Women's clothing

[FollowingHim]

But there is another portion: aidós ... sense of shame, modesty

Yet the only other time that word appears in scripture, Hebrews 12:28, it is translated "reverence". You're correct it does have the meaning of a sense or shame & modesty, my point in bringing up the other verse is just to show that it too is used more broadly. It is not just about clothing either - Hebrews 12:28 is not telling us what clothing to wear when we serve God.

I'm not arguing with you so much as trying to consider the deeper principles rather than focussing on clothing details. Because the detail is not specified in scripture, so must come down to a husband's discretion. We are only told the principles.

 

[rockfox]

That's not the word usually translated reverence. Shamefacedness would fit the context of Heb 12:28 just as well in addition to being dictionary correct. I don't know why they translate it that way in Heb; but none translate it that way in 1 Tim.

αἰδώς ((όος) (οῦς, ἡ; from Homer down; a sense of shame, modesty: 1 Timothy 2:9;

so must come down to a husband's discretion

What scripture says this?

 

[PeteR]

What scripture says this?

If it's not the husband's discretion, then whose is it?

 

[Pacman]

What scripture says this?

Ephesians 5:24 NASB
[24] But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

 

[rockfox]

Ephesians 5:24 NASB
[24] But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

True. But the church is also given teachers to help us understand doctrine and elders to look over our spiritual wellbeing.

In fact elders are directed to ...

speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

in Titus 2. The word translated discreet means "sound mind, self-controlled, temperate, sober-minded, modest, chaste". The word translated chaste means "pure, chaste, holy".

So here we have TWO! different people who are not the husband (elders and older women) that are supposed to be instructing your wife to be discrete and modest and the elder is to be teaching the husband in what is sound doctrine.

I realize most people here have been greatly harmed by American Churchianity; by church leaders gone wild. I understand, I myself was only able to save my marriage by leaving that system. But this is still God's design, it just needs to be grounded in people sound in the faith. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

These people are here to help us as we lead our home. No man is an island, it is better to have these people helping us influence our wives, cause you can bet there will be counter influences in the broader culture.

 

[steve]

But this is still God's design

Our interpretation of His word is not His design, that’s still a leftover of catholicism.
The elders didn’t have the ownership that a husband does. Their authority was much more advisory, much of it pertaining to doctrine.
The older women were to teach the younger, but again that was advice. No authority.

 

[Pacman]

True. But the church is also given teachers to help us understand doctrine and elders to look over our spiritual wellbeing.

In fact elders are directed to ...



in Titus 2. The word translated discreet means "sound mind, self-controlled, temperate, sober-minded, modest, chaste". The word translated chaste means "pure, chaste, holy".

So here we have TWO! different people who are not the husband (elders and older women) that are supposed to be instructing your wife to be discrete and modest and the elder is to be teaching the husband in what is sound doctrine.

I realize most people here have been greatly harmed by American Churchianity; by church leaders gone wild. I understand, I myself was only able to save my marriage by leaving that system. But this is still God's design, it just needs to be grounded in people sound in the faith. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

These people are here to help us as we lead our home. No man is an island, it is better to have these people helping us influence our wives, cause you can bet there will be counter influences in the broader culture.

There is a difference between teaching and enforcing. Yes there is a role for elders to teach and older ladies to teach younger ladies. But they have zero authority over the individual believer. That authority structure is laid out in 1 Corinthians 11 and it’s Yah, Yeshua, Man, woman.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

And it’s also in Titus 2. Obedient to their own husband. The elder and older woman is to teach her to be obedient to her own husband.

Chaste is an interesting word, but it simply means to be kept exclusive to her husband at whatever level he sets. That can have differing levels of “holiness” depending on the husband.

To some husbands that means no nudity ever, lights off sex etc. (ca-razy, I know) and for some it may go as far as to include attractive swimwear (depending upon the company it’s being worn in) and everything in between.

 

[FollowingHim]

There is some alignment between what @rockfox and I am saying, here:

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.

If we are in a church group, that is our society. The standards set by that society are the standards we should choose to follow, in order to not cause offence. So we can focus on more weighty matters. That does not mean that the elders have the authority to impose such standards, or that their standards are "right" and disobeying them is "sin". It just means we should go along with them even if just to keep the peace.

 

[Pacman]

Lingerie is appropriate to the occasion sometimes. As is a bathing suit. As is jeans as is a dress. The point is to be appropriate to the occasion. If a husband feels that a string bikini is appropriate for the beach that’s up to him. I won’t allow my women to wear it but I also won’t call it a sin if another man allows his woman to wear it.

 

[Cap]

Lingerie is appropriate to the occasion sometimes. As is a bathing suit. As is jeans as is a dress. The point is to be appropriate to the occasion. If a husband feels that a string bikini is appropriate for the beach that’s up to him. I won’t allow my women to wear it but I also won’t call it a sin if another man allows his woman to wear it.

But the irony is, you would look.

Maybe just o n c e. One quick more, it'll be ok.

 

[Cap]

Which brings up a interesting question. If a man can cause a wife to commit adultery by not divorcing her properly. And the Son of God said that looking at another woman lustfully causes adultery. Then a man letting his wife wear revealing clothes could cause her to commit adultery, which is a sin.

 

[Pacman]

But the irony is, you would look.

Maybe just o n c e. One quick more, it'll be ok.

And that’s a problem why?

 

[Pacman]

Which brings up a interesting question. If a man can cause a wife to commit adultery by not divorcing her properly. And the Son of God said that looking at another woman lustfully causes adultery. Then a man letting his wife wear revealing clothes could cause her to commit adultery, which is a sin.

Bro lust is coveting. What’s being talked about there is “don’t desire to steal another man’s wife” looking at her isn’t sin.

 

[Cap]

Bro lust is coveting. What’s being talked about there is “don’t desire to steal another man’s wife” looking at her isn’t sin.

I'm with you but, desire comes in stages.

 

[WifeOfHisYouth]

I'm with you but, desire comes in stages.

It’s a heart thing.

The love of money can grow if you let it.
You can let the desire to steal your neighbors car grow if you let it, too.

Is it a sin to look at those things and appreciate them, without coveting it? Or is it only a sin when in your heart you decide you are going to do whatever it takes to steal them away from their rightful possessor?

 

[Cap]

It’s a heart thing.

The love of money can grow if you let it.
You can let the desire to steal your neighbors car grow if you let it, too.

Is it a sin to look at those things and appreciate them, without coveting it? Or is it only a sin when in your heart you decide you are going to do whatever it takes to steal them away from their rightful possessor?

Money heart thing is one thing, Sexual desire is another. Power another. Each does different things but lumped together when talking about sin from God's point of view. Which we really don't know, but we learn as we each encounter them.

You would have to go deep deep inside a person's heart to find out how looking at someone with 'desire' really effects them. What if looking at someone else causes one to disdain the one they are with? Is that sin? If men were really honest, looking at a nice skinny long haired blonde with long shapely legs with a nice top in a tiny string bikini is not the same as looking at the Mona Lisa painting. There is a strong desire deep down, for just a little more. Imagination is powerful sometimes, but labeled as safe because no physical action was taken.

Porn thrives of this.

 

[Pacman]

Money heart thing is one thing, Sexual desire is another. Power another. Each does different things but lumped together when talking about sin from God's point of view. Which we really don't know, but we learn as we each encounter them.

You would have to go deep deep inside a person's heart to find out how looking at someone with 'desire' really effects them. What if looking at someone else causes one to disdain the one they are with? Is that sin? If men were really honest, looking at a nice skinny long haired blonde with long shapely legs with a nice top in a tiny string bikini is not the same as looking at the Mona Lisa painting. There is a strong desire deep down, for just a little more. Imagination is powerful sometimes, but labeled as safe because no physical action was taken.

Porn thrives of this.

Bro until it becomes desiring to steal her it’s not sin. Be careful you don’t add to scripture.

 

[Pacman]

It’s a heart thing.

The love of money can grow if you let it.
You can let the desire to steal your neighbors car grow if you let it, too.

Is it a sin to look at those things and appreciate them, without coveting it? Or is it only a sin when in your heart you decide you are going to do whatever it takes to steal them away from their rightful possessor?

I think I agree with the spirit of this but even a little bit of the love of money is a root of evil. It’s not a “level of desire” thing. This really is a “bright line” don’t desire to steal another man’s possessions. That’s the line.

 

[Cap]

Bro until it becomes desiring to steal her it’s not sin. Be careful you don’t add to scripture.

Why are so many marriages destroyed by porn but no one stole anyone?

It's not always about adding or taking away from scripture, it's more about trying to interpret what God said to understand His heart more than our own.

I would be careful in the concept of justifying oneself.