I think a general rule for men, as well as women, would be to consider if your apparel (or lack of it) would be a stumbling block that causes someone gazing on you to sin. The sin would be the lust in your heart that is directly related to what your eyes are beholding. There is a scripture, yes, that warns us strongly not to put a stumbling block in another’s path.
There is another good article in the link Ruth provided. The title is:
“Do not Conform to the Pattern of this World”
OK, is it possible to wear a swimsuit that would not possibly cause someone to lust? Would we have to have all male and all female pools and beaches? What if some men, esp. young men, are stumbled by a skirt just above the knees? What if some are stumbled by a sleeveless blouse? What about running attire? Is the stumbling aspect the only aspect? Is there really nothing that would give us specifics as to what our creator thinks?
What is your official position on this issue Big Tex?
When the Lord is within, your Holy Guest, He will guide you.
That’s better than a bunch of rules, so specific they could have been drafted by a team of lawyers.
Just make sure you’re not deceived. Satan loves to masquerade as the “voice of the Lord” — and it works on many. If he’s telling you “it’s alright!” to do things which in principle do not square with the Holy Scriptures, then you know it’s the devil. Demon-worshippers actually believe the saying, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” In other words, that’s a complete perversion of the Lord’s holy words, “Not my will, but Thine.” So to study and know His will…
As has been written already on this forum, we have to study and search the Scriptures, praying and reading. Pray for understanding that they will be opened up to you. Knock and it shall be opened to you, the Master promises.
Well, I do see your point. We can’t be held responsible for anothers thoughts if we have not deliberately set out to provoke those to lust. However, if we wear a bikini on a stage with cameras flashing and having it broadcast around the world–well, that seems deliberately provocative to me. So, I guess we dress according to what is appropriate and is in accordance with modesty and integrity. I don’t feel comfortable strolling along a beach in a bathing suit for exactly the reasons you stated. I don’t need to be seen by anyone other than my husband and neither does he want me to be gawked at by strangers. I guess it comes down to honoring my husband by being honorable myself. And the same for honoring my Lord.
At this moment, I will have to refrain from having an official position. There is just too much ambiguity in regard to right and wrong on this topic at this point. My thoughts on this might just be misplaced feelings and cultural ideas. Or it might be influenced by my religious past. Clarity of thought is difficult when there are so many possibilities and no absolute directions or concrete principles upon which to make a quality decision. Can any of us say how much thigh or belly is definitely over the proverbial modesty line?
OK, I watched and read the link. Sounds good. So what are the specifics of our creators thoughts on modest dress? Where does he draw the line? Are there definitions of words and/or commands about how we dress?
Thanks for the response Big Tex. I understand you have no official position, but would you care to share those thoughts that you have? The ones that you say may be ” misplaced feelings” or “influenced by your religious past”?
Not yet. I do not want to influence anyone at this point. I would like some quality scriptural dialogue. I am trying to rethink all of this from scratch, if possible. Do you have scriptures that would point us in the right direction?
Big Tex,
I believe all the scriptures discussing this may have already been posted by others.
Tex,
Posted above was 1Tim 2:9. How does that fit in with your current beliefs/thoughts on this issue?
Psa 41:12 In my integrity you uphold me and set me in your presence forever.
Pro 11:3 The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity.
Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
Pro 3:6 in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.
Pro 3:13 Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding,
Pro 3:14 for she is more profitable than silver and yields better returns than gold.
Pro 3:15 She is more precious than rubies; nothing you desire can compare with her.
Pro 3:16 Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor.
Pro 3:17 Her ways are pleasant ways, and all her paths are peace.
Pro 3:18 She is a tree of life to those who embrace her; those who lay hold of her will be blessed.
Mat 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
Mat 7:8 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
Big Tex,
Perhaps the Lord is leading you to search this out for yourself. Just begin somewhere and He will be there to guide you.
Blessings to you. And goodnight.
The whole concept of a “beauty contest” is interesting. Contests do create strife. Take the Trojan War.
The “goddess” of Discord, Eris, angry at not being invited to a wedding, throws a golden apple on the banquet table and storms off. “For the Fairest” is written on it. Venus, Hera, and Athena all desire it, each believing it rightfully belongs to her. Zeus decrees that Paris will judge; the goddesses bribe him, and he chooses the bribe which most appeals: the most beautiful woman on earth, who happens to be married to another man, a king. His seduction of Helen of Sparta must be avenged, and there go the wooden soldiers for the gods’ sport.
The fact of “competition” has been heavy on my mind for some time. Cooperation seems to be the more Christian way. Competition can create more options, prevent there from being a monopoly of power, and that is good. But cooperation is actually more dynamic, though we’ve yet to see it really bloom. I believe cooperation more reflects the Christ Spirit.
I remember Paul also suggesting that people should esteem others better than they. So to compete to be at the “top” in beauty — would the Lord suggest it? No, nor would his talmidim. They did want to be at the top with Him, that’s for certain, but only God arranges the hierarchy. As for outer beauty, we just aren’t supposed to be that into externals. And why should we be? When the inner life of the Spirit is so much richer? And aren’t the most lovely ladies you’ve ever seen spiritually alive?
Yes, there is something very incongruous about parading in a bikini and saying you are a Christian. Yes, the beauty contest is still about vanity and pride in appearance. It reinforces a essentially silly concept of competing over appearance, and yes it very much matters how we present Christ.
Not that that is the end of this woman’s story, and may God shine into her life more and more fully each day. I’m not pretending to judge her future or her present. Thinking of these things in the abstract, but she is a real person in the “real world,” and only God is her judge, her Savior. May she be blessed and able to live her life fully surrendered to Him…and she needs our prayers, as we also desire each other’s prayers. May we take the time to do so.
I looked a few things from a strict preacher:
I Timothy 2:9 apparently says women should wear a long flowing garment – what is translated as “modest” is katastole (which means long, flowing garment). Can any of those skilled in language check that out? Isaiah 47:2-3 apparently says if a woman exposes her thigh she is essentially naked.
Big Tex why do you keep mentioning other cultures? If you’re concerned with what the Bible says realize it came from a specific culture. Why not search that cultures history for what is meant by modesty?
From my own perspective no type of form fitting or revealing clothing is modest – including (shock) bikinis and one piece swimsuits! If a very attractive woman wears any of this I may as well leave the area. Surely any man not seeking to “enjoy the show” would do the same. I might have a chance if the same woman wore a long, flowing garment that covered to the neck, below the knee, and approximately to the elbow.
Big Tex, have you really read all the scriptures in the first link I posted? The writer goes into real depth, and does cite Scriptures which are very specific on the subject of nakedness and coverings.
Juan G., thanks — I’d like to learn more about this.
Interesting exchanges. I think we can assert from the Song of Soloman that man and woman desire to be coupled is normative, and that the young and restless are for a season almost totally focused on their sexual counterpart for some completion of that desire. Eros then is of God, but not as an exclusive motivator of coupling being also created of God. Over time the other of his created loves come into perspective and relationship, after the infatuation of initial attraction of eros. Once so bonded a couple is less likely to be stimulated affresh for new such attraction, because the focus of life undergoes change and enlargement. Even what is defined as being intimacy enlarges and changes in regard. In other words coupling has its draw, and that is not exclusive of women being alluring, or men being handsome to the opposite sex.
Hefner and others proved that unveiling the body of a woman could also disassociate men from the natural progression of attraction and coupling to lead to deeper loves, greater bonds, and mutual care, commitments, order and sacrifice. All the loves possible of relations could coexist throughout marriage, and yet not exclusively so as to expressing creative relational living. To the unveilers of the attraction and allure of women–like Hefner–the next steps toward an enlarging love of coupling, children, care, family, community, and commitment were not the purpose or result of first attraction, the stimulus of the unveiling and restimulating of eros was. Eros then became both initial and continuous of regard.
So, is a young and lovely 17 year old claiming a Biblical faith claiming also a beauty queen title a virtual contradiction? And so in a culture which continuously values the unveiling of its alluring women as such? This, it would seem, is a question being examined here. It is good to read of the examination of scripture on dress, and too of the different kind of beauty adornment which comes from the inside out, rather than is confirmed strictly by eyes. What remain the challenges to us as men and women, and as neither male nor female in Christ. If love is the answer to the human predicament, how will the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by Christ Jesus complete us as couples, singles, pure of heart believers, and bearers of light and charity love to this dark world? If all the four or five loves are given by God of our creation, how can they be balanced and embraced, ordered and conveyed by both boundaries and disclosures?
Big Tex, It all started in the garden of eden. When Adam and Eve disobeyed the Lord by eating that forbidden fruit. Right then their eyes open. So, they saw themselves naked. They were ashamed so, they hid from the Lord. Sin dirtied mankind. When sin entered the world the purity the Lord gave us was stripped away from us. Shame has entered. That is why we wear clothing.
Question..Do you think when we all live in Heaven we will all be walking around naked? Doesn’t the bible teach we will be wearing a white robe?
Revelation 7:9 After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.
Just want to make this clear. When I posted my post #68 I did not read any of the newer posts yet. I just posted what the Holy spirit was giving me.
So, I just clicked onto the link that Ruth posted in post #65. It basically was the same thing I posted in my 1st paragraph. Talk about confirmation, huh?
newer posts to me were post #39 – #67.
Hey Y’all,
I am not trying to validate our culture. I am wondering if half or more of what we believe on the subject matter is based on scriptural truth or something else. Do we read into the passages what we already think? Do we insert our own definitions of words instead of finding out what the author meant? Have we taken the time to actually study the Bible and meditate on how its statements apply in our situation? Or are we going, at least somewhat, by our preprogrammed ideas that come from our families, friends, cultures, and even religious backgrounds? Is it really OK for a bunch of men to be naked in a big bathtub bath/spa? Did our creator really say it is OK for a whole sports team to shower all at the same time? Are we pagan Greeks or holy children of Yahweh? Where have our ideas really come from?
Is it Ok for a 50 year old man with a bald head and 30 pounds over weight to walk down the beach with his hairy legs and body showing? Would he cause anyone to stumble? What about his 22 year old daughter with her long hair in a pony tail positioned on one side of her head and wearing a similar length sarong over her bikini bottom? Is stumbling all that matters? Or is the standard the same for both?
Juan,
I like your effort and the verses you posted. The nakedness/thigh thing is not approved of by our culture. Do you think that it is only the women that is showing nakedness when her thigh is bare, or do you think that applies to the man also? Is there a passage that would differentiate or equate the male and female version of modesty?
Ruth,
I liked that link with the video. The principles about examining whether we are going against the scriptures because of going along with our cultures are good. I was trying to make some of those same points in the Xmas debate…nobody seemed to like the ideas over there. I wonder if our culture has blinded us so much that we can’t even consider whether we have inherited lies from our fathers. Whether it is what the Bible calls nudity or pagan celebrations, we seem to bristle up when someone points these things out. How do we open our eyes to know if our churches are perpetuating paganism and immodesty if we are constantly being inundated with the message that these things are fine?
Jeremiah 16 19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.
1 Peter 1 14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: 15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; 16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. 17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: 18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Cultures lies…our fathers lies, what is the difference. Biblical modesty is taught from the early chapters of Genesis to Revelation. Loin cloths/bikinis/aprons/sarongs are just another form of fig leaf. We need coats of skins. Male and female received the same garment from above. They were husband and wife, and allowed to see each other naked, but YHWH still required a significant covering of mankind’s skin. It is interesting that no one has brought this up yet.
YHWH has the same law for the husband and wife. He has the same law for the home born and the stranger. He didn’t give permission for the man to go bare chested and the woman not. He covered both man and woman with a garment that went from knee to elbow. (look up the word for coat in that passage) It is our culture that has declared fig leaves to be sufficient clothing, not the scriptures.
If husband and wife are to be clothed in front of one another except during intimate relationship, I seriously doubt that locker room showers are acceptable. Or swimsuits in public. Or even shorts and skirts for men or women that reveal thighs. Or tank tops…etc. There are many more verses that tell us these things.
When the apostolic writings say modesty, they have the Torah and prophets definitions in mind. We are destroyed for the lack of knowledge of YHWH’s law.
Hosea 4 6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
Our children are inheriting lies from us because we do not give them the foundation of YHWH’s truth to build upon. A while back this site interviewed an expert that said that 3/4ths of christian children leave the church/faith when they get to college…or something like that. The ambiguous idea of being led by the spirit does not mean much without YHWH’s Torah as a foundation. Modesty can mean anything without a solid anchor or truth. We will never be able to be sanctified or even be able to recognize holiness without YHWH’s word that Y’Shua told us about.
John 17 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
We are supposed to be in the world but not of it. We must accept YHWH’s sanctifying word. Y’shua sanctified Himself by obeying the Father. He asks the Father to sanctify us the same way. We will continue to falter and not be able to give a sure word on modest dress if we reject knowledge…knowledge of YHWH’s law. Our children will continue to suffer because of it.
Shalom
Whoa Nellie, is this another carousel ride? Hopefully no dead horses this time. How about slowing down just a bit? Does anybody else see the equality of the sexes in the dress code as described above? Is there a verse about thigh coverage for men as well as women? Is this issue one of holiness/sanctification or of just being considerate of others not being stumbled?
Thanks, Bo, and the Scriptures you quoted are great and appropriate.
Where you wrote: “YHWH still required a significant covering of mankind’s skin. It is interesting that no one has brought this up yet.”
Did you check out this link which was posted? Because it addresses the coverings provided by God:
Big Tex, you’ve been given a lot of help by fellow believers, but the fact that you are still asking the same questions makes me wonder if you have pondered the points made; read all the Scripture provided; opened all the links; and most importantly, prayed about your questions. I know of no better help than the Lord himself. Everything I’ve ever wanted to know, He’s led me to understand. Strengthen that relationship, as we all must do, daily, and He will lead you into all needed understanding. Blessings,
P.S. Bo, that link is different from the one you mentioned with the video…
Big Tex, I have a feeling you know the word of God quite well. I think you are testing us. Making us think.
Are you writing a Christian book and you are using us as guinea pigs?
I am not writing a book. I might know the scripture well compared to some, not so well compared to others. I am not testing anyone. I want us all to have a solid reason for believing what we believe. I think that we need to learn from each other. I think that we should be able to give an answer, and a good scriptural one at that, to those that ask about Biblical modesty and to rescue those that have fallen into the snare of the devil in this regard. We should be able to say “thus sayeth the scripture” instead of leaving loose ends hanging. We need to be able to give a sure word. So I ask a million questions to elicit a brain storm that might clarify our stance and bring unity of the faith while hopefully maintaining a unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. So my questions above remain unanswered mostly. Bo brought up some good scriptural points to ponder as did Juan, Sheila and Ruth, not to mention others.
Others you didn’t mention…
Debbie started writing about the pride in beauty pageants, how they are about the glorifying of the flesh, and Pamela and her both touched on the subject of the nakedness in the Garden of Eden, and we were all tending that way by the Lord to a fuller conclusion in understanding what it first meant to be “naked and unashamed” and how coverings came to be, and what they signify, and how important it is to be clothed with that righteousness that is imputed to us by His grace, who died for our sins.
And if clothing sytles are productive of lust, they can’t be in accordance with the Lord’s Holy Will, now can they?
May you be blessed and abide always in Him
your sister, Ruth
I’ll try to calm down a bit. Sorry for the intensity. One of my friends says that I have the tact of a heat seeking missile…ready, aim, fire!
The passage that I can think of that would put the thigh issue upon the men as well as women is:
Exodus 28 42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach: 43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.
Sounds about like boxer shorts or biker’s shorts or bloomers to me. The interesting thing it that these priests will only be in the presence of men and/or YHWH when they perform the duties described above. It would seem that man’s nakedness is supposed to be covered in YHWH’s presence also.
It looks like we will be clothed in eternity also. Man was initially clothed with the glory of YHWH. When he lost that covering, he tried to cover himself. The physical is symptomatic of the spiritual in this regard. Those that do not cover themselves to the extent and according to the example that YHWH gave to us, are knowingly or unknowingly proclaiming the glory of man instead of the glory of YHWH.
The principle is that all glory is covered except YHWH’s. Look at this:
1 Corinthians 11 1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) 10 That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels. 11 (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.) 13 Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
As far as headship is concerned the covered head is for the woman only because she is the glory of her man. The man’s head should not be covered because he is the glory of YHWH. With the wife’s head covered it both covers man’s glory, which is the wife, and the wife’s glory, which is her long hair.
Also consider that the ark of the covenant was to be covered when not in the tabernacle. It was symbolic of man. YHWH told Moses to build an ark for the second set of commandments. The first ones got broken because they were only written on stone. The second set were to be put on the inside if something. When YHWH’s commandments are written on the inside of us, we do not break them. Even this symbolic rendition of man’s glorious state of being in the new covenant was to be covered so that YHWH would receive all the glory. There was no need to for everybody to ooh and aah over the glorious mercy seat. The oohs and aahs were to be reserved for YHWH alone, not lavished on his glorious creation. Messiah receives the glory for redeemed man. That is why the mercy seat/ark of the covenant that represents redeemed man needed to be covered.
Mans glory needs to be covered. Whether it is his muscular frame or the weaker vessel’s beautiful figure. The strong thighs of a man or the beautiful thighs of the woman are not to be shown off…even if only in the same sex’s company.
So the redeemed Miss America needs to be covered, as do all of us. How much more do the unredeemed need to be covered, as they are man’s glory and pride being shown to the max.
Shabbat Shalom
Anybody want to stone Bo for his above stated views? I’ll have to chew on it for while myself. Do we have a Biblical reason for locker room showers? Are bare thighs showing nakedness for both sexes? What about covering glory? That is a interesting subject to me.
Have a good weekend y’all. I’ll try to get back to this in a few days. Got a lot to do here for a while though.
I’m wondering about this. If a woman wears short hair then she is no longer considered a temptation to wicked angels?
1 Corinthians 11 has got to be one of the most difficult-to-fathom passages, partly because Paul is writing to people who understand fully the customs of his time, which we no longer are familiar with. This article attempts to detangle it:
WOMENSHAIRSTUDY.pdf
It looks like the above study won’t transfer that way; I’ll try to get another address for it because it came from a members’ only forum in a certain support group… If I can’t get another address for it, I’ll just copy certain paragraphs when I return (will be gone all day). Peace,
Here is a pretty good article on the woman’s Head covering:
I wonder if Christian women would wear swimsuits in public if they also wore a Biblical veil on their heads. It would sure be paint a mixed up picture.
Shalom
That would have to be one really long, dense and full head scarf!
Well, I’ll be; so, that’s where women’s viels came from in the marriage ceremony! Middle eastern cultures.
I think the following paragraphs summarized it pretty well and I understand better the customs that were prevelant in Paul’s day. I combined the ones I thought spoke plainly to the subject. I would have to say our liberty in Christ extends to a woman’s hair style and to not having her hair covered if she chooses not to.
“If a Jewish woman who was a believer wanted to take a Nazarite vow, she was allowed to do so and at the end of the vow she would have to shave off her hair. In that culture this may have caused her shame to appear in the congregation with no hair and no veil, because of the connection a shaved head had with an unfaithful wife. Paul gives her permission to veil herself, if it is a shame for her to appear with a shaved head. “For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off. But, if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off, or her head shaved, LET her cover her head.” 1 Corinthians 11:6 If the woman had the freedom to appear in the worship service without her head covering, Paul says she is also free from the custom of long hair. Paul uses the words of permission “Let her.” He says, “Let her wear the veil or let her have her hair cut.” The inspired word is one of permission, not of restriction. Paul is not telling the Corinthians that a woman must cover her head. He could not do that – after all, he had just told them that the covering of the head shamed Christ. Wearing the head covering that symbolizes shame for sin is not a Christian custom – but, on the other hand, Paul could not tell women that they must uncover their head. That would violate the sanctity of many of their marriages. Jewish women presented a different dilemma in the congregation because of the custom of that day. It would be wonderful if all women could follow men into the full uncovering of their heads and honour Christ, but many couldn’t — and Paul respects women and the customs of that day that stopped them from having full freedom of an unveiled head in Christ. Today, for the most part we don’t have these cultural mandates that require women to have a head covering. Let’s go on to the short summary that Paul gives for head coverings, starting in verse 7. “For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is in the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man.” The inspired word usage here is very revealing. Paul says that a male ought not to have his head covered; the Greek word means “to be under obligation to.” What Paul is saying is that men do not have an obligation to have their head covered. There are no serious repercussions for a man to go without a head covering in the Christian community. And a man will not suffer loss by being divorced, if he does not cover his head. His only obligation is to Christ. A man who takes a Nazarite vow, and then shaves off his hair is not shamed by having a bald head. Paul says that there is no reason at all for a man to be under obligation to cover his head. Next, Paul introduces the fact that the man’s glory is his creation in the image of God. This was another reason to remove the veil. Paul brings out a very important fact that the woman is the glory of man. Note, that Paul does not say that the woman was made in the image of God or that she is the glory of God. His omission does not mean that the woman is not the image of God or that she is not the glory of God. Paul reminds us in 2 Corinthians 3:18, “But we all with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.” All humans are made in the image of God and all Christians display the glory of God. Male and female are in the image of God. Yet there are those who deny that the woman reflects the glory of God. Man has the glory of God and so does the woman. However, the woman is the only one to be created with two glories. She is the glory of God and the glory of man.” Why does Paul put women first here? Because, he has just told us, that women have authority to make their own decisions. Yet, in the Lord, Paul says there is equality and interdependence. What started out with the preeminence of the man, being the origin of the woman, moved to the importance of woman as the the origin of all men, but, ultimately all things have their beginning, their origin, in God, so all are equal in the Lord. Now Paul tells the Corinthians to make up their own mind from the example that he has just set. “Judge for yourself, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” Paul is asking is it right, or proper, for a woman to pray to God without the veil that symbolizes her sin. By this point in Paul’s argument, they should be able to judge that, yes, it is right for a woman to go unveiled before God because, she too, has her sins forgiven. Next, there is another judgment call. “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonour to him, but if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her. For her hair is given to her for a covering.” The Greek was written without punctuation. The International Standard Version gives the rendering without the question mark. “Nature itself teaches you neither that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair, nor, that hair is a woman’s glory, for hair is given as a substitute for coverings.” Now let’s think about Paul’s argument. Nature can teach you a lot of things but can it teach you that there is a standard for length of hair for a man and a different standard for a woman? To understand Paul’s argument let’s consider our arm hair: What does nature teach us about our arm hair? We all have arm hair but it doesn’t grow very long. Why? Because nature teaches us that arm hair is designed to grow to a certain length, and then stop. Now if we compare our arm hair to our head hair what does nature teach us about the difference between our arm hair and our head hair? Nature teaches us that our head hair was designed to keep on growing and growing until we cut it. Our arm hair is different. It was designed to grow a certain length and then stop. Now let’s apply this to Paul’s argument. What does nature teach us about the hair on the head of little boys, and the hair on the head of little girls? Is there a difference? No. Both of them have hair that grows. Paul is asking the Corinthians to reason, and then to decide. Does nature teach you that there is a difference between the hair on the head of a male, and that of a female that necessitates a rule that one can cut their hair and the other one cannot? No. Paul says because not even nature teaches us that there is a difference. Next Paul is asking the Corinthians to reason another way. Is it a shame for a man to have long hair? The answer has to be, No. Why? Because God, Himself, required some men to leave their hair long. A man who took a Nazarite vow did not cut his hair and God wanted it that way. In a similar way, the most orthodox Jews did not cut the sides of their hair – the longer the hair on the sides of their heads; the more spiritual they were thought to be. Was it a shame for a man to have long hair? No, it wasn’t. And the religious Jewish men proved that. Paul himself would have had to have long hair at one time because he took a Nazarite vow. If Paul let his hair grow because of the vow, how could he tell the Corinthians that it was a shame for a man to have long hair? It wasn’t a shame. And what Paul is saying is, ‘Look, the customs surrounding hair are not from God. You can’t appeal to nature for the custom because nature doesn’t distinguish between male and female. You can’t appeal to shame because God required both male and female Nazarites to grow their hair and then later to shave their hair equally.’ Paul is saying, ‘Look, think, the customs surrounding hair are not God’s customs – they are man’s.’ Paul gives another argument. “For her hair is given to her for a covering.” In the original Greek the inspired Word does not say “given to her” but “given to ones’ own self,” male or female. Nature has equally provided to all of us hair for a covering, and nothing additional is needed. “But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.” Paul’s last argument against customs dealing with hair is his statement that neither do we, the apostles, nor do the churches of God have this custom.
Sheila,
You have turned the passages above totally upside down. I have never seen such twisting of direct statements, that I can remember. You should have titled the above post, “Come on baby Christian let’s do the twist.”
2 Peter 3 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
You wrote: ““For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off. But, if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off, or her head shaved, LET her cover her head.” 1 Corinthians 11:6 If the woman had the freedom to appear in the worship service without her head covering, Paul says she is also free from the custom of long hair. Paul uses the words of permission “Let her.” He says, “Let her wear the veil or let her have her hair cut.” The inspired word is one of permission, not of restriction. Paul is not telling the Corinthians that a woman must cover her head. He could not do that – after all, he had just told them that the covering of the head shamed Christ.”
First the passage says, “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn.” This can only mean that there are two options for the woman to which Paul is referring. 1) To cover her head or 2) to get a crew cut at the longest. That is all the first part of the verse says. (Either cover it or shave it…period.) The reason Paul gives for the woman to be covered is that she is the glory of man.(verse 7) There is nothing in this passage about a head covering representing sin. The covering represents the submission and headship principle discussed in the passage. It is physical symbol of divine authority. Rebelling against the symbol is part and parcel to rebelling against the spiritual.
Paul is discussing new covenant ordinances here.(verse 2) The next one he goes on to discuss is the Lord’s supper. These two ordinances rank right up there with baptism.
Second the passage says, “but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” Contrary to your assertion, the “Let her be covered is in the imperative mood in the Greek…it is a command, not an option. The second part of the verse is restating the intent of the first part. If you can’t bring yourself to go around shaven or with a crew cut, cover your head. Again, only two choices. No middle length or hair styling is remotely suggested here.
Paul did not say that covering the head shamed Messiah. He said that the covering of a MAN’S head shamed Messiah. He also said that the woman that does not cover her head dishonors her husband. So it kind of goes like this:
If the woman doesn’t care if she shames her husband and so goes about without a head covering, she should also shave her head so that she is also shamed. If she does not like the idea of being shamed, she should also not shame her husband by going about without a head covering. “Love your neighbor as yourself” and “Do unto others as you would have done to yourself” come to mind.
The rest of your post above strikes me as ludicrous also. I have read dozens of books and articles on this topic and studied it and discussed it for 18 years. This is the first time that my mouth has literally dropped open in utter amazement. Please reconsider your stance on this issue. Did you read the link that Big Tex posted?
We should continue this on the head coverings forum. I will also post this there so that it will be easy to find. Also here is the link:
In case anyone else has misunderstood my post #94, After the first paragraph, everything else came from the article posted by Ruth. I just condensed the sum of it. I forgot to put quotation marks around the entire article. Sorry for that. Even the last sentence is from the article.
I am speaking for my husband, as we discussed this subject of whether I should cover my head. He pointed out that my head was covered by Christ, as He is the Head of all things. My husband is the head of our family, even just a family of two in our case, and Christ is the Head of my husband, so, he says, we are “both” covered in Christ–the head of all. And further, that, in Christ, “there is neither male nor female, but a new creature.” And he asked me why would any woman worry about angels when she has the Holy Spirit and Jesus as her defense? I couldn’t answer that one, except to say, “I won’t worry about it again.”
My husband is a simple man and sometimes he can cut to the heart of a matter quicker than I can.
Sheila,
It is interesting that Paul didn’t see it the way your husband does. He thought that the symbolic covering was necessary, just like he thought the symbolic body and blood of Messiah was necessary. Just like there are ramifications to not rightly discerning the Lord’s body, there are ramifications for not keeping the head covering ordinance.
1 Corinthians 11 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
You are correct to submit to your husband in this, but he will have to stand in front of Messiah, his head, and explain why he disagreed with Paul. There may be more to why your husband doesn’t want you to wear a head covering than even he knows. He may find that the shame of your head not being covered is a bigger deal than he thought when he gives account to Y’shua. The head covering issue can bring much persecution to the husband when his wife begins to wear one, but those “that live godly in Christ shall suffer persecution.” Better to be shamed in man’s eyes than Messiah’s. It is good to ask YHWH to search our hearts.
There is no male or female in Christ but in the physical there are certain differences that the scripture would require we take into account and deal with appropriately. Head covering is one of these.
It is good to be simple. I think Paul stated clearly what the heart of the matter was. We err to think that it is different.
Shalom
It is interesting that when the head covering started to lose its significance in the church, being properly clothed began to lose its significance in the world. Now those that call themselves believers are running around naked, according to the scripture, and think that it is freedom in Christ. Has the salt of the earth lost its savor?
Shalom
I’ll not be drawn into answering any more of your deliberately antagonistic and judgmental posts.
Psa 149:4 For the LORD takes pleasure in his people; he adorns the humble with salvation.
I think a general rule for men, as well as women, would be to consider if your apparel (or lack of it) would be a stumbling block that causes someone gazing on you to sin. The sin would be the lust in your heart that is directly related to what your eyes are beholding. There is a scripture, yes, that warns us strongly not to put a stumbling block in another’s path.
There is another good article in the link Ruth provided. The title is:
“Do not Conform to the Pattern of this World”
OK, is it possible to wear a swimsuit that would not possibly cause someone to lust? Would we have to have all male and all female pools and beaches? What if some men, esp. young men, are stumbled by a skirt just above the knees? What if some are stumbled by a sleeveless blouse? What about running attire? Is the stumbling aspect the only aspect? Is there really nothing that would give us specifics as to what our creator thinks?
What is your official position on this issue Big Tex?
When the Lord is within, your Holy Guest, He will guide you.
That’s better than a bunch of rules, so specific they could have been drafted by a team of lawyers.
Just make sure you’re not deceived. Satan loves to masquerade as the “voice of the Lord” — and it works on many. If he’s telling you “it’s alright!” to do things which in principle do not square with the Holy Scriptures, then you know it’s the devil. Demon-worshippers actually believe the saying, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” In other words, that’s a complete perversion of the Lord’s holy words, “Not my will, but Thine.” So to study and know His will…
As has been written already on this forum, we have to study and search the Scriptures, praying and reading. Pray for understanding that they will be opened up to you. Knock and it shall be opened to you, the Master promises.
Well, I do see your point. We can’t be held responsible for anothers thoughts if we have not deliberately set out to provoke those to lust. However, if we wear a bikini on a stage with cameras flashing and having it broadcast around the world–well, that seems deliberately provocative to me. So, I guess we dress according to what is appropriate and is in accordance with modesty and integrity. I don’t feel comfortable strolling along a beach in a bathing suit for exactly the reasons you stated. I don’t need to be seen by anyone other than my husband and neither does he want me to be gawked at by strangers. I guess it comes down to honoring my husband by being honorable myself. And the same for honoring my Lord.
At this moment, I will have to refrain from having an official position. There is just too much ambiguity in regard to right and wrong on this topic at this point. My thoughts on this might just be misplaced feelings and cultural ideas. Or it might be influenced by my religious past. Clarity of thought is difficult when there are so many possibilities and no absolute directions or concrete principles upon which to make a quality decision. Can any of us say how much thigh or belly is definitely over the proverbial modesty line?
Thanks for pointing out that link, Sheila.
Big Tex, you’ve just gotta hear this:
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=759
OK, I watched and read the link. Sounds good. So what are the specifics of our creators thoughts on modest dress? Where does he draw the line? Are there definitions of words and/or commands about how we dress?
Thanks for the response Big Tex. I understand you have no official position, but would you care to share those thoughts that you have? The ones that you say may be ” misplaced feelings” or “influenced by your religious past”?
Not yet. I do not want to influence anyone at this point. I would like some quality scriptural dialogue. I am trying to rethink all of this from scratch, if possible. Do you have scriptures that would point us in the right direction?
Big Tex,
I believe all the scriptures discussing this may have already been posted by others.
Tex,
Posted above was 1Tim 2:9. How does that fit in with your current beliefs/thoughts on this issue?
Psa 41:12 In my integrity you uphold me and set me in your presence forever.
Pro 11:3 The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity.
Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
Pro 3:6 in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.
Pro 3:13 Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding,
Pro 3:14 for she is more profitable than silver and yields better returns than gold.
Pro 3:15 She is more precious than rubies; nothing you desire can compare with her.
Pro 3:16 Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor.
Pro 3:17 Her ways are pleasant ways, and all her paths are peace.
Pro 3:18 She is a tree of life to those who embrace her; those who lay hold of her will be blessed.
Mat 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
Mat 7:8 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
Big Tex,
Perhaps the Lord is leading you to search this out for yourself. Just begin somewhere and He will be there to guide you.
Blessings to you. And goodnight.
The whole concept of a “beauty contest” is interesting. Contests do create strife. Take the Trojan War.
The “goddess” of Discord, Eris, angry at not being invited to a wedding, throws a golden apple on the banquet table and storms off. “For the Fairest” is written on it. Venus, Hera, and Athena all desire it, each believing it rightfully belongs to her. Zeus decrees that Paris will judge; the goddesses bribe him, and he chooses the bribe which most appeals: the most beautiful woman on earth, who happens to be married to another man, a king. His seduction of Helen of Sparta must be avenged, and there go the wooden soldiers for the gods’ sport.
The fact of “competition” has been heavy on my mind for some time. Cooperation seems to be the more Christian way. Competition can create more options, prevent there from being a monopoly of power, and that is good. But cooperation is actually more dynamic, though we’ve yet to see it really bloom. I believe cooperation more reflects the Christ Spirit.
I remember Paul also suggesting that people should esteem others better than they. So to compete to be at the “top” in beauty — would the Lord suggest it? No, nor would his talmidim. They did want to be at the top with Him, that’s for certain, but only God arranges the hierarchy. As for outer beauty, we just aren’t supposed to be that into externals. And why should we be? When the inner life of the Spirit is so much richer? And aren’t the most lovely ladies you’ve ever seen spiritually alive?
Yes, there is something very incongruous about parading in a bikini and saying you are a Christian. Yes, the beauty contest is still about vanity and pride in appearance. It reinforces a essentially silly concept of competing over appearance, and yes it very much matters how we present Christ.
Not that that is the end of this woman’s story, and may God shine into her life more and more fully each day. I’m not pretending to judge her future or her present. Thinking of these things in the abstract, but she is a real person in the “real world,” and only God is her judge, her Savior. May she be blessed and able to live her life fully surrendered to Him…and she needs our prayers, as we also desire each other’s prayers. May we take the time to do so.
I looked a few things from a strict preacher:
I Timothy 2:9 apparently says women should wear a long flowing garment – what is translated as “modest” is katastole (which means long, flowing garment). Can any of those skilled in language check that out?
Isaiah 47:2-3 apparently says if a woman exposes her thigh she is essentially naked.
Big Tex why do you keep mentioning other cultures? If you’re concerned with what the Bible says realize it came from a specific culture. Why not search that cultures history for what is meant by modesty?
From my own perspective no type of form fitting or revealing clothing is modest – including (shock) bikinis and one piece swimsuits!
If a very attractive woman wears any of this I may as well leave the area. Surely any man not seeking to “enjoy the show” would do the same.
I might have a chance if the same woman wore a long, flowing garment that covered to the neck, below the knee, and approximately to the elbow.
Big Tex, have you really read all the scriptures in the first link I posted? The writer goes into real depth, and does cite Scriptures which are very specific on the subject of nakedness and coverings.
Here it is again:
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=864
Juan G., thanks — I’d like to learn more about this.
Interesting exchanges. I think we can assert from the Song of Soloman that man and woman desire to be coupled is normative, and that the young and restless are for a season almost totally focused on their sexual counterpart for some completion of that desire. Eros then is of God, but not as an exclusive motivator of coupling being also created of God. Over time the other of his created loves come into perspective and relationship, after the infatuation of initial attraction of eros. Once so bonded a couple is less likely to be stimulated affresh for new such attraction, because the focus of life undergoes change and enlargement. Even what is defined as being intimacy enlarges and changes in regard. In other words coupling has its draw, and that is not exclusive of women being alluring, or men being handsome to the opposite sex.
Hefner and others proved that unveiling the body of a woman could also disassociate men from the natural progression of attraction and coupling to lead to deeper loves, greater bonds, and mutual care, commitments, order and sacrifice. All the loves possible of relations could coexist throughout marriage, and yet not exclusively so as to expressing creative relational living. To the unveilers of the attraction and allure of women–like Hefner–the next steps toward an enlarging love of coupling, children, care, family, community, and commitment were not the purpose or result of first attraction, the stimulus of the unveiling and restimulating of eros was. Eros then became both initial and continuous of regard.
So, is a young and lovely 17 year old claiming a Biblical faith claiming also a beauty queen title a virtual contradiction? And so in a culture which continuously values the unveiling of its alluring women as such? This, it would seem, is a question being examined here. It is good to read of the examination of scripture on dress, and too of the different kind of beauty adornment which comes from the inside out, rather than is confirmed strictly by eyes. What remain the challenges to us as men and women, and as neither male nor female in Christ. If love is the answer to the human predicament, how will the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by Christ Jesus complete us as couples, singles, pure of heart believers, and bearers of light and charity love to this dark world? If all the four or five loves are given by God of our creation, how can they be balanced and embraced, ordered and conveyed by both boundaries and disclosures?
Big Tex,
It all started in the garden of eden. When Adam and Eve disobeyed the Lord by eating that forbidden fruit. Right then their eyes open. So, they saw themselves naked. They were ashamed so, they hid from the Lord. Sin dirtied mankind.
When sin entered the world the purity the Lord gave us was stripped away from us. Shame has entered. That is why we wear clothing.
Question..Do you think when we all live in Heaven we will all be walking around naked? Doesn’t the bible teach we will be wearing a white robe?
Revelation 7:9
After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.
Just want to make this clear. When I posted my post #68 I did not read any of the newer posts yet. I just posted what the Holy spirit was giving me.
So, I just clicked onto the link that Ruth posted in post #65. It basically was the same thing I posted in my 1st paragraph. Talk about confirmation, huh?
newer posts to me were post #39 – #67.
Hey Y’all,
I am not trying to validate our culture. I am wondering if half or more of what we believe on the subject matter is based on scriptural truth or something else. Do we read into the passages what we already think? Do we insert our own definitions of words instead of finding out what the author meant? Have we taken the time to actually study the Bible and meditate on how its statements apply in our situation? Or are we going, at least somewhat, by our preprogrammed ideas that come from our families, friends, cultures, and even religious backgrounds? Is it really OK for a bunch of men to be naked in a big bathtub bath/spa? Did our creator really say it is OK for a whole sports team to shower all at the same time? Are we pagan Greeks or holy children of Yahweh? Where have our ideas really come from?
Is it Ok for a 50 year old man with a bald head and 30 pounds over weight to walk down the beach with his hairy legs and body showing? Would he cause anyone to stumble? What about his 22 year old daughter with her long hair in a pony tail positioned on one side of her head and wearing a similar length sarong over her bikini bottom? Is stumbling all that matters? Or is the standard the same for both?
Juan,
I like your effort and the verses you posted. The nakedness/thigh thing is not approved of by our culture. Do you think that it is only the women that is showing nakedness when her thigh is bare, or do you think that applies to the man also? Is there a passage that would differentiate or equate the male and female version of modesty?
Ruth,
I liked that link with the video. The principles about examining whether we are going against the scriptures because of going along with our cultures are good. I was trying to make some of those same points in the Xmas debate…nobody seemed to like the ideas over there. I wonder if our culture has blinded us so much that we can’t even consider whether we have inherited lies from our fathers. Whether it is what the Bible calls nudity or pagan celebrations, we seem to bristle up when someone points these things out. How do we open our eyes to know if our churches are perpetuating paganism and immodesty if we are constantly being inundated with the message that these things are fine?
Jeremiah 16
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.
1 Peter 1
14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Cultures lies…our fathers lies, what is the difference. Biblical modesty is taught from the early chapters of Genesis to Revelation. Loin cloths/bikinis/aprons/sarongs are just another form of fig leaf. We need coats of skins. Male and female received the same garment from above. They were husband and wife, and allowed to see each other naked, but YHWH still required a significant covering of mankind’s skin. It is interesting that no one has brought this up yet.
YHWH has the same law for the husband and wife. He has the same law for the home born and the stranger. He didn’t give permission for the man to go bare chested and the woman not. He covered both man and woman with a garment that went from knee to elbow. (look up the word for coat in that passage) It is our culture that has declared fig leaves to be sufficient clothing, not the scriptures.
If husband and wife are to be clothed in front of one another except during intimate relationship, I seriously doubt that locker room showers are acceptable. Or swimsuits in public. Or even shorts and skirts for men or women that reveal thighs. Or tank tops…etc. There are many more verses that tell us these things.
When the apostolic writings say modesty, they have the Torah and prophets definitions in mind. We are destroyed for the lack of knowledge of YHWH’s law.
Hosea 4
6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.
Our children are inheriting lies from us because we do not give them the foundation of YHWH’s truth to build upon. A while back this site interviewed an expert that said that 3/4ths of christian children leave the church/faith when they get to college…or something like that. The ambiguous idea of being led by the spirit does not mean much without YHWH’s Torah as a foundation. Modesty can mean anything without a solid anchor or truth. We will never be able to be sanctified or even be able to recognize holiness without YHWH’s word that Y’Shua told us about.
John 17
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
We are supposed to be in the world but not of it. We must accept YHWH’s sanctifying word. Y’shua sanctified Himself by obeying the Father. He asks the Father to sanctify us the same way. We will continue to falter and not be able to give a sure word on modest dress if we reject knowledge…knowledge of YHWH’s law. Our children will continue to suffer because of it.
Shalom
Whoa Nellie, is this another carousel ride? Hopefully no dead horses this time. How about slowing down just a bit? Does anybody else see the equality of the sexes in the dress code as described above? Is there a verse about thigh coverage for men as well as women? Is this issue one of holiness/sanctification or of just being considerate of others not being stumbled?
Thanks, Bo, and the Scriptures you quoted are great and appropriate.
Where you wrote: “YHWH still required a significant covering of mankind’s skin. It is interesting that no one has brought this up yet.”
Did you check out this link which was posted? Because it addresses the coverings provided by God:
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=864
Big Tex, you’ve been given a lot of help by fellow believers, but the fact that you are still asking the same questions makes me wonder if you have pondered the points made; read all the Scripture provided; opened all the links; and most importantly, prayed about your questions. I know of no better help than the Lord himself. Everything I’ve ever wanted to know, He’s led me to understand. Strengthen that relationship, as we all must do, daily, and He will lead you into all needed understanding. Blessings,
P.S. Bo, that link is different from the one you mentioned with the video…
Big Tex,
I have a feeling you know the word of God quite well. I think you are testing us. Making us think.
Are you writing a Christian book and you are using us as guinea pigs?
I am not writing a book. I might know the scripture well compared to some, not so well compared to others. I am not testing anyone. I want us all to have a solid reason for believing what we believe. I think that we need to learn from each other. I think that we should be able to give an answer, and a good scriptural one at that, to those that ask about Biblical modesty and to rescue those that have fallen into the snare of the devil in this regard. We should be able to say “thus sayeth the scripture” instead of leaving loose ends hanging. We need to be able to give a sure word. So I ask a million questions to elicit a brain storm that might clarify our stance and bring unity of the faith while hopefully maintaining a unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. So my questions above remain unanswered mostly. Bo brought up some good scriptural points to ponder as did Juan, Sheila and Ruth, not to mention others.
Others you didn’t mention…
Debbie started writing about the pride in beauty pageants, how they are about the glorifying of the flesh, and Pamela and her both touched on the subject of the nakedness in the Garden of Eden, and we were all tending that way by the Lord to a fuller conclusion in understanding what it first meant to be “naked and unashamed” and how coverings came to be, and what they signify, and how important it is to be clothed with that righteousness that is imputed to us by His grace, who died for our sins.
And if clothing sytles are productive of lust, they can’t be in accordance with the Lord’s Holy Will, now can they?
May you be blessed and abide always in Him
your sister, Ruth
I’ll try to calm down a bit. Sorry for the intensity. One of my friends says that I have the tact of a heat seeking missile…ready, aim, fire!
The passage that I can think of that would put the thigh issue upon the men as well as women is:
Exodus 28
42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.
Sounds about like boxer shorts or biker’s shorts or bloomers to me. The interesting thing it that these priests will only be in the presence of men and/or YHWH when they perform the duties described above. It would seem that man’s nakedness is supposed to be covered in YHWH’s presence also.
It looks like we will be clothed in eternity also. Man was initially clothed with the glory of YHWH. When he lost that covering, he tried to cover himself. The physical is symptomatic of the spiritual in this regard. Those that do not cover themselves to the extent and according to the example that YHWH gave to us, are knowingly or unknowingly proclaiming the glory of man instead of the glory of YHWH.
The principle is that all glory is covered except YHWH’s. Look at this:
1 Corinthians 11
1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven.
6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.
7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
8 (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)
10 That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.
11 (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;
12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.)
13 Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him,
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
As far as headship is concerned the covered head is for the woman only because she is the glory of her man. The man’s head should not be covered because he is the glory of YHWH. With the wife’s head covered it both covers man’s glory, which is the wife, and the wife’s glory, which is her long hair.
Also consider that the ark of the covenant was to be covered when not in the tabernacle. It was symbolic of man. YHWH told Moses to build an ark for the second set of commandments. The first ones got broken because they were only written on stone. The second set were to be put on the inside if something. When YHWH’s commandments are written on the inside of us, we do not break them. Even this symbolic rendition of man’s glorious state of being in the new covenant was to be covered so that YHWH would receive all the glory. There was no need to for everybody to ooh and aah over the glorious mercy seat. The oohs and aahs were to be reserved for YHWH alone, not lavished on his glorious creation. Messiah receives the glory for redeemed man. That is why the mercy seat/ark of the covenant that represents redeemed man needed to be covered.
Mans glory needs to be covered. Whether it is his muscular frame or the weaker vessel’s beautiful figure. The strong thighs of a man or the beautiful thighs of the woman are not to be shown off…even if only in the same sex’s company.
So the redeemed Miss America needs to be covered, as do all of us. How much more do the unredeemed need to be covered, as they are man’s glory and pride being shown to the max.
Shabbat Shalom
Anybody want to stone Bo for his above stated views? I’ll have to chew on it for while myself. Do we have a Biblical reason for locker room showers? Are bare thighs showing nakedness for both sexes? What about covering glory? That is a interesting subject to me.
Have a good weekend y’all. I’ll try to get back to this in a few days. Got a lot to do here for a while though.
I’m wondering about this. If a woman wears short hair then she is no longer considered a temptation to wicked angels?
1 Corinthians 11 has got to be one of the most difficult-to-fathom passages, partly because Paul is writing to people who understand fully the customs of his time, which we no longer are familiar with. This article attempts to detangle it:
WOMENSHAIRSTUDY.pdf
It looks like the above study won’t transfer that way; I’ll try to get another address for it because it came from a members’ only forum in a certain support group… If I can’t get another address for it, I’ll just copy certain paragraphs when I return (will be gone all day). Peace,
Here is a pretty good article on the woman’s Head covering:
http://fernshomestead.com/headcovering2.html
I wonder if Christian women would wear swimsuits in public if they also wore a Biblical veil on their heads. It would sure be paint a mixed up picture.
Shalom
That would have to be one really long, dense and full head scarf!
Well, I’ll be; so, that’s where women’s viels came from in the marriage ceremony! Middle eastern cultures.
Link to women’s hair study:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Xz2G7c-TyN8J:www.2x2church.com/1CORINTHIANS11.doc+cheryl+schatz%3B+women's+hair+study&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
This link shows the same study, but is better-formatted and easier to read:
http://www.2x2church.com/1CORINTHIANS11.doc
I’m still wading through it, btw. ( :
I think the following paragraphs summarized it pretty well and I understand better the customs that were prevelant in Paul’s day. I combined the ones I thought spoke plainly to the subject. I would have to say our liberty in Christ extends to a woman’s hair style and to not having her hair covered if she chooses not to.
“If a Jewish woman who was a believer wanted to take a Nazarite vow, she was allowed to do so and at the end of the vow she would have to shave off her hair. In that culture this may have caused her shame to appear in the congregation with no hair and no veil, because of the connection a shaved head had with an unfaithful wife.
Paul gives her permission to veil herself, if it is a shame for her to appear with a shaved head. “For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off. But, if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off, or her head shaved, LET her cover her head.” 1 Corinthians 11:6
If the woman had the freedom to appear in the worship service without her head covering, Paul says she is also free from the custom of long hair.
Paul uses the words of permission “Let her.” He says, “Let her wear the veil or let her have her hair cut.” The inspired word is one of permission, not of restriction. Paul is not telling the Corinthians that a woman must cover her head. He could not do that – after all, he had just told them that the covering of the head shamed Christ. Wearing the head covering that symbolizes shame for sin is not a Christian custom – but, on the other hand, Paul could not tell women that they must uncover their head. That would violate the sanctity of many of their marriages. Jewish women presented a different dilemma in the congregation because of the custom of that day.
It would be wonderful if all women could follow men into the full uncovering of their heads and honour Christ, but many couldn’t — and Paul respects women and the customs of that day that stopped them from having full freedom of an unveiled head in Christ.
Today, for the most part we don’t have these cultural mandates that require women to have a head covering.
Let’s go on to the short summary that Paul gives for head coverings, starting in verse 7. “For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is in the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man.”
The inspired word usage here is very revealing. Paul says that a male ought not to have his head covered; the Greek word means “to be under obligation to.”
What Paul is saying is that men do not have an obligation to have their head covered. There are no serious repercussions for a man to go without a head covering in the Christian community. And a man will not suffer loss by being divorced, if he does not cover his head. His only obligation is to Christ. A man who takes a Nazarite vow, and then shaves off his hair is not shamed by having a bald head. Paul says that there is no reason at all for a man to be under obligation to cover his head. Next, Paul introduces the fact that the man’s glory is his creation in the image of God. This was another reason to remove the veil. Paul brings out a very important fact that the woman is the glory of man. Note, that Paul does not say that the woman was made in the image of God or that she is the glory of God. His omission does not mean that the woman is not the image of God or that she is not the glory of God.
Paul reminds us in 2 Corinthians 3:18, “But we all with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.”
All humans are made in the image of God and all Christians display the glory of God. Male and female are in the image of God. Yet there are those who deny that the woman reflects the glory of God. Man has the glory of God and so does the woman. However, the woman is the only one to be created with two glories. She is the glory of God and the glory of man.”
Why does Paul put women first here? Because, he has just told us, that women have authority to make their own decisions. Yet, in the Lord, Paul says there is equality and interdependence.
What started out with the preeminence of the man, being the origin of the woman, moved to the importance of woman as the the origin of all men, but, ultimately all things have their beginning, their origin, in God, so all are equal in the Lord. Now Paul tells the Corinthians to make up their own mind from the example that he has just set.
“Judge for yourself, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?”
Paul is asking is it right, or proper, for a woman to pray to God without the veil that symbolizes her sin.
By this point in Paul’s argument, they should be able to judge that, yes, it is right for a woman to go unveiled before God because, she too, has her sins forgiven. Next, there is another judgment call.
“Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonour to him, but if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her. For her hair is given to her for a covering.”
The Greek was written without punctuation.
The International Standard Version gives the rendering without the question mark. “Nature itself teaches you neither that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair, nor, that hair is a woman’s glory, for hair is given as a substitute for coverings.”
Now let’s think about Paul’s argument. Nature can teach you a lot of things but can it teach you that there is a standard for length of hair for a man and a different standard for a woman?
To understand Paul’s argument let’s consider our arm hair: What does nature teach us about our arm hair? We all have arm hair but it doesn’t grow very long. Why? Because nature teaches us that arm hair is designed to grow to a certain length, and then stop. Now if we compare our arm hair to our head hair what does nature teach us about the difference between our arm hair and our head hair?
Nature teaches us that our head hair was designed to keep on growing and growing until we cut it. Our arm hair is different. It was designed to grow a certain length and then stop. Now let’s apply this to Paul’s argument. What does nature teach us about the hair on the head of little boys, and the hair on the head of little girls?
Is there a difference? No. Both of them have hair that grows. Paul is asking the Corinthians to reason, and then to decide. Does nature teach you that there is a difference between the hair on the head of a male, and that of a female that necessitates a rule that one can cut their hair and the other one cannot? No.
Paul says because not even nature teaches us that there is a difference.
Next Paul is asking the Corinthians to reason another way. Is it a shame for a man to have long hair? The answer has to be, No. Why? Because God, Himself, required some men to leave their hair long. A man who took a Nazarite vow did not cut his hair and God wanted it that way.
In a similar way, the most orthodox Jews did not cut the sides of their hair – the longer the hair on the sides of their heads; the more spiritual they were thought to be.
Was it a shame for a man to have long hair? No, it wasn’t. And the religious Jewish men proved that. Paul himself would have had to have long hair at one time because he took a Nazarite vow. If Paul let his hair grow because of the vow, how could he tell the Corinthians that it was a shame for a man to have long hair?
It wasn’t a shame. And what Paul is saying is, ‘Look, the customs surrounding hair are not from God. You can’t appeal to nature for the custom because nature doesn’t distinguish between male and female. You can’t appeal to shame because God required both male and female Nazarites to grow their hair and then later to shave their hair equally.’
Paul is saying, ‘Look, think, the customs surrounding hair are not God’s customs – they are man’s.’
Paul gives another argument. “For her hair is given to her for a covering.”
In the original Greek the inspired Word does not say “given to her” but “given to ones’ own self,” male or female.
Nature has equally provided to all of us hair for a covering, and nothing additional is needed.
“But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.”
Paul’s last argument against customs dealing with hair is his statement that neither do we, the apostles, nor do the churches of God have this custom.
Sheila,
You have turned the passages above totally upside down. I have never seen such twisting of direct statements, that I can remember. You should have titled the above post, “Come on baby Christian let’s do the twist.”
2 Peter 3
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
You wrote:
““For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off. But, if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off, or her head shaved, LET her cover her head.” 1 Corinthians 11:6
If the woman had the freedom to appear in the worship service without her head covering, Paul says she is also free from the custom of long hair.
Paul uses the words of permission “Let her.” He says, “Let her wear the veil or let her have her hair cut.” The inspired word is one of permission, not of restriction. Paul is not telling the Corinthians that a woman must cover her head. He could not do that – after all, he had just told them that the covering of the head shamed Christ.”
First the passage says, “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn.” This can only mean that there are two options for the woman to which Paul is referring. 1) To cover her head or 2) to get a crew cut at the longest. That is all the first part of the verse says. (Either cover it or shave it…period.) The reason Paul gives for the woman to be covered is that she is the glory of man.(verse 7) There is nothing in this passage about a head covering representing sin. The covering represents the submission and headship principle discussed in the passage. It is physical symbol of divine authority. Rebelling against the symbol is part and parcel to rebelling against the spiritual.
Paul is discussing new covenant ordinances here.(verse 2) The next one he goes on to discuss is the Lord’s supper. These two ordinances rank right up there with baptism.
Second the passage says, “but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” Contrary to your assertion, the “Let her be covered is in the imperative mood in the Greek…it is a command, not an option. The second part of the verse is restating the intent of the first part. If you can’t bring yourself to go around shaven or with a crew cut, cover your head. Again, only two choices. No middle length or hair styling is remotely suggested here.
Paul did not say that covering the head shamed Messiah. He said that the covering of a MAN’S head shamed Messiah. He also said that the woman that does not cover her head dishonors her husband. So it kind of goes like this:
If the woman doesn’t care if she shames her husband and so goes about without a head covering, she should also shave her head so that she is also shamed. If she does not like the idea of being shamed, she should also not shame her husband by going about without a head covering. “Love your neighbor as yourself” and “Do unto others as you would have done to yourself” come to mind.
The rest of your post above strikes me as ludicrous also. I have read dozens of books and articles on this topic and studied it and discussed it for 18 years. This is the first time that my mouth has literally dropped open in utter amazement. Please reconsider your stance on this issue. Did you read the link that Big Tex posted?
We should continue this on the head coverings forum. I will also post this there so that it will be easy to find. Also here is the link:
http://lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org/2010/02/19/february-19-2010/
Shalom
In case anyone else has misunderstood my post #94, After the first paragraph, everything else came from the article posted by Ruth. I just condensed the sum of it. I forgot to put quotation marks around the entire article. Sorry for that. Even the last sentence is from the article.
I am speaking for my husband, as we discussed this subject of whether I should cover my head. He pointed out that my head was covered by Christ, as He is the Head of all things. My husband is the head of our family, even just a family of two in our case, and Christ is the Head of my husband, so, he says, we are “both” covered in Christ–the head of all. And further, that, in Christ, “there is neither male nor female, but a new creature.” And he asked me why would any woman worry about angels when she has the Holy Spirit and Jesus as her defense? I couldn’t answer that one, except to say, “I won’t worry about it again.”
My husband is a simple man and sometimes he can cut to the heart of a matter quicker than I can.
Sheila,
It is interesting that Paul didn’t see it the way your husband does. He thought that the symbolic covering was necessary, just like he thought the symbolic body and blood of Messiah was necessary. Just like there are ramifications to not rightly discerning the Lord’s body, there are ramifications for not keeping the head covering ordinance.
1 Corinthians 11
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
You are correct to submit to your husband in this, but he will have to stand in front of Messiah, his head, and explain why he disagreed with Paul. There may be more to why your husband doesn’t want you to wear a head covering than even he knows. He may find that the shame of your head not being covered is a bigger deal than he thought when he gives account to Y’shua. The head covering issue can bring much persecution to the husband when his wife begins to wear one, but those “that live godly in Christ shall suffer persecution.” Better to be shamed in man’s eyes than Messiah’s. It is good to ask YHWH to search our hearts.
There is no male or female in Christ but in the physical there are certain differences that the scripture would require we take into account and deal with appropriately. Head covering is one of these.
It is good to be simple. I think Paul stated clearly what the heart of the matter was. We err to think that it is different.
Shalom
It is interesting that when the head covering started to lose its significance in the church, being properly clothed began to lose its significance in the world. Now those that call themselves believers are running around naked, according to the scripture, and think that it is freedom in Christ. Has the salt of the earth lost its savor?
Shalom
I’ll not be drawn into answering any more of your deliberately antagonistic and judgmental posts.
Psa 149:4 For the LORD takes pleasure in his people; he adorns the humble with salvation.