"Dancing Makes Me Angry"

[Aaron]

Originally posted by mioque:
Aaron
Priestly vestments indeed aren't underwear, so Mikal isn't accusing Dave of dancing around in his undies.
In this era before the invention of pants, or well.. underpants she's most certainly accusing him of showing of his 'manhood'.
Considering his response to ther accusation (not the part about God, the other part) I'd say she is telling the truth and he doesn't care.

Why would you think trousers or underwear are something more recent? There are mummies almost 4000 old wearing trousers.

It says he was "girded," with a linen ephod. That means it was pulled tighet against his body. He didn't "hike up" a skirt or robe-like vestment.

And the fact that God commanded linen underwear be made for the priests to cover their nakedness while they performed His service (Ex. 28:42) does even more to discredit the notion (common among CCM'ers and those that promote modern and charismatic worship styles) that God would have endorsed a public display of nudity in some other form of worship.

If Michal's concern were that David had uncovered his nakedness, she would have been on the side of God, but her concern was that he laid aside his glory for a moment and condescended to those of low estate. And she railed on him for that. She shot off her mouth and exaggerated the charge.

 

[mioque]

Completely missed that response back in january.

To run (or dance) while wearing an ephod, you hike it first than gird it.

 

[Gina B]

If I read this thread correctly, men should wear skirts when dancing.

I wonder if pants were originally women's clothing. Pantaloons or something. Which would mean...men should wear skirts or dresses, and women should wear pants.

Sounds funny, sure, but I do wonder why it is that women shouldn't wear pants, and men shouldn't wear dresses, (in some people's opinions) when the most holy of men wore skirts/dresses?