Logical Antithesis

This article comes from a point-of-view that differs from what most others see and believe. Modesty is a modern issue where there is nearly no agreement anywhere (outside the Word of God). It is only within relatively small (un-hip, non-trendy) groups that will you find any unison of opinion. So who’s right? The large body of folks who think that nearly anything goes … or the small group of “un-hip” folks?

At a certain point neither viewpoint is correct. (The latter is only incorrect if its basis for its conclusion is for the wrong reasons.) Let me first set some groundwork.

Words and Definitions

The first thing to define is the prefix: supra-.

supra-: above, over; greater than, transcending

The second is culture:

Religion externalized — Cornelius van Til
All the knowledge and values shared by a society — WordNet 3.0, Princeton Uni. (emphasis mine)

The last thing to do is coin a word or two. The first is supracultural and the second is suprareligious.

supracultural; that which reaches beyond and through cultures, superseding them and/or uniting them; a moral absolute undictated by culture.

suprareligious; that which reaches beyond and through religion; an absolute that supersedes any opinions or alterations.

The Argument

The argument I will confront here today is that modesty is a cultural (and therefore a religious) matter. It is neither: modesty is an absolute standard and instinct set into us by God and the Fall of Man, and is therefore supracultural and suprareligious.

I have heard it said, “What about the people that live in countries where it is acceptable for women to reveal their breasts in public? Or where the culture has some other opposite form of modesty?” This is what will be dealt with today.

The Genesis of Modesty

To find the genesis of modesty you must backtrack all the way to the book of Genesis. There is no other way to find that beginning. And so we shall begin our search in Genesis 2.

Genesis 2:7,15-25
₍₇₎ And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
₍₁₅₎ And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
₍₁₆₎ And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
₍₁₇₎ But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
₍₁₈₎ And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.
₍₁₉₎ And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
₍₂₀₎ And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him.
₍₂₁₎ And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
₍₂₂₎ And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
₍₂₃₎ And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
₍₂₄₎ Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
₍₂₅₎ And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Genesis 3:7-11,21
₍₇₎ And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
₍₈₎ And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
₍₉₎ And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
₍₁₀₎ And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
₍₁₁₎ And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
₍₂₁₎ Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

My first point is the progression found in these first three chapters of Genesis. First, it was acceptable to be naked; second, their eyes were opened and modesty became an issue; and lastly, that God was disapproving of man’s first attempt at modesty!

Genesis 3:7 says they sewed a garment out of fig leaves: an apron. In the Hebrew, the word means “belt, apron, armor, gird(-le).” The first article of clothing was a loincloth! Not only that, but God disapproved of the belt idea and made His own standard of clothes for them: coats.

Genesis 3:21 says that God made leather (of skin) coats for them and clothed both man and women in them. I think we can all define the borders of a coat, it is a large outer garment. Strong’s Dictionary further elaborates that this coat was a garment, a robe. By implication, and proximity to another Hebrew word, this means a garment from the shoulders across the neck that hang like a robe (presumably, in my opinion, to the ankles or mid-shin.)

The Confirmation of the Law

This section is an ongoing study, so please don’t expect its perfection or completeness—it is neither. I have only been looking through the Law for verses pertaining to modesty for a short time.

Exodus 22:25-27
₍₂₅₎ If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as a usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
₍₂₆₎ If thou at all take thy neighbor’s raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down:
₍₂₇₎ For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious.

Isn’t the context interesting? This is the Law, yes, and many laws are just isolated declarations (like the next excerpt) but this one directly follows that of usury! Yes indeed, it forbids the taking of usury (interest) from the poor people. And so likewise, if you deprive him of his only coat—for he is afflicted (poor, orphan or widow)—then you must return it by nightfall. What else does he have to wrap himself in at night?

I don’t know about you, but this seems like what we would consider a coat … and yet it is his only covering. So then, this isn’t just a coat but the primary garment which was coat-like.

Deuteronomy 22:5
₍₅₎ The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

I must confess that I hadn’t seen this verse before, except when looking nearby for a verse during a sermon. But this verse is paydirt. This verse obviously forbids someone from wearing clothing from the other sex. But not just clothes, the word in Hebrew has other connotations such as a tool, musical instrument, weapon, or anything that furnishes (equips) a male.

Right there is also a refusal to permit women to fight militarily, that they take the “furniture” of the male to go out and fight (Deborah, in Judges 4:4-10, that Barak will receive none of the honor of killing Sisera, a woman would kill Sisera, because he refused to fight without her presence—possibly even her leadership.)

Isaiah 47:1-3 (Young’s Literal Translation)
₍₁₎ Come down, and sit on the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, Sit on the earth, there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans, For no more do they cry to thee, “O tender and delicate one.”
₍₂₎ Take millstones, and grind flour, Remove thy veil, draw up the skirt, Uncover the leg, pass over the floods.
₍₃₎ Revealed is thy nakedness, yea, seen is thy reproach, Vengeance I take, and I meet not a man.

This scripture is the nail in the coffin. Interpret it for yourself. Let me give you a hint: the “uncover the leg” means “uncover the thigh,” or lower leg, which is in the next verse called reproachful.

The Confirmation of Early Culture

Tamar, the daughter-in-law of Judah, dressed in some form of garb that marked her as a harlot. In this case she covered herself with a veil, probably over her whole body and not just the face, and sat in the open to await her father-in-law. When Judah saw her he thought that she was a harlot, because of how she was clothed. The punishment for prostitution, committing fornication or adultery, was burning by fire. Her crime was remitted due to the obligation on Judah. (Genesis 38:14-30; Leviticus 21:9)

Rahab, the harlot, was the only person saved out of Jericho because of her faith in God and the word of the spies that she saved. It would have been pretty obvious to everyone that she was a harlot, and her house was on the wall in what may be a secluded location; the red cord was unseen as far as we know. Yet she kept her word and was saved from the destruction; presumably, she reformed herself.(Joshua 2, 6:25; Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25)

Jesus himself came from the bloodline of these two women who played the harlot. (Matthew 1:3,5; Judas is Greek for Judah)

Through Proverbs we learn that harlots, again, have a specific and identifiable form of dress and attitude. In addition to the warnings against her, it gives examples of her speech and of her seductive ways. The mentions of a strange woman, or women, is a reference to foreign (strange, alien) prostitutes. Her path is also condemned vehemently, as going straight to death. (Proverbs 7:7-27, 23:27-33)

There are many more examples of such things, both physical in nature and spiritual. A word search through my bible software for “whore harlot prostitute” turned up forty-six results in the Old Testament alone.

Summary

You’ve now seen a number of the verses speaking on modesty. But, do you understand ramifications of these scriptures? 1 Timothy 3:16 says that “all scripture which is inspired,” which must be the Old Testament, “is given for reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.” If this is true, then in spite of not being obliged to obey the letter of the Law, its spirit lives on. God is unchangeable, and hasn’t changed His standards—nor will he ever.

Therefore, modest apparel, in my own interpretation, for women consist of skirts that are no higher than mid-shin (for when sitting down a hole is otherwise revealed from the front) made of an opaque material. Remember that skin was used which was fully opaque (Genesis 3:21) and that the Babylonian virgin’s revealed thigh (leg above the knee) was immodest (Isaiah 47:2). Also, since revealing the breasts is immodest, and since what God made were coats, the upper garb must be opaque as well. There is one further thing to consider, and that is that a coat conceals the curves of a body. Because men are visually stimulated, why give an opportunity for temptation? This then restricts the wearing of tight clothing (which technically is better for you ladies, as tight clothes have been proven unhealthy).

For men, I think some obvious understanding needs to be established. Tight clothes are wrong for us too, and so is the revealing of nakedness. This nakedness extends to barechestedness, fellows. In the New Testament we’re told not to be effeminate, and modern styles for men are becoming quite effeminate. Ask yourself why we “need” to look like homosexuals and women. Be a man, dress like a man, and deny the perversion of our masculinity.

Cross-dressing is strictly forbidden in the Old Testament to even the “trappings”, “tools”, or anything commonly associated with either one gender or the other. This is crystal clear: don’t do it. God created us to be the gender we are from the instant of conception, and if you “were born the wrong gender” then you are mad – God cannot make mistakes.

Some Conclusions

While I haven’t found an explicit definition of modest dress within the Law, I haven’t made an exhaustive search for one. What I have found are many little statutes and principles that add up to a very clear picture of modesty. If Jesus said that to look at a woman to lust after her is the equivalent of committing fornication with her, then I doubt that women should encourage the men to this mental behavior with her manner of dress. Is there not a reason that you are startled when you are disturbed while dressing? (Even guys have this reaction; it is universal and absolute until desensitized out of you.)

And if we are the “called out,” then why argue about someone conforming to the worldly culture around them? After all, that culture is fully religious and therefore in natural opposition to our religion as the called out. By allowing conformance you allow the dilution and a relative interpretation of the scriptures. This shameful discarding of the absolute nature of the commands of scripture is criminal for any professing belief, and an instant marker of those who are dishonest with themselves.

Arguments for modest dress that have not defined it as an absolute are inherently on weak ground. The ground is so weak because the manner of dress isn’t often spoken of, and not in such terms (typically it is spoken of as revealing a person’s nakedness). In the days of the Bible people simply knew who was a wife or a prostitute by their clothes. Not that the clothes dictate the heart, but they can be very revealing of it. Modern marxist culture endorses the dress (and behavior) of people like Brittany Spears and Pamela Anderson as totally normal, instead of the truly perverted individuals that they are. This isn’t a democracy of belief, this is an absolute instinct that is only trained out by desensitizing individuals. If you think to yourself, “I’m not immodest because I wear a ________,” please don’t deceive yourself—if you must justify your dress as being non-immodest then it most obviously is immodest.

In addition, modesty has nothing to do with “standing out”. If it did, then is wrong to stand out and we’re called to be set apart (holy)! Oh no, contradiction! So don’t manufacture a contradiction with your personal definition, because that sword swings both ways. The Amish manner of dress isn’t immodest because they stand out—it is modest because they don’t reveal, or allude to, their nakedness. If the Amish were immodest for standing out, then anyone who walks into an Amish community is therefore immodest because they immediately stand out. This is such a silly line of logic. Please do not stoop to this level of pettiness to justify yourself.

Arguments against modest dress because of culture are flawed because it calls us to dilute our religion, and tear down a barrier of separation placed by the biblical standards. The Minoans of old no longer exist, but their “modest” dresses left women topless. If you think that you could justify a Christian living in their culture with a topless dress, then what of these following statutes? (Exodus 20:26, 28:26; Leviticus 18:6-19, 20:11,17-21.) By these statutes the Minoans are condemned to death, and so are a great many other people.