Appropriate Apparel

[David073]

I’ve heard it said that nakedness, biblically speaking, isn’t simply just being stripped completely of clothing; that men being shirtless, and that women exposing their upper arms and thighs is also considered being naked. Also, that modesty would mean that appropriate apparel is anything that covers the upper arms and thighs.

Has anyone else heard this before? If anyone believes this, then would you mind explaining this to me biblically? Thanks!

 

[Pomopu]

Isaiah 20:2 indicates that modesty is not about the mechanics of clothing or the extent of clothing. This is because God can not command anyone to commit a sin. It was, thus, not a sin for Isaiah to be showing much of his skin. Neither is it a sin for Peter to strip down to jump in to see Jesus. Neither was it a sin for Jesus Christ himself to be basically naked on a cross. So modesty, if Jesus was modest naked/near naked on the cross, is something largely separated from clothing per se, but much more relevant to attitude, disposition, and action.

By the way, even if it were the case that in a certain culture, like in the 1st century BC Greco-roman culture, modesty involved this or that, there is no logical reason to assume those norms for today. Likewise, for the Hebrew culture of the centuries preceding.

 

[David073]

Isaiah 20:2 indicates that modesty is not about the mechanics of clothing or the extent of clothing. This is because God can not command anyone to commit a sin. It was, thus, not a sin for Isaiah to be showing much of his skin. Neither is it a sin for Peter to strip down to jump in to see Jesus. Neither was it a sin for Jesus Christ himself to be basically naked on a cross. So modesty, if Jesus was modest naked/near naked on the cross, is something largely separated from clothing per se, but much more relevant to attitude, disposition, and action.

By the way, even if it were the case that in a certain culture, like in the 1st century BC Greco-roman culture, modesty involved this or that, there is no logical reason to assume those norms for today. Likewise, for the Hebrew culture of the centuries preceding.

That’s a good point about God not commanding anyone to commit a sin, but in Peter’s case he didn’t strip, but put on his fisherman’s coat and then jumped into the sea. Why would Peter put more clothing on to jump into a body of water?

 

[Pomopu]

That’s a good point about God not commanding anyone to commit a sin, but in Peter’s case he didn’t strip, but put on his fisherman’s coat and then jumped into the sea. Why would Peter put more clothing on to jump into a body of water?

Ah, that's right. Misremembered the story. At any rate, the fact he was stripped beforehand, and neither in the commentary from John nor in the conversation with Jesus was it mentioned that it was a bad thing, means that at best the story indifferently (that is, it is neutral, it neither goes one way or the other) can be used for some sort of Islamic-esque, hyper-conservative stance on clothing.

Anyone taking anything close to such a prohibitive view has to deal with the stripped Jesus on the cross and Isaiah naked, for starters. Of course, those are cases of the extreme, and unnusual--you don't get crucified every day-- but it is sufficient to demonstrate that the mere visual of skin or no skin should never be the rubric for deciding what is modest. Modesty, again, is something besides the physical layering of cloth on skin.

 

[David073]

Ah, that's right. Misremembered the story. At any rate, the fact he was stripped beforehand, and neither in the commentary from John nor in the conversation with Jesus was it mentioned that it was a bad thing, means that at best the story indifferently can be used for some sort of Islamic-esque, hyper-conservative stance on clothing.

That’s the thing though, in Matthew Henry’s commentary he says that Peter was wearing a waistcoat, not that he was completely nude. Some say that although he was not completely nude, simply being shirtless meant that he was naked, despite the waistcoat. They say that he put on his coat to jump into the water so as not to be immodest and inappropriate.

Regardless of where a person lands on the argument of what constitutes nakedness, it is rather odd that Peter would put layers on rather than remove layers to jump into the sea.

 

[Pomopu]

That’s the thing though, in Matthew Henry’s commentary he says that Peter was wearing a waistcoat, not that he was completely nude. Some say that although he was not completely nude, simply being shirtless meant that he was naked, despite the waistcoat. They say that he put on his coat to jump into the water so as not to be immodest and inappropriate.

Regardless of where a person lands on the argument of what constitutes nakedness, it is rather odd that Peter would put layers on rather than remove layers to jump into the sea.

Whatever it is, it is a red herring. It doesn't matter what Peter did or did not do or how much or how little or whatever. It is a story, and it can not be normative for us to behave based on the act of Peter in that specific historical event. There is no binding moral force on us that we can think of based on this isolated instance.

 

[Polanus1561]

Peter could have tied his coat around his waist etc. We are not sure. But he did so because he didn't want to leave it behind. And he didn't wear it because swimming with it would be cumbersome.

It is like us who want to get to the opposing shore of a small river. We tie our shirt somehow around our neck etc.

 

[Ploutos]

The argument about Jesus at the crucifixion doesn't make sense, because the immodesty and disgrace of it was part of his humiliation. Being publicly exposed was indeed a form of shaming - note the common cultural trope of prostitutes or prisoners of war being paraded naked before onlookers. The fact that it was a breach of modesty was the whole point.

 

[Pomopu]

The argument about Jesus at the crucifixion doesn't make sense, because the immodesty and disgrace of it was part of his humiliation. Being publicly exposed was indeed a form of shaming - note the common cultural trope of prostitutes or prisoners of war being paraded naked before onlookers. The fact that it was a breach of modesty was the whole point.

Ultimately, though, we think of immodesty in one sense as a moral transgression. The point at hand is that it is a moral transgression to be immodest. That is why, presumably, we would have women cover their upper arms, as the post indicated. I am suggesting that, in fact, the mere lack of clothing, while striking, is not itself either modest or immodest. It simply is. It was shameful. but immodest? If immodesty is a sort of vanity/pride, a sort of failure to regulate oneself as the image of God, then Jesus can not have been accused of this--he maintained perfect meekness/humility (modesty) while on the cross, while stripped.

And so like all things, we are failing because of a lack to define modesty. Maybe David073 could do this for is, so we can dismantle the erroneous idea the length of one's shirtsleeves are relevant to modesty, which is described more as a grace than a thing a ruler could measure. Aye, than a thing a ruler could measure.

EDIT: to press the point home, and at the risk of being sacrilegious, we might have imagined Jesus doing a variety of actions on the cross that were immodest, carrying himself in such a way that was immodest, or internally having a sense of pride or seeking to attract women with his form---obviously this was not the case.

 

[Charles Johnson]

The Apostles give various instructions on dress and attire. They say women should cover their heads, not use braids, gold ornaments, or fine / luxurious clothing.

So it's clearly possible to distinguish certain styles or forms of dress as immodest. Those won't necessarily be exactly the same in our society as ancient Rome, but it can still be done (and it should be done, following the Apostles' example).

 

[Andres]

This is a helpful short booklet on the subject. Christian Modesty - the Public Undressing of America

 

[Ploutos]

Ultimately, though, we think of immodesty in one sense as a moral transgression. The point at hand is that it is a moral transgression to be immodest. That is why, presumably, we would have women cover their upper arms, as the post indicated. I am suggesting that, in fact, the mere lack of clothing, while striking, is not itself either modest or immodest. It simply is. It was shameful. but immodest? If immodesty is a sort of vanity/pride, a sort of failure to regulate oneself as the image of God, then Jesus can not have been accused of this--he maintained perfect meekness/humility (modesty) while on the cross, while stripped.

And so like all things, we are failing because of a lack to define modesty. Maybe David073 could do this for is, so we can dismantle the erroneous idea the length of one's shirtsleeves are relevant to modesty, which is described more as a grace than a thing a ruler could measure. Aye, than a thing a ruler could measure.

EDIT: to press the point home, and at the risk of being sacrilegious, we might have imagined Jesus doing a variety of actions on the cross that were immodest, carrying himself in such a way that was immodest, or internally having a sense of pride or seeking to attract women with his form---obviously this was not the case.

I don't think you can totally dissociate modesty and shame. Being naked in public is shameful; certainly it makes a difference whether one is voluntarily going about in such a manner, as opposed to involuntary forced nakedness. But even the shamefulness of such an involuntary display, separated from any sinful motive on the part of the victim, shows that there was something recognizably and inherently immodest about it.

 

[David073]

To put it simply, I’ve heard it said that the tunic which was what God made for Adam and Eve and thus set forth the principle of modest apparel for men and women regardless of their religious affiliation and/or culture. The tunic, or coat, was clothing that basically covered the upper arms and extended to the knee.

That being said, nakedness, even in the Hebrew doesn’t always mean stripped entirely of clothing, but could also be minimal clothing. Also, that the exposing of the upper arms and thighs I public would be considered as being naked.

So the general principle regarding how we are to dress would be in a modest way, which would include the covering of the upper arms and the thighs.

I am not entirely convinced of this argumentation and am studying this currently, but to be honest the principle seems logical in my opinion. I mean, this would make the argument that appropriate clothing is subjective and defined from culture to culture, and from generation to generation.

Obviously I’m not saying that everyone must where the exact type or clothing (whether it be the tunics of biblical times, or modern fashion), but that the principle behind clothing in general and how it is to be worn would apply to everyone at all times.

So for example in some Indian cultures women wear clothing that exposes the stomach. To them this is appropriate and normal, but to us in America this would be looked upon as inappropriate/immodest especially since we see teens and young adult women where clothing that is similar and we typically view it as inappropriate. So is the idea that how clothing is worn subjective from culture to culture. According to some they would say no, and that God has an objective standard according to the principle of modesty revealed in scripture.

 

[Redeemed Ronin]

When talking about modesty, I think focusing on what to wear or how much to wear is missing the point. The point rather is to promote and protect purity in heart and mind. How we dress is an expression of our heart's status and desire. If you dig into immodest dress, you can find a few common themes:

• "I want to control people by arousing them."
• "I want validation by people looking at me."
• "I want to validate myself by dressing how I want irrespective of what is proper."

You can produce several more patterns as well.

The chief questions are then: "Why am I dressing this way? What am I trying to express? Am I loving God and my neighbor?" The clothing question begins to answer itself, contextually:

• A man being shirtless might be:
  • Appropriate when he's working hard in the yard and he soaked his shirt, but is trying to quickly finish without getting heat stroke.
  • Inppropriate when he's walking around in public where there is a higher probablity that other sinful women might start to entertain sinful thoughts for one reason or another.
  • Appropriate when walking around his home alone or with his wife.
• A woman exposing her upper arms and thighs might be:
  • Appropriate when she's doing some sort of physical activity where covering those things might be a safety liability.
  • Inappropriate when she's walking around in public there is a higher probability that sinful men might start to entertain sinful thoughts.
  • Appropriate when walking around her home with her husband.

And so on. Complementary quesitons would be: "What is appropriate for my spouse alone? What points to sexual intimacy with my spouse? How can I highlight the beauty of God's creation while pointing to God's purity as well?" It's a lot to consider, and there is a degree of freedom, but there is also some clear parameters to watch for too.

 

[Pomopu]

I don't think you can totally dissociate modesty and shame. Being naked in public is shameful; certainly it makes a difference whether one is voluntarily going about in such a manner, as opposed to involuntary forced nakedness. But even the shamefulness of such an involuntary display, separated from any sinful motive on the part of the victim, shows that there was something recognizably and inherently immodest about it.

No. You can not say Jesus was being immodest. By definition, that would mean he is in sin, because to be immodest, to engage in immodest behavior, to have immodest intent, is to sin. Because Jesus is perfect, we must and must teach that whatever happened on the cross, Jesus maintained perfect modesty.

 

[Pomopu]

"So the general principle regarding how we are to dress would be in a modest way, which would include the covering of the upper arms and the thighs."

Brother, you are confusing ethical categories. A principle can't be that specific. The principle is modesty, not "covering the upper arms and the thighs," which is an application of the principle. Be modest. That's it. How that plays out? As you yourself observe, it depends.

 

[hornj]

No. You can not say Jesus was being immodest. By definition, that would mean he is in sin, because to be immodest, to engage in immodest behavior, to have immodest intent, is to sin. Because Jesus is perfect, we must and must teach that whatever happened on the cross, Jesus maintained perfect modesty.

The soldiers took Jesus' garments (John 19:23) he did not willingly lay them off. To be stripped of his clothing was a shameful part of his crucifixion - not a style choice he made. (Note I understand that Christ willingly laid down his life as a sacrifice for us, and everything that transpired was part of his sovereign decree. But the guilt of his slaying was on those who killed him, and his decree does not justify us to commit suicide, choose to be beaten, or to publicly strip off our clothes)

What moral principle are you arguing for? That because Christ was naked on the cross, public nudity is not inherently immoral?

 

[Pomopu]

The soldiers took Jesus' garments (John 19:23) he did not willingly lay them off. To be stripped of his clothing was a shameful part of his crucifixion - not a style choice he made. (Note I understand that Christ willingly laid down his life as a sacrifice for us, and everything that transpired was part of his sovereign decree. But the guilt of his slaying was on those who killed him, and his decree does not justify us to commit suicide, choose to be beaten, or to publicly strip off our clothes)

What moral principle are you arguing for? That because Christ was naked on the cross, public nudity is not inherently immoral?

Paul commands us to be modest. Therefore, at every point of Christ's life, he was modest. The moral principle is that, ultimately, our dress is not of the essence of modesty--since he was stripped at the cross. So to make rules about dress may be wise, but there is great Christian freedom in how we think of expressing modesty.

And to be clear, shame and modesty are like pandas and koalas. That is, different.

 

[Ploutos]

Paul commands us to be modest. Therefore, at every point of Christ's life, he was modest. The moral principle is that, ultimately, our dress is not of the essence of modesty--since he was stripped at the cross. So to make rules about dress may be wise, but there is great Christian freedom in how we think of expressing modesty.

And to be clear, shame and modesty are like pandas and koalas. That is, different.

I look forward to hearing the results of your social experiment where you walk around mostly naked in public.

 

[Pomopu]

I look forward to hearing the results of your social experiment where you walk around mostly naked in public.

You misread my comment.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

You misread my comment.

I guess I did too, because I don't see what you're trying to prove either.

 

[Ploutos]

You misread my comment.

You can't connect Christ on the cross with rules about modesty. Modesty and shame are linked and that doesn't imply that Christ was guilty of shame. The reason it's immodest to voluntarily walk around naked is because it's shameful to be in such a state. To voluntarily bring such shame upon one's self is a sin. Christ was shamefully exposed on the cross, without sin, yet we can say that going around uncovered by choice is objectively sinful.

And while there is certainly a cultural element to what exactly is considered modest, the gospel has generally brought higher standards for modesty in its wake. Aboriginol societies with scant coverage are not expressing their culturally unique version of modesty. They are expressing their culturally unique lostness apart from the gospel.

 

[Pomopu]

I guess I did too, because I don't see what you're trying to prove either.

You can't connect Christ on the cross with rules about modesty. Modesty and shame are linked and that doesn't imply that Christ was guilty of shame. The reason it's immodest to voluntarily walk around naked is because it's shameful to be in such a state. To voluntarily bring such shame upon one's self is a sin. Christ was shamefully exposed on the cross, without sin, yet we can say that going around uncovered by choice is objectively sinful.

And while there is certainly a cultural element to what exactly is considered modest, the gospel has generally brought higher standards for modesty in its wake. Aboriginol societies with scant coverage are not expressing their culturally unique version of modesty. They are expressing their culturally unique lostness apart from the gospel.

Can I not?

1. It is commanded to be modest.
2. Christ fulfilled all commands perfectly.
3. Christ was nearly naked
4. Being nearly naked is not necessarily immodest.

All this to prove, by the way, from the initial post, that women and men can show their upper arms.

 

[davejonescue]

Can I not?

1. It is commanded to be modest.
2. Christ fulfilled all commands perfectly.
3. Christ was nearly naked
4. Being nearly naked is not necessarily immodest.

All this to prove, by the way, from the initial post, that women and men can show their upper arms.

Your logic is not following because Christ was forcefully made naked. He is guiltless not because nakedness is not immodest, but because he was forced to be naked against his will.

 

[Pomopu]

Your logic is not following because Christ was forcefully made naked. He is guiltless not because nakedness is not immodest, but because he was forced to be naked against his will.

You are claiming it is immodest for Christ to have been on the cross in the way he was? This seems radical. Is it not a sin to be immodest? We should probably define modesty at this point for any further fruit. My point is, (can you agree with the following point) we don't have the authority or warrant or wisdom to "measure modesty." Perhaps you can get to that point a different way. I find it an airtight thing to point to Jesus, who is perfect.

 

[Ploutos]

You are claiming it is immodest for Christ to have been on the cross in the way he was? This seems radical. Is it not a sin to be immodest? We should probably define modesty at this point for any further fruit. My point is, (can you agree with the following point) we don't have the authority or warrant or wisdom to "measure modesty." Perhaps you can get to that point a different way. I find it an airtight thing to point to Jesus, who is perfect.

Ok, so nakedness is allowed if you're in the middle of getting crucified. I can agree with that.

@Redeemed Ronin made a truly excellent post above which is worth revisiting. But if I'm reading him correctly, aiming at the heart doesn't eliminate objective rules. Going naked in public is bad... Unless you happen to be on the receiving end of a crucifixion, in which case it's just fine.

 

[davejonescue]

You are claiming it is immodest for Christ to have been on the cross in the way he was? This seems radical. Is it not a sin to be immodest? We should probably define modesty at this point for any further fruit. My point is, (can you agree with the following point) we don't have the authority or warrant or wisdom to "measure modesty." Perhaps you can get to that point a different way. I find it an airtight thing to point to Jesus, who is perfect.

But Jesus did define modesty; that is, by not going publicly naked until he was forcibly made to do so in his crucifixion. Matt. 5:40 may also possibly shed some light on what would have been accepted, at the least, common modesty in the days of Jesus.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Moderating: I suggest leaving the Lord’s crucifixion out of a discussion on clothing modesty. And to focus instead on discussing the OP’s question as he asked it.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Sounds like there are some category errors being made.

 

[Janet McC]

To me the bottom line is that we are bound, as Christians, to obey the laws of love, especially toward out brothers and sisters, and to not cause them to sin because of our perceived “Christian liberty”.

In our hypersexualized culture, we are constantly being bombarded with provocative images. As a woman, I should never dress in any manner that would cause one of my brothers in Christ to have a sinful thought for even one moment. If I deliberately try to look pleasing to another man who is not my husband, I am not loving my brother….. I am sinning against him, my marriage, and my Lord.

Moderating: I suggest leaving the Lord’s crucifixion out of a discussion on clothing modesty. And to focus instead on discussing the OP’s question as he asked it.

Thank you!!!