Thighs and nakedness

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

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

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    (traci, I cover outside of worship as well :) )

    Trevor, you are correct that it doesn't mean that they can't grow or that those that are raised in modest homes don't have issues (I know of rape, homosexuality, and affairs that happen within the anabaptist communities). But just because you are "doing okay" doesn't make your choices right or the best. The idea is to strive for what is good and to live out the principals in scripture. Just because your personal experience is good, doesn't mean it lines up with what should be....KWIM? Just think on it. Think about how you want men to look at your wife. What do you want them thinking or not thinking and why. What if you want them thinking, "dude, that guy has a really sexy/good looking wife"...think of the consequences of what their next thoughts might be. I know of wives that even think this way with their husbands. They consider the cost in order to protect their homes. We are to guard our families and homes.

    Just a thought ;)
     
  2. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

  3. BertMulder

    BertMulder Puritan Board Junior

    Am with Lady Flint and Rev. Buchanan on this issue. Especially admire you, Lady Flint, for your strong commitment on this issue.

    We have a teenage daughter, and my wife has much trouble buying DECENT clothing for her.
     
  4. Augusta

    Augusta Puritan Board Doctor

    I know you do Colleen and I don't fault you for it. I think in your case I might do the same in love for neighbor because of the fact that you live in the Amish area. For the reasons Paul gives for not eating meat sacrificed to idols in front of a person who is a weaker brother in that area. I do believe that you are not bound to scripturally because your hair is a natural covering for you and a glory to you.

    That is not to say that when in a certain culture, where a tradition or practice is considered honoring or what have you, that we do not take that into account in how we conduct ourselves. If I lived in old England where it was the practice of a married woman to differenciate herself by wearing a certain cap, then I would probably do that. Not for scriptural reasons in that case but for cultural.

    If I lived in a muslim country I would probably cover my head all the time or if I lived in your area I might. I, however, live in Bothell, WA and I would actually draw attention to myself (not necessarily a good thing) or look like I was trying to be overly pretentous or pious. This would not be a good thing either. KWIM?
     
  5. Augusta

    Augusta Puritan Board Doctor

  6. tdowns

    tdowns Puritan Board Junior

    lol

    "dude, that guy has a really sexy/good looking wife".

    LOL:D, ....Nice use of the Dude term.....My wife would get that anyway, unless we go all the way to the full facial covering.....she's a beauty.....my wife dresses very conservative...especially for Cal....and does not wear shorts out that I remember....all I know, is, knowing my heart, if I were in a muslim country, If I didn't control my thoughts, the same way I do here in Southern Cal....I'd be finding something in the "eyes" to set me off........and I just don't find myself struggling with women in "normal" conservative, modest dress....what I mean is, arms and legs showing, with loose fitting clothes.

    Fun convo'
    I always learn, and am edified in your posts....very interesting, to see how other's live, and I appreciate it.
    :)
     
  7. Augusta

    Augusta Puritan Board Doctor

    Ok so we have an "eye" man instead of a "leg" man or a... you get the picture. :D But still other men might be a "leg" man and look at your wifes legs. Pretty faces don't elicit the same kind of lust for guys as body parts do they??
     
  8. tdowns

    tdowns Puritan Board Junior

    I'm saying....

    It's a heart thing....I could rip out my eyes....and I'd find the images.....I think...in my opinion, it's being overstated, that a man can't look at a women without going to lust level....many men won't look at women without it going to lust level....be we can, and should, look upon women, legs bared or not, as a creation of the Almighty God, someone's daughter......:pilgrim:

    I do applaud you for your reasons, and your desire for Christ like living......and am open to the learning curve......
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2007
  9. VictorBravo

    VictorBravo Administrator Staff Member

    Wow, I just read most of the thread and see this is quite an issue.

    Not to detract from the valid concerns of anyone, but my personal experience is similar to Trevor's. On a sunny day in the city in which I work, many women come out looking like they are heading for the beach. But I usually am unfazed because my mind is focused on other things.

    But once I was caught offguard by the sight of a woman's hand holding a pen. Nothing else was exposed. It truly is a matter of guarding the heart. The desperately wicked nature can always find a way to express itself, regardless of how much we try to control the external.

    Still, I like the people who prefer modest dress. I fit right in because my farmer's legs are so white that people would need sunglasses if I wore shorts.
     
  10. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    :rofl:

    And yes, I know what you mean. Though I do it for modesty and testamony as well and have for years before we moved here. I don't fault you either...was just funnin ya by pointing it out ;)

    And it is sad that you usually cannot buy decent clothes from the typical stores. However, there are many wonderful online stores.
     
  11. 5solasmom

    5solasmom Puritan Board Freshman

    :ditto:
     
  12. Coram Deo

    Coram Deo Puritan Board Junior

    a few more passages..

    I thought a few more passages and quotes might help...

    When God gave Adam and Eve clothing in Gen 3:21 the hebrew word is kuttonet from an unused root meaning to cover which is a tunic-like garment..

    Some modern critics suggest that it was a garment that extended to the knee, but older theologians and even puritans suggested that it covered the body from the neck and all the way to the feet.

    Also what will we be wearing in heaven... Relevation gives us some detail. "And white robes were given unto everyone of them, and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were should be fulfilled."

    This robe is a loose, outer garment extending to the feet. The lexicons identify this as a long, flowing robe. This is was taken from Jeff Pollard and his book..

    With those reasons and now take in Isaiah 47:2 I believe we get a clearer picture of modesty in the bible..

    As with regard to men and women and who is responsiable, I will quote Manton. Christians should be far from provoking sin in themselves and especially OTHERs and nakedness cannot help but do so.

    Thomas Brooks also warned that "They that borrowed the fashions of the Egyptians may get their boils and blotches. Certainly such as fear the Lord should go in no apparel, but, first, such as they are willing to die in, secondly, to appear before the Ancient of Days in... thirdly, to stand before a judgment-seat."

    John Bunyan put the question this way: "Why are they for going with their ... naked shoulders, and paps hanging out like a cow's bag? Why are they for painting their faces, for stretching out their neck, and for putting themselves unto all the formalities which proud fancy lead them to? It is because they would honor God? Because they would adorn the gospel? Because they would beautify religion, and make sinners to fall in love with their own salvation? No, No, it is rather to please their lusts....

    Finally the Holy Spirit declares by Solomon, "Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.
     
  13. satz

    satz Puritan Board Senior

    Hey Michael... (and Colleen, if you're interested)

    I don't know if you missed this, because a ton a new posts came in just after I posted, but I would be sincerely interested in your response.

    Again, I have NO ISSUE with those who say they want to cover out of modesty's sake. I am a little curious about the consistency of using Is 47 to say God wants all women to cover though.

    Fair enough... But was Rebekah being immodest by not covering until meeting Issac?

     
  14. Archlute

    Archlute Puritan Board Senior

    Well, you and Colleen can continue to disagree with these definitions, but you will just be disagreeing in your ignorance. Lexical definitions are academic endeavors that are determined by comparative language studies, root word studies, etc., from the broader writings of the surrounding time and culture, etc. The fact that a scholar may live within an immodest culture has no bearing on the results of these word studies. Strong's is a poor resource. I am sorry that those without the ability to study the Hebrew feel that their presuppositions are threatened by what they are unable to study for themselves, but that is exactly why we have pastors who devote their lives to a study of the Word. It takes time and skill that the average laymen just does not have, no matter the wonderful spiritual gifts that God may have blessed them with in other areas.

    Appeals to history to cover a lack of knowledge fare no better. There are any number of practices that the churches have endorsed for centuries that are faulty, should we beholden ourselves to them by virtue of their ancient existence? Calvin and Bunyan did not get any number of things right. My first exegetical paper written for WSC showed me that Calvin was completely off on his interpretation of a particular passage. Should I embrace his view anyway, just because he was Calvin?

    For what it's worth, I've read Calvin's comments on this passage, and he sees v.2 as a representation of being humbled as a servant's dress, and a going away into exile. There is nothing about immodesty and the leg.

    Again, I agree that women and men should restrain themselves from provocative dress, and my own family is quite conservative in this area as well, but do not try and wrongly employ a proof text that does not address what you are trying to support. It is not even the intent of that passage!
     
  15. MW

    MW Puritan Board Doctor

    If you were in Australia that comment would be humorous. Life be in it! :)
     
  16. MW

    MW Puritan Board Doctor

    :up: Modesty is not a matter for legislation, but of understanding the desperate wickedness of one's heart.
     
  17. Coram Deo

    Coram Deo Puritan Board Junior

    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."



     
  18. Gryphonette

    Gryphonette Moderator

    Downright unnerving, innit?

    It's as if Calvin had a direct view of the future.
     
  19. Coram Deo

    Coram Deo Puritan Board Junior

    Here is one quote I found from John Calvin and Isaiah 47:2 in my article archives...

    John Calvin writes concerning Jeremiah 13:22 (but he equally applies it to Isaiah 47:2-3): “As to the simile, it is a form of speaking often used by the prophets, that is, to denude the soles of the feet, and to discover the skirts. We know that men clothe themselves, not only to preserve them from cold, but that they also cover the body for the sake of modesty: there is therefore a twofold use of garments, the one occasioned by necessity, and the other by decency. As then clothes are partly made for this end — to cover what could not be decently shewn or left bare without shame, the prophets use this mode of speaking when they have in view to shew that one is exposed to public reproach.”

     
  20. Coram Deo

    Coram Deo Puritan Board Junior

    How true....

     
  21. Archlute

    Archlute Puritan Board Senior


    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.
     
  22. bookslover

    bookslover Puritan Board Doctor

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

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    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.
     
  24. LadyFlynt

    LadyFlynt Puritan Board Doctor

    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.
     
  25. reformedman

    reformedman Puritan Board Freshman

    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.

    :2cents:
     
  26. Archlute

    Archlute Puritan Board Senior

    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.

    For what it's worth, I am not a slavish Calvin follower, nor do I consider him the final say in exegetical matters.
     
  27. Augusta

    Augusta Puritan Board Doctor

    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.
     
  28. Archlute

    Archlute Puritan Board Senior


    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!
     
  29. Archlute

    Archlute Puritan Board Senior

    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.
     
  30. KMK

    KMK Administrator Staff Member

    :rofl: I just laughed so hard I spit on my monitor!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page