Women's clothing

[FollowingHim]

If modest can mean whatever we want then it can be anything or nothing; the command is made null.

It has a very clear definition. It's just been obscured by the English translation.
The word is "kosmios" in Greek (G2887), and appears twice in scripture, translated as "modest" or "of good behaviour" and applied to both men and women:
1Ti 2:9In 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;
1Ti 3:2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Definition:
κόσμιος, κόσμον, of three term. in classical Greek, cf. WHs Appendix, p. 157; Winers Grammar, § 11, 1; (Buttmann, 25 (22f)) (κόσμος), well-arranged, seemly, modest: 1 Timothy 2:9 (WH marginal reading κοσμίως); of a man living with decorum, a well-ordered life, 1 Timothy 3:2. (Aristophanes, Xenophon, Plato, Isocrates, Lysias, others) (Cf. Trench, § xcii.)

The meaning is very clear, and the instructions in both 1 Timothy 2:9 and 3:2 are sound and not nullified in any way by this discussion.

 

[Pacman]

1 Timothy 2:9 KJV
[9] 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;

The only verse in all of scripture that uses the word modest at least in the English.

Applying our personal understanding of it and creating an entire doctrine about what clothing is sinful is the very definition of cherry picking.

 

[FollowingHim]

It we stick to the Greek, the word "kosmios" comes from "kosmos", meaning "world". It implies being harmonious and in order with the world we are in. In other words, we should have our women wear clothing that is considered acceptable to the wider society we are in, and should ourselves live in a manner that allows us to get on in society. Obviously we follow God rather than man when the two are in conflict, but when no conflict is needed, we should live in an orderly and well-mannered fashion in the world we are in. This is a very deep and interesting concept, that is worth serious discussion to figure out the details. To make it all about clothing rules is to distort the text and miss the true message.

 

[Pacman]

It we stick to the Greek, the word "kosmios" comes from "kosmos", meaning "world". It implies being harmonious and in order with the world we are in. In other words, we should have our women wear clothing that is considered acceptable to the wider society we are in, and should ourselves live in a manner that allows us to get on in society. Obviously we follow God rather than man when the two are in conflict, but when no conflict is needed, we should live in an orderly and well-mannered fashion in the world we are in. This is a very deep and interesting concept, that is worth serious discussion to figure out the details. To make it all about clothing rules is to distort the text and miss the true message.

So it seems we have come back around to the meaning. “Appropriate to the occasion”

 

[rockfox]

It implies being harmonious and in order with the world we are in.

That is far to meaningless a definition. Mine is a society which has recently decided that it is appropriate to dress up toddlers to pre-teens girls in clothing that would have made a prostitute blush 60 years ago.

So it seems we have come back around to the meaning. “Appropriate to the occasion”

Which makes it sound like God cares more about whether we wear a tie to that fancy restaurant than if we're dressing in sexually provocative ways.

We have the command. Either clothing is modest or it isn't. I'm just not buying this dismissive approach.

 

[Pacman]

That is far to meaningless a definition. Mine is a society which has recently decided that it is appropriate to dress up toddlers to pre-teens girls in clothing that would have made a prostitute blush 60 years ago.



Which makes it sound like God cares more about whether we wear a tie to that fancy restaurant than if we're dressing in sexually provocative ways.

We have the command. Either clothing is modest or it isn't. I'm just not buying this dismissive approach.

Where does it say anything about sexually provocative?

Bro this is a man ruling his household issue. This verse has absolutely nothing to do with sexy clothing. That issue like most issues that apply to women is something that Yah leaves for the head of household to discern. Yah is a “gentleman” he doesn’t usurp the hierarchy that he established. Almost all commands that apply directly to women other than telling them to obey their husband is regarding how they would approach Yah himself in the temple and even those he gives to the men and not directly to the women.

 

[steve]

Bro this is a man ruling his household issue. This verse has absolutely nothing to do with sexy clothing. That issue like most issues that apply to women is something that Yah leaves for the head of household to discern. Yah is a “gentleman” he doesn’t usurp the hierarchy that he established. Almost all commands that apply directly to women other than telling them to obey their husband is regarding how they would approach Yah himself in the temple and even those he gives to the men and not directly to the women.

If the church were to set the standards, who would be voting on them?
Do the women vote?
Will you want other men to set the standards for your household?

 

[FollowingHim]

It is clear. I'll paraphrase:
KJV: 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;
Samuel's paraphrase: In the same way, women should wear sensible, unassuming, unpretentious clothing, and be respectful and self-controlled. They should not draw attention to themselves with braided hair, jewelery, or expensive clothing.

It's not about wearing exactly what everyone else is wearing. It's about not drawing attention to themselves. And it is about an attitude of the heart that is expressed through clothing, not about the clothing itself. The clothing simply illustrates the heart attitude and flows from it.

So wearing sexually provocative clothing is completely against what the verse says. Don't do it. But the problem is that it is drawing attention to herself, not that it is sexually provocative. Because wearing really expensive clothing, even if not sexually provocative, is also explicitly prohibited for the exact same reason. And I think the opposite extreme could be argued also - a woman wandering around a Western shopping mall in a traditional nun's habit could be seen as saying "look at me, I'm holier than you", while a woman wearing sensible clothing that she bought from one of the shops in the mall would be not drawing any attention to herself.

But it's more than clothing. Because a bishop is also commanded to behave in such a fashion in 3:2. The bishop isn't being told not to wear a miniskirt. This is much deeper than clothing.

 

[rockfox]

Where does it say anything about sexually provocative?

Bro this is a man ruling his household issue. This verse has absolutely nothing to do with sexy clothing. That issue like most issues that apply to women is something that Yah leaves for the head of household to discern. Yah is a “gentleman” he doesn’t usurp the hierarchy that he established. Almost all commands that apply directly to women other than telling them to obey their husband is regarding how they would approach Yah himself in the temple and even those he gives to the men and not directly to the women.

We're having two different conversations. You're saying...it's up to the man to decide for his wife, not any other man. I'm asking, what should a man decide?

And @steve's question is applicable here to. Churches have a duty to deal with sin amoung their flock. They will have to come to a corporate understanding of what is/isn't appropriate.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I do realize that I’m in a different position than some here, but let me go on record as saying, It will be a cold day in Hell before I allow any assembly to determine what is sin for my family ever again. For whatever reason.

This is only part of the reason why I will never be a “member” or volunteer for inclusion or allegiance to any corporate body.

It is truly a beautiful thing to see and participate as autonomous heads of households, assembling their households with other autonomous heads of households and theirs without any of the heirarchal BS that goes along with it.

 

[steve]

let me go on record as saying, It will be a cold day in Hell before I allow any assembly to determine what is sin for my family ever again. For whatever reason.

 

[Pacman]

I'm asking, what should a man decide?

That’s between him and Yah. The Bible isn’t specific about it.

 

[Pacman]

And @steve's question is applicable here to. Churches have a duty to deal with sin amoung their flock. They will have to come to a corporate understanding of what is/isn't appropriate.

Again calling it a sin is not appropriate. This is something that should be left to the head of household...

 

[Pacman]

I do realize that I’m in a different position than some here, but let me go on record as saying, It will be a cold day in Hell before I allow any assembly to determine what is sin for my family ever again. For whatever reason.

This is only part of the reason why I will never be a “member” or volunteer for inclusion or allegiance to any corporate body.

It is truly a beautiful thing to see and participate as autonomous heads of households, assembling their households with other autonomous heads of households and theirs without any of the heirarchal BS that goes along with it.

Spot on!!!

 

[frederick]

It will be a cold day in Hell before I allow any assembly to determine what is sin for my family ever again. For whatever reason.

Perhaps there is a failure by many to understand the practical implications of Rom. 3:20(?) God is the only one who lays down the law and it is through His law we have a knowledge of sin. I totally agree, religious groups don't have the right to determine what is sin and lay that burden on others. All of us must know the Law and it's proper applications to life in order that we avoid sinning against our holy God. Lead your wives and families, gentlemen, so they grow up to be sanctified, mature followers of Jesus Christ and we will have few if any problems here. Shalom

 

[rockfox]

Again calling it a sin is not appropriate.

So it was merely a suggestion from Paul; not a command that must be obeyed?

totally agree, religious groups don't have the right to determine what is sin and lay that burden on others.

It will be a cold day in Hell before I allow any assembly to determine what is sin for my family ever again.

The scriptures determine what is sin; but the church does have a legitimate God given role to play: Matt 18:15-19, 1 Cor 5. While I'm no fan of American churchianity, I cannot reject that.

 

[FollowingHim]

So it was merely a suggestion from Paul; not a command that must be obeyed?

Paul never commanded "women must wear clothing that doesn't show much skin and isn't too tight". I have already gone through what Paul actually said. You keep jumping back to your assumption that Paul said women must be "modest", and by "modest" he meant what Western Christian culture thinks the English word "modest" means.

Paul never said this. So whether it was a suggestion or a command is irrelevant. He never said it. Read what he actually said, and not just in the KJV.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

The scriptures determine what is sin; but the church does have a legitimate God given role to play: Matt 18:15-19, 1 Cor 5. While I'm no fan of American churchianity, I cannot reject that.

Every assembly has the imperative to search the scriptures, and from scripture we know what sin is. This does not give the assembly the authority to dictate standards for my household in any venue.

If another brother has an issue with some thing re my family, then he is entirely welcome to address that with me. The fact that it offends his sensibilities is not a justification or an imperative for me to change standards for my household. I. Will. Decide.

If the assembly of men decides to address it, then by all means, let’s open the scriptures. If they are trying to impose their bias thru the scriptures, then that’s not an assembly I care to be associated with anyway. They’ll have to answer for their bias and I’d have to answer if I continued to assemble my family with theirs.

 

[rockfox]

Paul never commanded "women must wear clothing that doesn't show much skin and isn't too tight". I have already gone through what Paul actually said. You keep jumping back to your assumption that Paul said women must be "modest", and by "modest" he meant what Western Christian culture thinks the English word "modest" means.

Paul never said this. So whether it was a suggestion or a command is irrelevant. He never said it. Read what he actually said, and not just in the KJV.

I don't think I actually took a stand on this thread on what particular forms of dress/adornment would or would not be modest; except to make some rhetorical points about bikini's to show the ridiculousness of what's being argued here.

You stated... "not drawing attention to themselves...So wearing sexually provocative clothing is completely against what the verse says. Don't do it. But the problem is that it is drawing attention to herself, not that it is sexually provocative".

But that is to only take half the command: sóphrosuné ... self-control, discreetly, moderate.
But there is another portion: aidós ... sense of shame, modesty

The string bikini clad woman is neither discreet nor exhibiting a sense of shame. It's ironic you claim I'm holding to what western Christian culture thinks, for it's only modern Western Christians who'd think a woman could wear such a thing and still have a sense of shame.

 

[steve]

The string bikini clad woman is neither discreet nor exhibiting a sense of shame

Nobody disagrees with you on that.
The whole point is that it is the husbands, and ONLY the husbands, decision as to where the line is drawn.

If he is not drawing it in the right place, the men around him are responsible to reason with him.
Not to shame her, because she doesn’t belong to them.
Read Isaiah 3, these women had no husband and were drawing attention to themselves and things went south. Vs 18, In that day the Lord shall take away........ When convicted, they chose to place themselves under the authority of a husband.
After they place themselves under proper authority we see in 4:2 that in THAT day everything changes for the better.