Thighs and nakedness

Discussion in 'The Law of God' started by SRoper, May 24, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SRoper

    SRoper Puritan Board Senior

    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.
     
  2. Augusta

    Augusta Puritan Board Doctor

    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. :think:
     
  3. Coram Deo

    Coram Deo Puritan Board Junior

    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 :2cents:

    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.... ;)

     
  4. KMK

    KMK Moderator Staff Member

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

     
  5. Coram Deo

    Coram Deo Puritan Board Junior

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





     
    Last edited: May 25, 2007
  6. bookslover

    bookslover Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    "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).
     
  7. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

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



    :banghead:
     
  8. Puritanhead

    Puritanhead Puritan Board Professor

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

    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.
    :p
     
  9. jenney

    jenney Puritan Board Freshman

    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.
     
  10. Archlute

    Archlute Puritan Board Senior

    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.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2007
  11. Semper Fidelis

    Semper Fidelis 2 Timothy 2:24-25 Staff Member

    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.
     
  12. Gryphonette

    Gryphonette Moderator

    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
     
  13. kvanlaan

    kvanlaan Puritan Board Doctor

    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. :)
     
  14. Gryphonette

    Gryphonette Moderator

    Lol!!!

    :rofl:
     
  15. satz

    satz Puritan Board Senior

    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.
     
  16. Coram Deo

    Coram Deo Puritan Board Junior

    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......



     
  17. Coram Deo

    Coram Deo Puritan Board Junior

    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


     
  18. tdowns

    tdowns Puritan Board Junior

    Naked in the Garden.....

    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. :chained::2cents::book2:
     
  19. Rev. Todd Ruddell

    Rev. Todd Ruddell Puritan Board Junior

    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.
     
  20. tdowns

    tdowns Puritan Board Junior

    Naked in the Garden.....

    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. :chained::2cents::book2:
     
  21. Coram Deo

    Coram Deo Puritan Board Junior

    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


     
  22. Coram Deo

    Coram Deo Puritan Board Junior

    My wife when she visited her uncle in Monteray Bay Calf. went surfering.. She wore her wetsuit but also modest clothing over it.

    Same with swimming...



     
  23. Dagmire

    Dagmire Puritan Board Freshman

    All things are lawful for us, but all things are not helpful. Is it helpful to men for women to expose their thighs in everyday dress? It's not helpful to women, either, because it can cause them to envy or become bitter. Similarly, it's not helpful for men to expose their thighs, either.
     
  24. Contra_Mundum

    Contra_Mundum Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger Staff Member

    Let me throw in my :2cents: here.

    This is a perfect example of trying to "norm" what cannot be normed. Paul was speaking against this kind of thing when he wrote on the conscience. He wrote to a church living in the midst of rank paganism. But we don't find him anywhere telling people how long their skirts should be, or if they could wear shorts or not.

    This discussion is also revealing concerning the inherent danger of creeping legalism when reading OT judicial law as if it is normative today. As a student of law and government (B.S. at university) let me explain something. Jews up until the NT era had something vital--continuity with a judicial system of law grounded in revelation. No such continuity existed after the end of the Old Covenant era. The single greatest problem in interpretation of the Mosaic judicial law as normative is the absence of continuity, a history of application.

    Everyone here should operate within their conscience--AND not judge their brethren too harshly for being either too strict or too loose. Don't mistake this stance for being one that ignores "modesty" concerns. But the question cannot be answerrd by an appeal to tightly defined "norms". Going back to the judicials only creates more questions that cannot be given definitive answers, ones that *everyone* must afterward adhere to regardless of time or circumstances.

    One more thing: we need to be very careful about laying the blame on others, or specifically on women for our succeptibility ot temptations. The problem is inside us, not "out there." The latter is the moslem view--sin resides outside the person, and may/must be attacked outside. Otherwise, burkhas are the logical result.
     
  25. tdowns

    tdowns Puritan Board Junior

    Sorry double post.....

    I'm having internet glitches......:up:

    That's cool, your wife went surfing, awesome! And up there, I'd be covered head to toe as well....very cold!:D

    And it is a good example of, my view of modesty....a girl can easily surf in surfer's trunks down to knees, and a rash guard like most guys wear, with it not being a exhibitionist show, but many women are out there in bikini's that can't be comfortable....and I just have to keep my eyes on the waves.....really only a prob. for a couple of months here, most the time, water is cold enough to keep most of themselves covered up....but in HI....that's another story.:pray2::book2:

    By the way, as far as music, and this topic, and other's, I appreciate your zeal for finding God's truth, if I'm convinced it's in scripture, and God's will.....I would hope, I'd submit quickly and obey.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2007
  26. Coram Deo

    Coram Deo Puritan Board Junior

    With All due respect I disagree with your post in christian love.. :handshake:

    Just a view points though I would like to make out, I won't cover everything.....

    You said.. But we don't find him anywhere telling people how long their skirts should be, or if they could wear shorts or not.

    Because besides the harlots in that time period length was not an issue in public nor did shorts exist....

    Then you said... Going back to the judicials only creates more questions that cannot be given definitive answers, ones that *everyone* must afterward adhere to regardless of time or circumstances.

    Not a problem in my view, besides the puritan did the exact samething regarding clothing and modesty requirements that would make my requirements seem liberal... Still not a problem in my view....

    Then you said... One more thing: we need to be very careful about laying the blame on others, or specifically on women for our succeptibility ot temptations. The problem is inside us, not "out there."

    I agree that not all the blame is on the woman, and we man need to be careful ourselves, but woman should also not stumble man with their clothing choice.. I believe both are to blame.

    Then you said... Otherwise, burkhas are the logical result.

    Just a kind of humor in my own way, Read Turtellian's "On the veiling of Virgins" and you will see at the end that he thinks the Arabian heathen females should be our example, not only do they cover their heads but also their face and leave one eye out rather then prostitute the entire face.

    Go Turtellian......... Woo Hoo..... lol :smug:



     
  27. tdowns

    tdowns Puritan Board Junior

    Bruce....

    Thanks, awesome post I think.:up:

    I def. have to get down for a visit to your church.

    That was kind of my point with the Songs verse, that even God's word can make me stumble, because, I'm the sinner stumbling......so we can't say something is a sin, or wrong, just because it sparks us to sin......
     
  28. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    I agree and disagree...but probably on the other end of the spectrum.

    Scripture lays out the principal and command of modesty

    Scripture lays out principals as to what is modest and what is immodest; what is nakedness and what is not nakedness.

    Nature teaches what is modest and not modest. We may want to deny that we feel immodest in certain things, but watch a young girl in a skirt that moves above the knee when sitting (skirts that generally fall just below the knee when standing)...they will tug and squirm (even more so with even shorter skirts...right now there are skirts where girls don't even dare sit).

    Women are not being made to take full responsibility (in fact, the burka comment was a fallacy...recommending standards of modesty does NOT mean a lead to a burka). Women DO have part of the responsibility, however. Not just men. Men also have a certain responsibility for women...jeans have no reason to be overly tight nor is there any need for a man to walk about outside or swim topless.

    Scripture does not say what colours or styles we are to or not to wear...

    But our clothing should follow the above principals that are found in Scripture. I believe Michael laid out some of the principals well.
     
  29. SRoper

    SRoper Puritan Board Senior

    Mark Li you summed up my thoughts quite nicely. It's frustrating not being able to say with some certainty that something is not modest, but that doesn't mean we should look for a standard that isn't there.
     
  30. Davidius

    Davidius Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    ***EDITED***

    What kinds of tops can men wear when swimming?

    I do agree with you about the matter being one of guiding principles. I also agree that women share some of the responsibility. No one can make me sin but Jesus did say that it would be better for a person to be cast into the sea with a millstone tied around his or her neck than to make someone stumble.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page