The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

satz · #15 (**permalink**) 05-25-2007, 10:51 AM

I would not object to a standard of modesty that required skirts to the knee or below, but I do not believe these two verses can be used to prove that is what God requires. Isaiah 47 does not only refer to the leg and thigh, but also to uncovering the hair and passing over the rivers. Why do we pick on the leg and thigh but ignore those two? Even amongst Christians who believe a headcovering is required for modesty, I believe it is rare for them to say that uncovering the hair is equal to exposing the nakedness. I believe the second half of Isaiah 47:2 is meant to explain the first half: ‘Take the millstones, and grind meal:’ Those phrases are descriptions of the slavery of Babylon. It is an extreme equivalent of ‘roll up your sleeves’ (or gird up your loins as the bible would say) and get to work which is in contrast to Babylon’s exalted position in verse 1.

From what little reading I have done, this was the position of most puritan commentators on this verse. Would they have objected to woman revealing her thighs in public? Yes, indeed they would probably have objected to her revealing her ankles. Did they think Isaiah 47:2-3 supports that point? I have never read puritan who used those verses in quite that way. All the commentary I have read equates the verse 2 to descriptions of slavery, and none of them link it to the nakedness of verse 3. Matthew Henry, John Gill, Matthew Poole all take ‘nakedness’ in verse 3 as referring to complete nakedness or a more general kind of nakedness inflicted upon captives by their conquerors by removing their clothing. None of them make the direct link to verse 2 that newer teachers do. Again, this does not really mean anything per se, and I already admitted the puritans would probably agree with the ‘don’t reveal your legs’ dress code, but the idea that Is 47 specifically teaches that thighs = nakedness seems to me to be a newer teaching than some give it credit for.

Regarding Ex 28:42, at the risk of being condemned as a liberal and a pragmatist, I would note that firstly those garments pertain specifically to priests engaged in the worship of God, not to every Israelite, secondly, the verse only says the breeches were to cover the nakedness of the priests, and gives the dimensions of those garments. It does not say what are the dimensions of what God considers nakedness, or that the priest’s breeches covered exactly their nakedness and not more.

in Jn 21:7, we see Peter seemingly perfectly comfortable being ‘naked’ in the presence of the other disciples. The idea that this was ok with men but not women is logical, but not really supported by the scriptures. I am not saying that I disagree with the idea that modesty must be stricter in mixed company. But his putting on of his garment seems from the context to be primarily a mark of respect when going to see the Lord, which fits in with Ex 28:42 whose primary concern is public, formal worship.

I am sure some will decry my reasoning as compromising, but I really do not see that these verses mean what they are often said to. I already said I would not object if I was in a church that had those dress standards. But I think the modern use of those two verses to try to prove a bible dress code is mistaken. Modesty is a big issue in Christianity today and it is sometimes frustrating to have to answer ‘but what exactly is modest?’. But that does not mean we should use verses merely for their sound to prove what is not there.