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.

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

Yes, it is a euphemism for placing the hand on the genitals. When those guys took an oath, they swore by something valuable!

__________________
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

Adam, it show just how socially relative you are that Calvin can be right on so many things and more educated than most seminary graduates today...but on modesty he totally botched the translating and definitions and a student has supposedly proved him wrong.

Actually, I believe you are bringing your own presuppositions in based on moral relativism.

__________________
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

Adam,

show'-bel;

from an unused root mean. to flow; a lady's train (as trailing after her):--leg.

obviously context is everything. You cannot uncover her skirt as her skirt IS a covering...and what does it traditionally cover? The leg. What also trails after a woman as she walks...a leg. One leg forward, one leg trailing. Thus in this context, it would be a leg.

Christian modesty is a good book to read on this subject. As a previous poster read, a key passage is Peter putting his outergarment on because he only had his inner garment at the time. He did this because men are to cover themselves. It's hard for me to where short sleeve shirts in public because of this command. I believe that the man's arm is to women, what the legs are to men.

__________________
Frank
member/Reformed Baptist Church, NJ
1689 BCF
Technician in NewYork
Titus 2:13
...looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus...

Calvin is only as right as he was right, and as I said before, our understanding of the languages has progressed since his time. So, yes, a diligent student of today knows more in this area than Calvin had the opportunity to understand.

I would not necessarily say that Calvin was more educated than most seminary students in such an unqualified manner, there are different areas of education to consider.

FWIW, I am not a slavish Calvin follower, nor do I consider him the final say in exegetical matters.

Why was is humbling, disgraceful, and base to show the prisoners and slaves legs?? You are missing the forest for the trees. Why was it humbling, disgraceful, and base to show our savior naked on the cross by taking his ROBE and tunic off. Notice a robe is something that reaches to the ground or ankle typically.

robe /roʊb/
–noun
1. a long, loose or flowing gown or outer garment worn by men or women as ceremonial dress, an official vestment, or garb of office.
2. any long, loose garment, esp. one for wear while lounging or preparing to dress, as a bathrobe or dressing gown.
3. a woman's gown or dress, esp. of a more elaborate kind: a robe for the evening.
4. robes, apparel in general; dress; costume.
5. a piece of fur, cloth, knitted work, etc., used as a blanket, covering, or wrap: a buffalo robe; a lap robe.
–verb (used with object) 6. to clothe or invest with a robe or robes; dress; array.
–verb (used without object) 7. to put on a robe.

__________________
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.

And you're using what lexicon again? Or are you just parroting Strong's concordance, which I already mentioned was deficient?

It is not from an "unused root", whatever that means. It's from an Arabic root that means to "hang down as a flowing dress". No lexicon that I have lists the meaning "leg" anywhere, and all of them specifically state Isaiah 47:2
as being a train that is to be stripped off.

This is why women should ask their husbands about these matters at home, to be frank, and if their husband is ignorant, they both should defer to the pastor's study. Again, I am sorry that you are ignorant of, and unable to work with the language resources required, but that is not everyone's calling, and those who do not have the understanding of these things need to recognize that they do not have a leg to stand on in some cases. Here, you have no "leg" to stand on. I would kindly ask you to desist from your stubbornness, and to accept that there is absolutely no exegetical support for misusing this passage as a proof-text for modesty. I would be much more pleased to hear you all rejoicing to understand how this passage speaks of Christ Jesus and His work, which is the fulfillment of all the OT writings. That is where the discussion would move from legalism to edification in a grand way!

I will not waste anymore ink on trying to educate those who want to remain in a faulty and legalistic reading of the Scriptures. Again, go ask your husband, and if he is unknowledgable, go ask your pastor (whom I hope has enough diligence to actually study the passage, and not just confirm the foolishness of those attempting to misuse this text).

Dear sisters, understand that there is real educational inequality in the world. Understand that when men have pursued seminary studies for five years at good institutions, they factually have a greater understanding of things that are key to making decisive exegetical decisions regarding the Scriptures. In almost all cases they will be right even when you, in your lack of studies, refuse to believe it. Christ gives gifts to his church. You, dear sisters, are an inestimable gift. Pastors are also a gift, and they have been granted opportunities to obtain giftedness in interpretation that no others in the church can match. It is just that way. So, please, do not reject an exegetical position that you have no authority in establishing in the first place - you will be wrong.

Grace and Peace.

I just laughed so hard I spit on my monitor!

__________________

Not my arms, I'm afraid. My farmer's tan is like 'babe repelant'.

(I am not disagreeing, just joking)

Have I missed something? Who wrote this book you refer to?

Actually, Adam, I looked all over and could not find a description that excluded the leg. And you are wrong for calling me "ignorant". I may not be a seminary graduate, but I do know how to research issues. I have perhaps spent more time studying this issue through wording, cultural, and historical perspectives than most. A person disagreeing or disagreeing with a text that YOU consider superior, does not make one ignorant. If it were, then I could turn and call you ignorant as well as I do not believe you have adequately given the subject matter the time or thought that it should receive. Instead, it sounds from your superior attitude of "well, this is more modern, so it must be right", that you simply go with the status quo.

If you want to be an educational elitist, please know that there are women that have been to seminary, have been taught by men that have attended seminary, and men that have attended seminary that ALL disagree with you.

Basically, you are dismissing everyone because they haven't persued your degree. You do not know what courses I or my husband have pursued. You also don't know my pastor. He has been a pastor for quite some time. If he were to come on here and disagree with you, would you accept it only because he has extra letters behind his name? Does one HAVE to have a degree in order to be able to know what scripture says? (NO!) Has the rest of Christianity been in the dark until elitists, like yourself, have recently come onto the scene? (Emphatically NOT)


And as for your dismisal of the sisters on this board...we HAVE gone, asked, and studied with our husbands and our pastors. There is a reason we believe as we do. We don't just flippantly say, "well, this book says that definition is off". No, we have researched and studied and prayed...and studied some more.


I have to say, if you are a seminary student, then you have much to learn before putting your degree to use. I know many pastors and elders on this board with humbler spirits and greater hearts of understanding than you currently have shown. Throwing your seminary credits out as a dismissal of others that have studied, whether formally or informally, is both disrespectful and prideful. Lack of seminary education or manhood does not equate unintelligence. Many heretics have been to or were created in the same seminaries where sound men of God have trained.

Adam, are you greater than Luther, greater than Calvin, greater than John Owen?? You think you don't have blind spots just as these titans of theology had?? You may need another 5 years of learning so you can make an argument instead of just claiming your superior intellect as proof of something.

Adam is only as right as he is right.

So, when it's 90+ degrees with 100%+ humidity in August in New Jersey, you still wear long-sleeve shirts? Oy.

1. Please list those resources that you have studied. I am using Holladay, HALOT, BDB, and the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. These are considered the standard in biblical studies. Vine's and Strong's are not.

2. When I say that you are ignorant of the issue, I mean to say that you do not have the basic knowledge to conduct exegetical research on the level of which we are speaking. If you have not consulted with the lexicons that I have mentioned, or other syntactical/grammatical tools such as Jouon-Muraoka and Waltke-O'Connor, nor have you read the best of the modern commentaries on Isaiah (both of which are written by conservative evangelical scholars), then, yes, you are by definition ignorant of the subject.

3. A person disagreeing with me is not disagreeing with me alone, but with the whole of the best in academic and evangelical/reformed scholarship. I have not set the standard, but I am attempting to make you aware of it.

4. Then please encourage them to speak their mind on this board, and to lay out their reasons - including their education, resources, and exegetical methods, because, yes, these things are important.

5. Does he disagree with this exegesis?

6. It is not being elitist to affirm that the church continues to grow in her understanding of the Scriptures. It is part of "always reforming".

7. Then lay out their exegetical reasons, because as of this point you have not convinced me that you have studied the passage in anyway other than relying on Strong's concordance.

8. Discussing one's seminary studies as a backing to one's exegetical research is neither disrespectful, nor prideful. Is it disrespectful and prideful of a lawyer to say that you are ignorant of certain aspects of law, when he has completed a quality law degree, and you have not? Is it disrespectful or prideful to say that most on this board would be ignorant of how to break down, clean, re-fit, and re-zero an M4 assault rifle, compared to others who may have received training and practice that you do not have? No, it would not. It would be a fact. It is not a matter of pride, or anything else, it is a matter of recognizing that certain levels of study and training give support to a man's endeavors, where others who have not completed these things should not speak.

1. I try not to label men on a scale of "greatness", but to evaluate their statements by their faithfulness to the statements of Scripture. There are many a Christian who will be considered as great or greater than they or I (as much as I do admire them), due to their quite faithfulness in the calling that Christ has given them.

2. I did not claim intellect, I actually made an argument. It is an argument that has not been accepted, however, by those who refuse to acknowledge the scholarly resources behind it. I cannot remedy that denial.

Adam, you presume too much when you assume to know my level of education. Also, one doesn't have to list their degrees in order to make a valid arguement. And it's news to me that you are the figurehead of all religious academia. Poor Calvin and Luther and every preacher of the past to not have one such as yourself or the books you read to correct them on their errors.

Since you believe the studies are changing all the time...then perhaps in a hundred years they will discover that YOU were wrong and those before you were right after all.

I disagree that we know better than those before us, simply because we come after them. Many of those before us had access to texts and translational works that we lack today.

Should people dress appropriately for the climate they live in? Absolutely. Is my authority as a married woman my husband or folks who are considerably more legalistic than we are? Should we all be Hasidic women and shave our heads and wear a scarf or a wig because our menfolk lack self control? Something to consider: clothing back in the time of the bible was indicative of social standing, family influence and wealth: you were what you wore. Same goes for Calvin's day. Since we do have indoor potties, electricity and automobiles for us to use, would it not make sense for us to apply basic standards of modesty in a modern fashion? The overly modest clothing in most non-Amish/Mennonite dominated areas calls attention to the wearer of said clothing and is a sort of reverse pride: Look how modest I am: think the Duggar family on TLC. It is another way to be separate totally from the world. And we are called to be IN the world, not OF the world are we not? On the other hand, once can dress "modern but modest." And that may include wearing shorts or pants or dresses and skirts or dresses and skirts only. I also would like to say that men are not babies and that a grown man should be able to control himself in public and in private and avoid giving into temptation.

__________________

Wow, reading through this thread has been kinda painfull for me.

The heat pouring off of it is burning my eyes..... but not a whole lot of light here to see.....

__________________
Donald Jacobs
Marysville. WA
Cascade Church (CRCNA)

Cum vero infirmor tunc potens sum.