Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
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...
LF,
I wasn't arguing against standards of modesty, or saying they lead to burkhas. But I will repeat that setting up a standard, and calling it a biblical norm, hence one that all people everywhere in all times must follow, will result in the very thing that you see NORMED in Islam. It's legislated in that religion. There's a common standard. In many places it is ignored, but not in traditional society. Why? Because sin is externalized. So you see it from Indonesia to Morrocco, and from there to western nations as well.
My argument is an argument against raising the "standard of decency" to the level of moral LAW. There may be a relative range of acceptability in Christian-dominant cultures, but that's what it will always be: a *range*.
The best form of "pressure" can be ingrained societal and cultural standards. They tend to be conservative, or tending in conservative directions anyway. OUR problem, as a society, is that we have forces at work attacking our cultural foundations, seeking to cast us adrift from history. OUR problems have a great deal to do with the elevation of the concept: "breaking rules," to the level of a philosophical first-principle. Those who are giving direction (aimless) to the culture are in a teeth-bared war with the past, with our past, especially Christianity, and with God. Only "envenomed hatred" can begin to describe the ruthlessness with which such leaders have engaged in their iconoclasm. Their goal is the humanistic religion.
If we as Christians go to battle over women in ankle-length skirts vs. knee-length, or men swimming shirtless vs. shirted, we are only acknolwledging that we are feeling the loss of wider cultural standards. By all means, let us set our own standards. But if the church up the street--sharing our mindset--sets it a bit differently, we have to be charitable to them. For only an unofficial, non-legislated broad culture-norm that grows from our combined commitment and standards will reset the cultural bar.
The nakedness might be connected to the previous clause, or it might not.
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
LF,
I wasn't arguing against standards of modesty, or saying they lead to burkhas. But I will repeat that setting up a standard, and calling it a biblical norm, hence one that all people everywhere in all times must follow, will result in the very thing that you see NORMED in Islam. It's legislated in that religion. There's a common standard. In many places it is ignored, but not in traditional society. Why? Because sin is externalized. So you see it from Indonesia to Morrocco, and from there to western nations as well.
My argument is an argument against raising the "standard of decency" to the level of moral LAW. There may be a relative range of acceptability in Christian-dominant cultures, but that's what it will always be: a *range*.
The best form of "pressure" can be ingrained societal and cultural standards. They tend to be conservative, or tending in conservative directions anyway. OUR problem, as a society, is that we have forces at work attacking our cultural foundations, seeking to cast us adrift from history. OUR problems have a great deal to do with the elevation of the concept: "breaking rules," to the level of a philosophical first-principle. Those who are giving direction (aimless) to the culture are in a teeth-bared war with the past, with our past, especially Christianity, and with God. Only "envenomed hatred" can begin to describe the ruthlessness with which such leaders have engaged in their iconoclasm. Their goal is the humanistic religion.
If we as Christians go to battle over women in ankle-length skirts vs. knee-length, or men swimming shirtless vs. shirted, we are only acknolwledging that we are feeling the loss of wider cultural standards. By all means, let us set our own standards. But if the church up the street--sharing our mindset--sets it a bit differently, we have to be charitable to them. For only an unofficial, non-legislated broad culture-norm that grows from our combined commitment and standards will reset the cultural bar.
To be more specific, our family doesn't believe in mixed swimming and when we go to the beach, we go fully dressed and play in the surf.
About the slippery slope...about the refusal to call anything immodest. If someone feels the need to wear a burkah, let them. I personally think it's the anti-muslim sentiment that causes ppl here to consistantly bring it up. I'd rather see a muslim woman in a burkah than to have my husband and boys flashed a young ladies thong in front of them at church.
And yes, I have been dressing more modestly. Because maternity clothes are limited, I have worn anabaptist maternity clothes. I generally sew up the slits in all my skirts (and have a few more that I need to do that to). I also wear skirts to the ankle or between ankle and calf. I don't go sleeveless. And I've been more conscious about necklines...something I've only recently have had to worry about.
Why do I dress this way? Because my body is for my husband alone. I'm not to stumble any man in things that he already struggles with or could struggle with. That is my Christian duty to my brothers and sisters. I'm giving away or selling anything, thus I shouldn't be advertising. The last man who gave my husband a hard time about my attire, we later learned had a p0rnography problem. I'm glad I kept covered and now wish we had not been talked into that one swimming expedition where I felt naked even in what is considered a very "modest" swimsuit by today's social standards (notice I said social, not scriptural). I also cover simply out of obedience to the principals and standards laid out in Scripture.
And if you want to talk of culture...I'm in a culture where yes, this kind of dressing is common. And I was dressing this way when I was living in a culture where it was not common. I can assure you have had positive reactions in those other places that I never got before I started dressing modestly.
Slippery slope being a fallacy? Yes, because I'm not, nor will I be in a burka. Neither will I permit my daughters to go to worship dressed more like a hooker than most hookers do (having lived near a large city, I can vouch that many hookers dress modestly compared to most ppls' daughters).
Hi Michael,
This thread seems to have veered off topic a little. The original intent was not to discuss if women should bare their thighs, but rather if those particular verses say baring the thigh is equal to nakedness.
Isaiah 47:2-3 Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man.
With respect, I don't see the 'THEN' that you say is there. The verses don't say: 'Do this and this and this, THEN your nakedness will be exposed.' They say: 'Do this and this and this. Your nakedness will be exposed.' The nakedness might be connected to the previous clause, or it might not. But the connecting word 'THEN' that would have made the connection obvious is not there.
As I said in my previous post, v2 does not just mention exposing the leg, it mentions uncovering the locks and passing over the rivers. Why don't people say this is nakedness as well? I do believe the bible does not say that having uncovered hair is immodest. In Gen 24 Rebekah only put on her veil after seeing Issac approach for the first time. All this time she had been with Abraham's male servant and saw no need to cover. And would Abraham's trusted servant have brought back a whore (who flaunted her nakedness in public) for his master's son? So while I do not flaunt those who chose to cover, I do not believe it can be proven from the bible that covering the hair is necessary for modesty. But if you want to use Is 47 to say uncovering the leg is nakedness, you must, to be consistent, include 'uncovering the locks' as well.
I do believe the veiling to be a modesty issue especially in regards to verse 2...
Woman should cover their heads also..
Michael
Genesis 24:65 For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself.
Not to dis' on you too hard, brother, but I already gave you the proper picture.
Strong's is not an accurate lexicon for studying the languages. In fact, it's not a lexicon at all, it's a concordance! I gave my definitions in the earlier post from the Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the OT, which is considered the standard today, along with the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, put out by Sheffield academic press. "showq" clearly emphasizes the calf (except in sacrificial settings), and "shobel" doesn't have anything to do with the leg at all - it has to do with a flowing skirt or train!
As well, the revealing of the leg is not the nakedness of which Isaiah spoke. It is a euphemism referring to a revealing of the genitalia, and therefore has no reference to the leg in the previous passage whatsoever (but I said that all before).
Sorry Archlute, I disagree with you, and what modern books might say on this issue, they are coming from a immodest culture to say the least...
I will stick the saints of the ages on this...
I have a quote from John Calvin on the issue. John Bunyan, the puritans also have something on this passage..
Also 1800 years of church history of woman wearing dresses down to their ankles and heads covered testifies to this also....
Michael
Somebody said, that there is no mention, because, they were all wearing long robes....in Africa? In Egypt? Would not Paul be evangelizing cultures that were wearing all kinds of stuff.....why not some verses, saying, get out of that loin cloth Ethiopian, Get out of that Battle Skirt Roman Soldier, that's a sin!" I'm just going by movies, but did the Scotts wear long leggings under the Kilts....they didn't in Braveheart! Boy this sure does seem one of the reasons why missionaries got bad raps, cruising around Africa, telling the boys and girls, how it's "shameful" to wear the cloths they do.......
I just think, like sex, the medieval culture, Roman if you will, has put a hyped up connotation to nakedness...I mean, we all know, the Victoria Secret commercials or images like that are not healthy for the mind, for women, or for men...but to put a calf, or an ankle, or a guy swimming without a shirt, or a girl in normal shorts into that category...I'm sorry, I think, some have jumped a bit in their thinking......now, if it's biblical fine, but in this thread, unless I'm reading it wrong, the only scriptures are very debatable........
I think we read too much into every man is lusting over every single body part, can we not give the New Creation in Christ some credit....I think it's a bit like the "Better not drink, you might become a drunkard argument." And like I said earlier, a tie in to sex, and how it became a "Better just do it for kids, cuz don't want to feed those sinful desires." Just a warping of biblical principles into something they are not.
I'm just throwing it out there as I see it....not having studied it much.....just my
I am biased, because I have a swimming pool, and surf (which I do wear a shirt for due to comfort) and I have three girls, and a boy, and I grew up running around half naked in the AZ desert, with a pool at every house. And I know many men, from cold climates and/or rigid households, that have wayyyyy more issue with the female form than I do...so I just don't see that the exposure to some "flesh" is going to wreck your walk and scar you....or that it is a sin.....so there's my empirical study on it!
Actually, I do agree with Bruce in that we can't make it LAW...I have lived under that before (covering must be made of suchandsuch a material, be white, have so many pleats...no more no less...don't forget the belt on your dress...print can't be bigger than a quarter...Tom A will know exactly what I'm refering to). And that we can't always judge another for it. However, it should be taught. The church is very neglectful in this matter. I've been fortunate to find one Reformed church where a pastor is not afraid to mention it from the pulpit. Not in decrees of length, etc. But rather in principals. Our congregation ranges...but you can tell that they all strive for that which is good.
3) and lastly that we apply as much "corrective energy" as we do telling one set of persons to "dress right," to addressing those (in this case, the onus is on MEN) who allow themselves to be ensnared by glimpses of skin, or even a woman's SHAPE--and tell them that they need to bridle themselves, and get their inclinations under control, because that's on them. The moslem men are infantile in this respect, when they make women "cover up", even to the point of wearing a shapless BAG, so they can "control themselves." That's for spiritual kindergarten, and it holds true in Christian circles as well.
I guess, at the end of my contribution:
1) I think that both genders should be advised to dress modestly, although its clear that women have the greater onus (and I thought jenny's point about also stoking jealousy in other women was especially insightful);
2) I think that its a good thing, actually, that we de-sexualize the "more presentable" members of the body (1 Cor. 12:24);
3) and lastly that we apply as much "corrective energy" as we do telling one set of persons to "dress right," to addressing those (in this case, the onus is on MEN) who allow themselves to be ensnared by glimpses of skin, or even a woman's SHAPE--and tell them that they need to bridle themselves, and get their inclinations under control, because that's on them. The moslem men are infantile in this respect, when they make women "cover up", even to the point of wearing a shapless BAG, so they can "control themselves." That's for spiritual kindergarten, and it holds true in Christian circles as well.
Nakedness is not what is shameful...in the proper context. Public displays of nakedness and immodesty are
Yeah, that sounds better...I'm not saying, because I lived it, it's right, but, that, the argument, that somehow, having kids swimming with other kids, in bathing suits, is going to ruin them.....
My issues.....If scripture, clearly teaches it....I'm there.
But....
Scripture has been debatable...if not silent...for full coverage...yes, modesty, and non-sexual attire is an obvious biblical president.
Other Arguments for ankle to neck coverage.
A. "Makes men lust."
Answer: Well, so could reading the Song of Solomon, obviously not wrong to read it.
B. It'll breed bad things. Or somehow really mess you and your kids up, to be around it.
Answer: My upbringing, and many others, and their lives as we speak, where they dress modestly, strive to not cause others to stumble, but still swim together, and wear work-out clothes, and go to the beach with the public....and they are not falling apart, they are Godly men and women, and children, that can somehow make it in a world with this stuff going on, and dress modestly, but not head to toe....and they are doing fine and growing in the Lord, along with seeing arms and legs of the opposite sex without stumbling. Not to mention, the African, Asian, HI, etc. cultures, that, are now filled with Christians, who dress..."shamefully".
And in fact, we could look at the opposite, how many kids raised in extra biblical rules and regulations households, have problems in their adult walk as Christians? (Hypothetically, that it's extra-biblical)