Ex. 28:42:
"You shall make for them linen undergarments to cover their naked flesh. They shall reach from the hips to the thighs;"

Isa. 47:2,3:
"Take the millstones and grind flour, put off your veil, strip off your robe, uncover your legs, pass through the rivers. Your nakedness shall be uncovered, and your disgrace shall be seen. I will take vengeance, and I will spare no one."

I have seen these verses used to require the covering of the thighs while in public. I'm curious if we can indeed infer anything like that. My initial reaction is that one runs into difficulty in using either of these passages to define some minimum standard of clothing, but I'd like to hear what others think.

__________________
Scott Roper
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA): "A bunch of hippie Calvinists"
Winston-Salem, NC

I don't see how you can say that one runs into difficulty with those two passages when both of them in their context define nakedness as showing legs or thighs.

__________________
Traci
Lynnwood OPC
Psalm 52:8-9
8 But I am like a green olive tree in the house of God: I trust in the mercy of God for ever and ever.
9 I will praise thee for ever, because thou hast done it: and I will wait on thy name; for it is good before thy saints.

Isaiah 47:2,3 is the passage I use in my modesty belief to require not only the thigh but the WHOLE leg being covered, down to the ankles...

If you look that word up in strong you will see it means leg.. What is the leg? from the top of thigh to the bottom of ankle..

Which is why my wife threw out all her knee length skirts and replaced them with ankle length...

That my

Michael

P.S. In case anybody is wondering... Before last summer hit, I was reading that passage and was wondering.. Man to? So I threw out all my shorts and wear pants all year long. Now going through the second summer. It's not so bad... and my legs are no longer eaten up by bugs....

__________________
Michael Daniels
Reformed, RPCNA
Denton, Maryland

[i][b]As For Me And My House, We Will Serve The Lord[/i][/b]

[SIZE="1"][I][FONT="Century Gothic"]Unum Deum in Trinitate: Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus [RIGHT]Sola scriptura - Sola gratia - Sola fide - Solus Christus - Soli Deo gloria - Solum psalterium - Lex talionis[/RIGHT][/FONT][/I][/SIZE]

If these are rules for holy living (and I am not disagreeing), what about...

__________________

I would agree in most cases, except in medical issue regarding this...

"Thighs" and "nakedness" are probably meant to refer to the genitals. Somewhere in the Law there is a reference to making sure one is covered so that one's "nakedness" is not exposed while climbing steps.

Also in the Law, there are many references to the effect that having sex with the wrong person (as in sister, wife, mother-in-law, etc.) is to expose the "nakedness" of the other party in the proper relationship. For example, to have sex with one's mother-in-law is to expose the father-in-law's "nakedness" - that is, by having sex with one's mother-in-law, one is seeing (and using) the genitals of a person that only the father-in-law has the right to see (and use).

__________________
Richard T. Zuelch, M.Div
Ruling Elder, OPC (not currently serving)
Westminster Presbyterian Church, CA (OPC)
www.reiterations.wordpress.com
www.foft.wordpress.com

Talking to oneself is, I believe, considered a sign of lunacy. Thinking to oneself is most certainly a sign of it. - G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936), in January, 1906

WoW! So I CAN walk around in a bikini, right?

__________________
JC
URCNA
PA

"Forgiveness is primarily for our own sake, so that we no longer carry the burden of resentment. But to forgive does not mean we will allow injustice again." --Jack Kornfield

This thread reminds me how much I like baked chicken thighs.


1 c. butter
12 chicken thighs
1 c. flour
2 tsp. salt
1/2 tsp. pepper
2 tsp. paprika
1 recipe sauce

Heat butter in skillet. Shake the chicken thighs in mixture of flour, salt, pepper and paprika. Arrange chicken in skillet, skin side down and fry to golden brown. Transfer chicken to baking dish. Cover with sauce. Bake at 350 degrees for 45 minutes.

SAUCE:

1 sm. clove garlic, grated
1/4 tsp. salt
1/4 c. salad oil
1/2 c. lemon juice
3 tbsp. onion, chopped
1/2 tsp. pepper
1/2 tsp. thyme

Blend and let stand several hours before using.

__________________
Ryan
1689 London Baptist Confession

When Peter was out in the boat in his undergarments, he saw the Lord Jesus on the shore and put on his outer garment to jump in the water and swim to the Lord. Why would anyone put on clothing to swim? Because we don't want to be naked in public. Peter was considered naked even though he had his undergarments on. That was fine for a working fisherman out at sea with a bunch of other men, but on shore where there may be women, he covered up more.

It seems that Peter was considered naked when his legs were showing, at least above the knee.

just a thought.

__________________
jenney greer
Livermore Reformed Baptist Church (Livermore, CA)
San Jose, CA

This is correct. The term used for nakedness ("erwah") speaks exclusively of the genitalia when its reference is to a person. Isaiah 47:3 is not implying that the uncovered calf of v.2 is a shameful nakedness, it is saying that Babylon will be ashamed because her "nakedness" (wink, wink...) is about to be exposed for all to see.

The word used for leg ("shoq") is primarily a reference to the calf, although other parts of the leg may be referenced, esp. in relation to sacrificial animals. The commentators are agreed that this imagery in v.2 is describing the dress of a humbled servant, and of one going into exile. It is a reference to their social status, not necessarily to the degree of their modesty/immodesty.

I do believe that we should be modest in our dress, as becomes representatives of Christ Jesus, but I also believe that it is more a matter of Christian conscience and applied wisdom than of proof-texting, which is not to show any disrespect whatsoever to those who cover the leg fully.

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Back to looking for a call...
Evergreen PCA
Salem, Oregon

I'm not going to offer any exegetical insight into this but there is ample historical evidence from the Talmud that Jewish men considered the uncovering of their feet or calves to be shameful. It was undiginified for, especially, the old men to do anything that might expose even their feet. There are some passages in the Talmud that prefer that the Priests let the bottom of their garments become drenched with blood rather than expose their feet by lifting them up.

I believe much of this, however, is cultural in terms of their insistence on keeping their calves and feet covered. It wasn't an issue of modesty of the men but of dignity. This may be a more apt description of why Peter put on his outergarment.

Incidentally, this is one of the reasons that men had to "gird up their loins" because, except for Shaolin Monks in Kung Fu movies, it's nigh impossible to move around quickly when you're wearing a garment that drapes to the ground. They would gather up the bottom material and tuck it in to their belts so they would be agile and quick.

But running and fighting was for the young kids and warriors and not the old, dignified men.

On a side note, this is one of the elements of the story of the Prodigal Son that makes it so shocking and beautiful. There are many elements of that parable that demonstrate the willingness of the Father to endure shame and reproach from his son and then for him. One of those elements is that the man actually ran to meet his son. I'm told that some Aramaic translation omit the portion about the father running because Middle Eastern cultures, to this day, find this idea loathsome.

__________________
Rich
Okinawa, Japan

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

How does that fit with passages describing this, though:

"Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his household, who had charge of all that he owned, "Please place your hand under my thigh..." (Gen. 24:2)

When the time for Israel to die drew near, he called his son Joseph and said to him, "Please, if I have found favor in your sight, place now your hand under my thigh and deal with me in kindness and faithfulness." (Gen. 47:29)

Truth be told, I've thought the whole "hand under thigh" thing was creepy when it's actually the thigh; surely they're not talking about....? =8^o

__________________
Anne Ivy
Christ Chapel Bible Church
Fort Worth, Texas

Married to Don, mother of six, grandmother to an ever-increasing brood.

The Ivy Vine (my blog)

Does anyone know the Hebrew on that one? Is it the same word in both cases? If so, this is a GREAT reason to let your yes be yes and your no be no and not to swear by heaven or earth.

__________________
Kevin
Far East
Deacon, Int'l Church

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.

__________________
Mark Li
International University Church
New South Wales, Australia

Lets brake this passage down some...

2 Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy Tsammah,
6777
make bare the Shobel,
7640

uncover the Showq,
7785

pass over the rivers.


3 Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.



Ok, now that we have some footing.. What does these three words mean.....

Tsammah (Strongs: 6777) To fasten on; a veil.

Shobel (Strongs: 7640) leg

Showq (Strongs: 7785) From 7783; the lower leg (as a runner) - hip, leg, thigh. 7783 is shuwq: to run after or over, i.e. overflow.


So we get a picture here, that for a lady to uncover her head by removing the veil, showing the leg; both upper and lower is showing her nakedness, hence is immodest. Notice also that the garment must be flowing over. It must be loose and not form fitting, but flowing like water and down to the ground.

It says IF you DO these THINGS, THY (YOUR) nakedness shall be uncovered, yea thy shame shall be seen.

I can not but see a most clear picture of modesty befitting a woman.

Now, I am going to be honest here.. I ask you what should be covered? and I might get an answer the body parts that others see as sexually lustfully desirable.

I am a man and one who guards his eyes very carefully. I am honest to admit that I have always found the leg most desirable, and it would cause lustful thoughts. Yes even with ladies who wear knee length I found the lower part of the leg most lustfully. I am not alone, I have had other men tell me the same exact thing. Now, I guard my eyes, some of those other men have told me what a problem it is for them.

So this is a plea for our ladies to cover their entire legs to help their christian brethren.

One final note, for us husbands, as much as I do not want to look at another womans legs and think sinful thoughts, I also do not want other men looking at my wife in the same way. I have taken notice of how men stare at women in stores and other places... I have seen men drooling over most lustfully at a woman who was dress by todays standards very modesty. Loose fitting clothing, upper body clothed and skirt on down to the knee with curly perm in the hair. Now I have seen other woman dress in flowing dresses down to their ankles and wearing a veil on her head (we live close to a mennonite community) and the men I have noticed look briefly with a look of respect on their face and walk past.

Just some food for thought......

I agree that this is speaking to Babylon but God is also saying that those things are uncovering your nakedness. He is using an example of modesty for the Babylonians and is there for an example to us of modesty.

IF YOU DO THIS, AND THIS, AND THIS, THEN THIS IS NAKEDNESS

Just wondering, the implications, of the fact that being Naked, in the Garden, was a good thing...I understand, that with our sinful nature, the troubles that nakedness can promote! But, some thoughts.....

Was any of that restored with Christ, just some of the freedoms maybe....

I heard one guy say a wife should be modest with her husband, and not be seen in the light?????!!!! Even in their own house....how does that sit with Song of Solomon, 7:1 "How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O princes's daughter, The curves of your hips are like jewels, The work of the hands of an artist, Your navel is like a round goblet, Which never lacks mixed wine: Your belly is like a heap of wheat, Fenced about with lilies...."

Which also brings me to, the stumbling argument, If I wasn't married, that above verse would have me stumbling for sure, I am married, and it has me wanting to take the rest of the day off, and even then, it has me coveting, and kind of daydreaming about being the guy in the verse.....so is the Word of God, causing me to stumble.....so I don't know, that, showing a calf, causes somebody to stumble, so must be wrong argument holds......

Not too mention, I've never met a women, that stumbled over a man's legs?

Back to marriage: Is not at least that nakedness, between husband and wife restored? Is nakedness "bad" now....at anytime but in the shower alone?

I'm just trying to see where people's true hang-ups are, yes, modesty is a problem in this culture, but, like has been done with sex, has a normal, good thing, in it's original, correct context, been tainted by man's desire for laws......so that man is putting more "negative" onto nakedness than it deserves, when if fact, we know, that in the garden, Nakedness was good.

As new Creations in Christ, should we have any problem with nakedness per se....I mean, among men, if you're a man, among women, if you're a woman.....

I totally agree, that women showing their legs off is a stumbling block and is pretty much always a "sexual" image to somebody, but, being a surfer, swimmer, Southern California outdoor type person, the making it a law that we should have ankles to neck covered at all times in public just seems out there.

__________________
WWW.SURFWRITERS.BLOGSPOT.COM
Trevor
Christian/Husband/Father/Writer/Teacher--
--In that order.
Bethany Church, Sierra Madre, CA.
God is my King
"You've got to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, latch on to the affirmitive, and don't mess with Mr. in-between." Tony Bennett.

EJ Young, in his commentary on Isaiah 47.1-3 does not relate the humiliation of the "nakedness" of verse two to immodesty at all, but to servitude. The nakedness of verse three, according to Dr. Young, is the exposure of Babylon to be a nation which will be enslaved by the Lord, rather than the lofty kingdom she was thought to be by the nations of the earth of that age.

Keil and Delitzsch see much the same in the passage.

__________________
Rev. Todd Ruddell
Pastor, Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCGA)
Wylie, TX
www.christcovenantreformedpc.org

Our best marks can contribute nothing to our justification, ...that is proper to faith. Faith cannot lodge in the soul alone, and without other graces; yet faith alone justifies before God.--G. Gillespie

Just wondering, the implications, of the fact that being Naked, in the Garden, was a good thing...I understand, that with our sinful nature, the troubles that nakedness can promote! But, some thoughts.....

Was any of that restored with Christ, just some of the freedoms maybe....

I heard one guy say a wife should be modest with her husband, and not be seen in the light?????!!!! Even in their own house....how does that sit with Song of Solomon, 7:1 "How beautiful are your feet in sandals, O princes's daughter, The curves of your hips are like jewels, The work of the hands of an artist, Your navel is like a round goblet, Which never lacks mixed wine: Your belly is like a heap of wheat, Fenced about with lilies...."

Which also brings me to, the stumbling argument, If I wasn't married, that above verse would have me stumbling for sure, I am married, and it has me wanting to take the rest of the day off, and even then, it has me coveting, and kind of daydreaming about being the guy in the verse.....so is the Word of God, causing me to stumble.....so I don't know, that, showing a calf, causes somebody to stumble, so must be wrong argument holds......

Not too mention, I've never met a women, that stumbled over a man's legs?

Back to marriage: Is not at least that nakedness, between husband and wife restored? Is nakedness "bad" now....at anytime but in the shower alone?

I'm just trying to see where people's true hang-ups are, yes, modesty is a problem in this culture, but, like has been done with sex, has a normal, good thing, in it's original, correct context, been tainted by man's desire for laws......so that man is putting more "negative" onto nakedness than it deserves, when if fact, we know, that in the garden, Nakedness was good.

As new Creations in Christ, should we have any problem with nakedness per se....I mean, among men, if you're a man, among women, if you're a woman.....

I totally agree, that women showing their legs off is a stumbling block and is pretty much always a "sexual" image to somebody, but, being a surfer, swimmer, Southern California outdoor type person, the making it a law that we should have ankles to neck covered at all times in public just seems out there.

The song of Solomon is between a husband and wife. I see nothing wrong with it. The wife of ones youth should be the only sought after lustful desires.

Thinking about your wife in a sexual way is not wrong neither is seeing her and her beautiful body without clothing wrong.

Though, Only those two people who are wedded in covenant marriage entitled to those thoughts and seeing those exposed body parts that should be covered..

Also, the word of God can never be a stumbling block, but mans thoughts and actions can be.


Michael