Jumpstarter 1 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 1

David Bercot says the biblical teaching on modesty is “the flip side” of Jesus’ teaching on lust (Matthew 5:27–28); how does that framing change what you think repentance should look like for both the one who lusts and the one who “invites attention,” and what parts of that framing do you instinctively resist?

Another way to ask: If modesty is the “other side” of Jesus’ teaching on lust (Matt. 5:27–28), what should repentance look like for the person who lusts and for the person who tries to draw sexual attention? Which part of that idea do you push back against most, and why?

Direct Answer Based on David Bercot’s teaching, repentance has to happen on both sides: the brother must “pluck out” whatever feeds lust, and the sister must stop dressing/adorning in ways meant to draw sexual attention. The framing pushes repentance beyond private thoughts into choices that either stir lust or avoid inviting it.

Support from Transcript:

He calls modesty “the flip side of the Bible’s teaching on lust,” saying there are “two parts to this issue.”
For men: Jesus’ warning that lust is “a deadly sin,” and “we dare not treat this issue casually,” applying “pluck it out” to removing temptations.
For women: “dress and adorn themselves in a manner that will not invite attention,” tied to 1 Tim. 2:9 and 1 Pet. 3:3.
Clement: “Those who glory in their looks, not in their hearts, dress to please others.”
Tertullian: “Why therefore excite toward yourself that evil passion? Why invite that to which you profess yourself a stranger?”
Bercot challenges the common plea of innocence: women may dress plainly at home but “carefully” beautify themselves for strangers.

Discussion Follow-ups Which side do you most naturally emphasize—personal self-control or responsibility not to entice—and why? Where do you feel defensive when Bercot says sisters share responsibility in the lust issue?

Jumpstarter 1 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 1 of 10