Modesty Pertaining to the Christian Man

Discussion in 'The Pilgrims Progress' started by hermanchauw, Apr 23, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hermanchauw

    hermanchauw Puritan Board Freshman

    In complement to the thread on Modesty Pertaining to the Christian Lady, is there any standards/views for men?

    I used an avatar of me without a shirt and i never thought of any immodesty, and no one around me has ever had an issue to raise with photos of topless men or men being topless at home or when doing physical labour, until a board member on another thread suggested that "i put on a shirt".

    1 Cor 11:14
    How would the Jews treat say a proselyte who is accustomed to having long hair?

    Continuing to verse 15 and 16
    Is this custom that men cannot have "long hair" to be followed/enforced by all churches/Christians, regardless of culture?

    Would a proselyte be required to cut his hair short if his culture has long hair?

    In how i have been educated, my conviction is the principle is that men and women should dress differently.

    Deut 22:5
     
  2. Tim

    Tim Puritan Board Graduate

    How do you know this is so? How would you have known if there were an issue? Would a woman have told you if she had lusted after what she saw? What I am getting at is that sometimes we assume that everything is okay, but we have no real way of knowing.

    ---------- Post added at 06:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:53 AM ----------

    Let me compliment you on how quickly you responded when someone mentioned this to you, brother. It is good to be quick to remove any offense that someone perceives.
     
  3. FenderPriest

    FenderPriest Puritan Board Junior

    I practice modesty by keeping the guns (Law and Order, respectively left and right) well concealed, and rarely put on a gun show. I also veil my ninja skills, as any true ninja would.
     
  4. Romans922

    Romans922 Puritan Board Professor

    I'm for modesty among men and boys. We need to start teaching at the earliest of ages. We often think that only women should be modest but that this doesn't apply to us. How much more should it apply to us if we are the head's of our house and modelling it for our wives, sons and daughters. Our children to go out in public with just diapers or no shirts/pants on. From the earliest ages, we are teaching modesty, and when old enough to have understanding we are communicating why and the heart issues.

    As an aside, when swimming, which for both men and women, can be the hardest to be modest...my son (3ish) and I wear those swimming/surfing shirts that are made for water. Also, protects for sunburn and UV protection. We don't get the skin tight one's but probably a size above that and it looks like wearing a tshirt, but for water. I like it. :)
     
  5. lynnie

    lynnie Puritan Board Senior

    I can only speak for me but I don't think women have the gut response to exposed bodies quite the way men do. If I see a guy in a tight nylon thing at the beach or on a bike, I just think "yuck". A shirtless man does not cause me any sexual images at all, none. If big fat belly is hanging out over the waist it'll get another " yuck".

    I have known guys who work out and you can tell that they want people to admire their upper torso and big buff biceps. Perhaps they want to be attractive to the ladies. Well, that type also gets a "yuck" from me if the vanity is obvious.

    I am not a lady with hangups in the intimacy area, thing are just great with hubby. I did have an unsaved friend in (secular) college who said guys in the dorm hallway in their underpants aroused her, but she was already living an immoral life. I suppose you might keep the shirt off and the shorts on, if you are concerned. Personally I would say the exhortation to put on a shirt in your avatar was legalistic, but I don't know how other women would react. This culture is just so sexualized and unclean anymore.

    I have known a couple guys who were good- very good- at seducing women. None of them did it with their body, in fact, one was bald and overweight, and the other not a stud bod or handsome face at all. But, they were oh so tender and gentle and listened to women's emotional problems in a fatherly/brotherly way with total attention and compassion and a light affectionate touch on the hand, arm, shoulder. Next thing you know the women was in bed. Women don't go for the body, but they will fall over for a guy who pays attention and understands their feelings...somebody they can really talk to who is affectionate and tender. Tenderness is more addictive sometimes than anything else. A kind and tender guy, especially counselors, need to be careful to avoid warm touching or the girls fall in love quick. I've seen this a lot. One overweight, unattractive PCA elder in my last state had a couple dozen women in love with him (and he was faithful to his wife) just for his kind and tender listening ear.

    Just my opinions. Tough subject really, and one that needs much prayer in today's world.
     
  6. moral necessity

    moral necessity Puritan Board Junior

    Ladies are not wired to respond visually in the same way and in the same degree as men do. Lynnie is correct. We should not equate a man w/o a shirt as causing a woman to stumble in the same way as it would affect the man if the situation were reversed. Rather, men need to be more careful relationally around women moreso than they need to be careful visually.

    Blessings!
     
  7. Romans922

    Romans922 Puritan Board Professor

    Charles, while I agree with you and Lynnie, there are some women who do respond visually in that way. Where almost all, if not all, men respond visually this way, there are indeed some women (even Christian women, though few compared to men) who do so as well. Therefore, it is the duty of men, just as it is with women, to be careful with how we dress (modestly). This is an important issue that is seriously under-considered, often shot down as unimportant, and a distraction to other more important issues.

    The relational part is also important, we need to be careful who our heart is towards and what kind of interaction with have with women.

    As for myself, and as a Pastor. I never go into a home with a woman alone unless another man or my wife is with me. I make sure I am never alone with a woman. Any emails I get from women, my wife looks over. Any phone conversations with women, I make sure my wife is near so she can overhear what I am saying. That's as a married man, and as a married man I need to make sure that I am close to my wife to protect from temptation myself. For boys, my counsel is similar. Never be alone with a girl, never talk to a girl alone without someone to overhear.
     
  8. hermanchauw

    hermanchauw Puritan Board Freshman

    I don't know. :p
     
  9. gordo

    gordo Puritan Board Freshman

    Agree with Charles and Lynnie.
     
  10. Miss Marple

    Miss Marple Puritan Board Junior

    Men or boys in swim trunks never attracted me in any way more than men or boys in a suit. Actually, I'll say a well dressed man is more attractive than one in a Speedo, absolutely for sure.

    I do not observe extra attention to men/boys in swim trunks over and against them in a shirt and jeans on the part of friends, my daughters. . . even in my high school years, this was not the consensus in the private girl talk.

    I am not advocating for men to run around unclad, but I'll bolster the point that lightly dressed men don't tend to affect women at all similarly to the way lightly dressed women affect men.

    If anything, if we see a man inappropriately dressed, we tend to mock. There is currently a man on the show "Survivor" who is fond of wearing naught but a Speedo, and we all (we females) find him repulsive. Not attractive.
     
  11. moral necessity

    moral necessity Puritan Board Junior

    In my 40 years, I can't say that I have ever met a woman who looks at the internet or magazines for pictures of men to lust over. Their lusts are more relational. There are exceptions, I would grant, where some women would be more reactive than others by visual stimulation, but I don't think it goes as far as visual lusting, in my opinion. When they lust, they imagine a situation of themeselves relationally with that person. Men just need a picture, and can be totally disconnected from the relational aspect entirely. My wife has the hardest time understanding that. It makes no sense to a woman. Women aren't prone to neighing after their neighbor's husband because of his body visually. It's not a primary factor. If he's a jerk relationally, his perfect body becomes a zero.

    That's all I have to add to the subject for now. I defer to the women to answer.

    Blessings!
     
  12. Tim

    Tim Puritan Board Graduate

    I believe our brother has done right. We don't know how each individual may react, so our brother has attempted to remove any offense to the best of his ability. To remove a potential offense because we aren't sure or "just in case" is not legalistic, but rather quite considerate.
     
  13. Romans922

    Romans922 Puritan Board Professor

    I find it absurd to suggest that women and Christian women do not struggle with physical lust over men for which men should do what they are able to dress modestly.

    Genesis 39:6-7, "​​​​​​​​​​​Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance. ​​​And after a time his master's wife cast her eyes on Joseph and said, “Lie with me.”"

    There is not a better reason why the Lord states what Joseph looked like and then says the woman cast her eyes on him and desired/lusted after him. Her lust wasn't because of being a good man, loving, kind, nice, but because he was handsome in form and appearance.
     
  14. JoannaV

    JoannaV Puritan Board Sophomore

    Someone in the other thread posted a link to a survey which investigated what clothing/situations men found to be stumbling blocks, and what they didn't. It would be interesting to see a similar survey done of women.
     
  15. a mere housewife

    a mere housewife Not your cup of tea

    I was wondering about this 'relational' care the other day -- for I have noticed at times various people advocating that men should not have friendships or be involved in helping or caring in any way for women who are not their wives, with this pretext. Yet I also notice in Scripture that almost every time the New Testament admonishes us not to have a perverted love for one another, as the world does, in lusts and immoderate affections, it goes on to admonish us to love one another only more fervently and purely, as family in Christ; and it seems clear that the apostles did not avoid their sisters or mothers in Christ (nor did Christ Himself -- and I might point out the same about someone like Samuel Rutherford, many of whose letters, still so helpful to the church, are written to sisters in the Lord whom he loved dearly). At some point the warnings that I have seen about having anything to do with a woman not married to you 'relationally' begin to sound like keeping only to the negative side of the apostles' injunction, and entirely overlooking the positive side of it -- which positive side is surely the whole point of the negative? Would you avoid your sister or mother 'relationally'? Would you not rather act in some measure of good faith that she can distinguish the love of a brother or son from that of a husband? I have wondered if it would be something of a safeguard for men when girls are dressed carelessly to think of them more as sisters, than as random women with whom one ought to have little to do? I do believe a right love for each other, on both sides, is the best opposition to the abuses of love; and we ought to seek that grace for fervent and pure, heavenly ties here in this world, from the Lord who enjoins it on us. Pergy mentioned how offensive burkas are on the thread about feminine modesty -- they proceed on the same principle as the string bikinis mentioned there, but on the opposite end of the spectrum: that a woman's form is entirely sexual. I think there may well be such a thing as relational 'burkas' as well, which seem to assume, because of abuses, that a woman is only capable of a relationship that involves sex. I don't see Scripture operating on the assumption that sex is as fundamental to all love as Freud and the world think it is; rather that element is something we are to put off in loving each other even more eternally and completely in the Lord. We need our brothers and our fathers here in the world, too (and there is a fullness of joy that crosses genders in such ties of affection, 2 John).
     
  16. Romans922

    Romans922 Puritan Board Professor

    I hope my post did not suggest that men should avoid women as sisters in Christ or anything like that. I believe we should be praying for, interacting with and serving our sisters, just guarded at the same time. For many cultural reasons for myself, as a Pastor. One accusation against my character having to do with an unlawful relationship would end my ministry as a Pastor in our culture. So while men should be brothers to their sisters in Christ, I believe this should at the same time be guarded and protected for all parties involved.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2012
  17. Afterthought

    Afterthought Puritan Board Junior

    I've often wondered what that would look like. Do you have any particulars in mind?
     
  18. moral necessity

    moral necessity Puritan Board Junior

    Blessings to you!

    Scripture does not state the reason directly. I would expect your exegesis to demonstate that.

    Blessings and fellowship!
     
  19. a mere housewife

    a mere housewife Not your cup of tea

    Raymond, I try to keep up with what is going on in my brother's lives, let them know I love them, let them know I pray for them -- when they come into town I go to see them and talk to them and don't even mind hugging them. If they are in trouble I want to do what I can to help. I have a certain delight in being with them, even in how they look and how they behave -- I have the same delight in the presence of my sisters. I am very close to some sisters in the Lord here and elsewhere, whom He has brought into my life; and I have some beloved brothers in the Lord as well. I believe that love for them prohibits wrong care, as much as it prohibits lack of care. Of course we are all wretched sinners and must guard against wrong care and seek grace against it, but I believe that not caring is equally wrong and wretched, and to be guarded against. This world is a hard place. Our ties of love are one of the joys and comforts of heaven in it.

    Andrew, I wondered if I were confusing past statements and philosophies I have encountered with the discussion here: thank you for the clarification. Testimony is certainly important. So is love in the Lord. (edit: perhaps I should clarify that I believe from Scripture, that a pure and fervent love for one another is a significant aspect of our testimony before the world. And I believe this aspect of our testimony gets under-emphasised, and sometimes even thrown under the bus entirely, in our desire -- certainly praiseworthy in itself -- not to be perceived as having the wrong kind of merely earthly, sensual love.)
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2012
  20. a mere housewife

    a mere housewife Not your cup of tea

    I've been thinking about this while I did my laundry. My concern in jumping in is that we do not stigmatise as fornication or immodesty, or make a sin out of something Scripture does not forbid (I have some history with environments that do that). Indeed what Scripture does forbid seems rather designed to foster truly loving relationships with one another as family members in the Lord. I think if one is thinking impurely about a brother or sister in Christ it is not because one loves them too much; but not enough. 'Love one another with a pure heart, fervently' -- surely the purity and the fervency go hand in hand.

    I do not suggest that everyone should do things this way, but I do not listen in on my husband's phone conversations, nor read all his emails, nor make sure I am always with him around other women. I know he has been and is very important as a son or a brother to a few women I love. I don't assume they are 'in love' with him in a perverted sense because they love him dearly and have come to rely on him to listen and give counsel and be kind: of course they need him; and God has put him into their lives. We're all so dependent on one another. I think it would be very uncharitable for me to assume that there is something sexual in this, and that lack of love would be a sin. Some of the remarks above make me wonder if there is a lack of charity in some assumptions about the response of women to tenderness. Did Paul hedge his injunctions to Timothy to treat the women like mothers and sisters (and I hope one treats their mothers and sisters tenderly) because they might have emotional needs that are met by such treatment? Of course we need tenderness and respond to it: we are humans, and the weaker, more fragile ones at that. Tenderness does not equal sex. I have personally encountered more damage done by pastors who couldn't treat women without stiffness and standoffishness, who couldn't behave with a natural brotherly concern and kindness toward them for fear of being perceived in the wrong way, than otherwise.

    The only time my husband was accused of something heinous was once when he took a friend along to see a girl in trouble, specifically for testimony's sake. They were all accused of something even worse. Happily nobody with whom such an accusation could matter could even for an instant take it seriously -- knowing the parties involved better than that. One can accommodate a propensity to think and speak evil within rational limits, but ultimately our judgment is with the Lord; and it is His loving commands, and not the tyrannical standards of uncharitable and unrighteous judgment, that ought to rule our conduct. I won't distract from the main focus of the thread more -- but I don't think it is right to class as 'immodesty' a gentle relating to women which Scripture rather encourages than forbids.
     
  21. Kim G

    Kim G Puritan Board Junior

    I believe the last survey I saw said that one in four women now admit to being visually attracted to men. I'm one of them. I never understood the whole "women are emotional, men are visual" thing because it's NOT true for me. That being said, I am to guard my mind from lust just like any other Christian should. And maybe I'm not visually attracted to the extent that men are because I've heard lust is a constant battle for many men, and it's not for me.

    I think modesty is usually about appropriateness. If I were a guy, I probably wouldn't have a shirtless picture on the PuritanBoard because of the nature of the board. But I wouldn't see an issue with wearing just shorts to the beach.

    And I second Heidi's perspective about being treated as a sister-in-Christ instead of a stumbling block for lust. Growing up in a fundamentalist baptist environment, we were told that if a pastor drove by a female member of his congregation walking home in a thunderstorm, it would be wrong for him to pick her up and take her home because someone might think something wrong. And if a deacon's wife had a miscarriage, the pastor couldn't give her a hug if he saw her crying in the foyer of the church. THAT is improper sexualization of the female.
     
  22. py3ak

    py3ak They're stalling and plotting against me Staff Member

    I should think the reactions to Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom, and so forth, the existence of "Team Edward" and "Team Jacob" among people older than 14, and the whole phenomenon of Bieber Fever would quench the idea that it is only an occasional, aberrant woman who finds some men visually appealing.

    It is true that the text of Genesis does not contain a conjunction telling us that it was because of Joseph's good looks that Potiphar's wife found him appealing. It is also true that the two statements are in immediate juxtaposition, that they are not in immediate juxtaposition randomly, and that when an explicative relationship between two statements is obvious to common sense, it is often left unstated in narrative.
     
  23. kappazei

    kappazei Puritan Board Freshman

    We need to be considerate towards those in our midst who struggle with same sex attraction as well. Not just towards how our Christian sisters view us.
    A rather distasteful segway but there it is.
     
  24. moral necessity

    moral necessity Puritan Board Junior

    For clarity:

    1. I am for propriety and am not advocating men to be immodest or improper.

    2. There is a vast difference between "visual stimulation/arousal" and "lust". One is God-given and proper; the other is that properness becoming a torrent or tempest. Until that differnece is acknowledged, we're probably talking past one another.

    3. The passage in Genesis spends far more time leading up to the interaction elaborating on Joseph's wealth, prosperity, wisdom, honorableness, favorable regard by the king, governing power, and authority over nearly every aspect of the affairs of the entire land, and finally says "he was a goodly person and well-favored (vs.6)"...any woman would agree that her desire for him was grounded in far more things than a visual appearance. Also, Joseph was not being immodest, so improper dress was not the cause.

    4. I am in much more favor of promoting fellowship and commonality on the board, and progress towards proper edification. In that regard, I rest the issue to your conscience and the work of the Holy Spirit thereon. I also will strive to let the women cast the vote for how they respond to unclothed men, and whether or not this factor by itself tends to lead them to lustful thoughts about an unclothed body (not merely a general arousal/stimulation). I think three have already expressed their opinions in this regard.

    Blessings, fellowship, and prayers...

    Genesis 39
    1And Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hands of the Ishmeelites, which had brought him down thither.

    2And the LORD was with Joseph, and he was a prosperous man; and he was in the house of his master the Egyptian.

    3And his master saw that the LORD was with him, and that the LORD made all that he did to prosper in his hand.

    4And Joseph found grace in his sight, and he served him: and he made him overseer over his house, and all that he had he put into his hand.

    5And it came to pass from the time that he had made him overseer in his house, and over all that he had, that the LORD blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; and the blessing of the LORD was upon all that he had in the house, and in the field.

    6And he left all that he had in Joseph's hand; and he knew not ought he had, save the bread which he did eat. And Joseph was a goodly person, and well favoured.

    7And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me.

    8But he refused, and said unto his master's wife, Behold, my master wotteth not what is with me in the house, and he hath committed all that he hath to my hand;

    9There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2012
  25. JoannaV

    JoannaV Puritan Board Sophomore

    Therein may be the difference. In the survey linked to in the other thread, quite a few males expressed how they might have an instinctual reaction to a family member before they could mentally note who it was and reign in their thoughts. I'd suspect this wouldn't be such a problem for most females?
     
  26. KMK

    KMK Administrator Staff Member

    It might be more constructive for men to let their 'modesty' be in the form of reticence. Women are most attracted to men who pay them a great deal of attention. (I know this because my wife is a big fan of the RomCom genre. :) ) I know plenty of well-dressed men who cause women to stumble because they get entirely too intimate with female coworkers.
     
  27. Galatians220

    Galatians220 Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    True, dat.
     
  28. Alan D. Strange

    Alan D. Strange Puritan Board Junior

    Much good discussion here--a credit to the PB!

    We are really blessed, ladies and gentlemen, to have ladies like we do commenting on this board. People ask what gifted women are to do if church office is closed to them. What a ridiculous and insulting question! They do a whole host of wonderful things, including contributing to a board like this. Right? Heidi, you and your sisters are a great blessing to so many of us. We must not interact with our sisters like the horrors that Kim reported (and I can assure you that she's not engaging in hyperbole).

    And do think of how Paul interacted with sisters in the Lord. When he says, by the Spirit, there is neither male nor female but we are one in Christ this has powerful redemptive-historical significance (Gal 3:28). Taken with the others in that list, what this means is that the Lord does not deal with us primarily as bond or free, Jew or Gentile, male or female but as humans made in His image, fallen in Adam, and made alive in Christ.

    To be sure, the Bible does address men as men and women as women. But this is not its primary address and interest. I realize that feminism has been a problem for the last century and a half. We need to address it biblically, however, and not simply react against it by going to some imagined extreme. The Bible does speak to sexual (or as people say today, and I have long resisted, "gender") roles, but it most commonly and fundamentally speaks to the need of redemption for all, including male and female.

    How thankful I am that there is but one mediator between God and mankind (the Greek word there means men and women), the man (and even the word here is not the one for male, highlighting not Christ's maleness but His humanity) Christ Jesus, who came to save men and women, and can do so because He is a mediator for His own in the race of men and women (I Tim. 2:5; as He is not, e.g., for angels).

    Peace,
    Alan
     
  29. py3ak

    py3ak They're stalling and plotting against me Staff Member

    Modesty is far broader than the topic of lust. I think we tend to create some confusion when that fact is not born in mind.

    Another point to remember is that clothing and demeanor function together - even in a static image, posture and expression will modify the message sent by clothing. And people are different - something attractive to one pushes another one over the line to repulsion. I've never understood the conquests lounge lizards and their ilk have been known to make, and yet there is daily evidence that greasy hair and polyester clothes are not the female repellent it would be rational to suppose them.

    All of this applied to male modesty means that clothing is not irrelevant, even if it is not primary. But it also means that clothing doesn't have to be skimpy in order to be alluring - a monkey suit or a frock-coat are not an infallible guarantee that some boundary of modesty will not be crossed.

    But it should never be thought that modesty=unattractiveness or vice versa. On the contrary, genuine modesty is a wonderful and beautiful quality. While it does not draw undue attention to itself, to those who perceive it, it will be pleasing - attracting you to the person who shows it. A modest and unassuming young man is, so far, a likeable young man; a modest lady carries with her a grace that is lovely to behold. Modesty is not, ultimately, a marring of beauty - it is a finishing perfection that sets other attractive qualities in their respective places and lets the whole be seen with proper perspective. If we pursue it, male or female, merely as a way to get the opposite sex to keep their hands off us, we run the risk of neglecting the broader context modesty addresses, of turning a positive virtue into a merely negative avoidance, and of ultimately raising an antagonism and suspicion between the sexes that hinders proper and due affection and confidence.

    Thank you for your solid words, Dr. Strange. While not following her on all points, it does sometimes seem that Dorothy Sayers raised a question that needed to be asked when she wrote the book, Are Women Human? The woman is not without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord. In the image of God created he man; male and female created he them.
     
  30. FCC

    FCC Puritan Board Freshman

    My son and I had a strange but educational experience yesterday. We went to a local hiking trail to bird/forage. When we approached the trail there is a sign in post, where hikers can sign a log book to record their visit. The usual book was gone and in its place was a "business" card with the statement "Nude hiking, try it you might like it." This also had a newgroup web site posted on the card and we immediately had second thoughts about hitting the trail! We then had a long talk about nudists and their practice. I didn't think about the current posts here on PB until I logged on this morning, but it seems providential that came up when it did.

    We talked about the whole nudist worldview and their basic denial of the need for humanity to be clothed. The far deeper meaning of clothing than just protection from the elements and comfort. Indeed, in Genesis 3:21 God clothed Adam and Eve with the skins of animals and took away their inadequate, self made clothing of leaves! John Gill wrote on this passage, "yet was substantial, and sufficient to protect them from all inclemencies of the weather; and they might serve as to put them in mind of their fall, so of their mortality by it, and of the condition sin had brought them into; being in themselves, and according to their deserts, like the beasts that perish: as also they were emblems of the robe of Christ's righteousness, and the garments of his salvation, to be wrought out by his obedience, sufferings, and death; with which being arrayed, they should not be found naked, nor be condemned, but be secured from wrath to come."

    Gill notes several things for us to keep in mind today about our clothing: First, It is protection from inclement weather. Second, it is to put us in mind of our fall, and the sin that is now present in our lives. We now die because of sin and our clothing should be a constant reminder of that. Third, it is an emblem of our need of Christ's righteousness! We should seek to be fully clothed, or as Paul puts it "to put on Christ." Without the righteousness of Christ we are undone and our clothing is an outward representation of this great truth!

    Matthew Henry wrote, "Observe, 1. That clothes came in with sin. We should have had no occasion for them, either for defence or decency, if sin had not made us naked, to our shame. Little reason therefore we have to be proud of our clothes, which are but the badges of our poverty and infamy. 2. That when God made clothes for our first parents he made them warm and strong, but coarse and very plain: not robes of scarlet, but coats of skin. Their clothes were made, not of silk and satin, but plain skins; not trimmed, nor embroidered, none of the ornaments which the daughters of Sion afterwards invented, and prided themselves in. Let the poor, that are meanly clad, learn hence not to complain: having food and a covering, let them be content; they are as well done to as Adam and Eve were. And let the rich, that are finely clad, learn hence not to make the putting on of apparel their adorning, 1Pe_3:3. 3. That God is to be acknowledged with thankfulness, not only in giving us food, but in giving us clothes also, Gen_28:20. The wool and the flax are his, as well as the corn and the wine, Hos_2:9. 4. These coats of skin had a significancy. The beasts whose skins they were must be slain, slain before their eyes, to show them what death is, and (as it is Ecc_3:18) that they may see that they themselves were beasts, mortal and dying. It is supposed that they were slain, not for food, but for sacrifice, to typify the great sacrifice, which, in the latter end of the world, should be offered once for all. "

    Modesty is commanded to humanity in the very beginning! Our clothing is a part of our spiritual being and it displays our beliefs to the watching world! This is a very worthwhile topic and one that needs to be deeply examined by every Christian and should be preached on from every pulpit.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page