was common to both sexes (Song 5:3). But peculiar to females were
1. the “veil” or “wimple,” a kind of shawl (Ruth 3:15; rendered “mantle,” R.V., Isa. 3:22);
2. the “mantle,” also a species of shawl (Isa. 3:22);
3. a “veil,” probably a light summer dress (Gen. 24:65);
4. a “stomacher,” a holiday dress (Isa. 3:24). The outer garment terminated in an ample fringe or border, which concealed the feet (Isa. 47:2; Jer. 13:22).
5. The dress of the Persians is described in Dan. 3:21.
The reference to the art of sewing are few, inasmuch as the garments generally came forth from the loom ready for being worn, and all that was required in the making of clothes devolved on the women of a family (Pr. 31:22; Acts 9:39).
Extravagance in dress is referred to in Jer. 4:30; Ezek. 16:10; Zeph. 1:8 (R.V., “foreign apparel”); 1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3. Rending the robes was expressive of grief (Gen. 37:29, 34), fear (1 Ki. 21:27), indignation (2 Ki. 5:7), or despair (Judg. 11:35; Esther 4:1).
Shaking the garments, or shaking the dust from off them, was a sign of renunciation (Acts 18:6); wrapping them round the head, of awe (1 Ki. 19:13) or grief (2 Sam. 15:30; casting them off, of excitement (Acts 22:23); laying hold of them, of supplication (1 Sam. 15:27). In the case of travelling, the outer garments were girded up (1 Ki. 18:46). They were thrown aside also when they would impede action (Mk. 10:50; Jn. 13:4; Acts 7:58).

Easton.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2006/9/29 23:32Profile
TrueWitness
Member



Joined: 2006/8/10
Posts: 522


 Re:

I am posting a link to an article that is relevant to the present discussion.

http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/archives/2006/09/when_jesus_come.php#comments

If we are truly saved, we should not look like a child of Satan. It is sad that for some, this has to be stated.

 2006/9/30 1:46Profile
Dougmore
Member



Joined: 2006/8/30
Posts: 122


 Re:

Hi crsschk,

I have read those commentators, and many others, before I posted this thread.

Quote:
4. Female dress. The “coat” was common to both sexes (Song 5:3).


This is my point...

The 1 Timothy passage concerning female dress commands that Christian women dress in two layers. So also it is/was common for men to do the same.

Thanks brother for the info, plan to print it out.

In Christ, bro Doug

 2006/9/30 9:37Profile
Dougmore
Member



Joined: 2006/8/30
Posts: 122


 Re:

Hi TrueWitness,

Thanks for the site. I read the article and agree with the author on the necessity of Christian dress being different than worldly dress.

I guess the true question for all of us is, How far are believers to go away from worldly dress? This is a gray area that brings out a lot of opinions and vary little scripture. I personally don't believe that believers should wear shorts and go without sleeves down to the elbow. We must be considerate to our sisters in Christ. We mustn't temp them in this way. And the same for them to us. Our clothes must be different than the world so that they can be a witness and set us apart from the infidel.

In Christ, bro Doug

 2006/9/30 9:45Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy