Quote:
Originally Posted by thunaer  Calvin does allude to modesty in his commentary which I will quote below, but I had another article which I am at a lost for finding that was a sermon he gave on Isaiah 47:2 and was more in detail and exactly what I said above...
Anyway here is his commentary...
Remove thy locks. On account of their excessive indulgence in magnificence of dress, he again alludes to the attire of young women, by mentioning “locks.” We know that girls are more eager than they ought to be about cuffing their hair, and other parts of dress. Here, on the contrary, the Prophet describes a totally different condition and attire; that is, that ignominy, and blackness, and filth shall cover from head to foot those who formerly dazzled all eyes by gaudy finery.
Uncover the limbs. “Virgins” hardly ever are accustomed to walk in public, and, at least, seldom travel on the public roads; but the Prophet says that the Babylonian virgins will be laid under the necessity of crossing the rivers, and with their limbs uncovered.
Thy baseness shall be discovered. This is the conclusion of the former statement. So long as Babylon was in a flourishing condition, she preserved her reputation, and was highly honored.
In another sermon mentioning modesty on "Remove thy Veil" and headcoverings he says...
"So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show
their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts,
and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show;
they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short
they will forget the duty of nature... So, when it is permissible for the
women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering
the stomach also?' And then after that one will plead [for] something else:
'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that?'
Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be
no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper
and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard." |
You're still reading your presuppositions into this. When I said that Calvin had nothing to say regarding immodesty and the leg, that was meant to say that the uncovering of the leg as immodesty is not found there. Yes, you highlighted the portion where he mentions the uncovering of the leg, but this is not speaking of immodesty. It rather speaks of their humbled position. If you read the beginning of his comments on 47:2 he says just that:
"
The whole of this description (meaning the overall imagery of the passage)
tends to show that there will be a great change among the Babylonians, so that this city, which was formerly held in the highest honor, shall be sunk in the lowest disgrace, and subjected to outrages of every kind, and thus shall exhibit a striking display of the wrath of God.
These are the marks of the most degrading slavery, as the meanest slaves were formerly shut up in a mill."
When he says that
Thy baseness shall be uncovered is the conclusion of the former statement, it is saying that this revealing of the nakedness is the height and end of the former passage. I do not believe that he meant it to mean that which you mean, namely that the statement of nakedness is directly related to the legs. That cannot be, because as I've repeatedly stated, "nakedness" is a euphemism for the genitals, not phrase describing what has happened to their legs. If Calvin did think that this is what it meant, then he was wrong. Either because our knowledge of the Hebrew language has progressed beyond what he had available in his day, or because he bombed it on that particular passage.
There is no possible way that nakedness refers to the lower leg from v.2, a verse which is speaking of their state of humility, and therefore, this passage is not a divine proof-text for modesty. That is very clear, unless you continue to ignore the study of the Hebrew, and scour for references to back up your already decided upon position.
Again, modesty is an important virtue, but misusing the Scriptures to prove which parts should be covered, and how far the coverings should extend, is exactly the type of interpretation that gets Christians unfortunately branded as fundamentalists/legalists/knuckleheads/etc. I hope that you all will consider the lexical evidence and connections that I have mentioned before, rather than continue to ignore them. Your interpretation of that passage would not get a passing grade in exegesis 101. That is not meant as a slam, it is meant to help you open your eyes to the realities of more solid exegetical work. We cannot make a passage say that something is so, merely because we'd like it to be such.