Must One Cover The Thigh Down To Our Knees?

[Truth Seeker]

Independent Fundamental Baptists - Showing Your Thighs Is A Sin
Is nudity before the opposite gender a sin?

We are living in a day when the overwhelming majority of Christians and non-Christians alike believe in situational ethics. “The end justifies the means” seems to be the philosophy of today’s independent Baptist churches. God, on the other hand, has always been the God of moral absolutes.

Is nudity before the opposite gender a sin? Well if it is, then it must always be a sin, whether at an xxx theater, a swimming pool, or in a doctor’s office.

In the Bible, the only nakedness allowable between a man and a woman is between husband and wife. Genesis 2:25 reads, “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” Within the confines of marriage nakedness is totally permissible. However, in Leviticus 18, God goes into great detail condemning nakedness between brother and sister, father and daughter, mother and son, aunt and nephew, uncle and niece, grandfather and granddaughter, and the list goes on and on.

God also admonishes us repeatedly throughout the Bible to be fully clothed. Nakedness in the Bible is associated with the word “shame.” One of the many examples of this association is found in Isaiah 47:3a, “Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen:” as well as in Revelation 3:18 (above). Exodus 28:42 reads, “And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach.” God is commanding here for a man to wear pants or shorts that cover his entire thigh (down to the knee) in order not to be naked. Isaiah 47:2-3 reads, “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.” God shows us again here, in this case with a woman, that the thigh being uncovered is considered nakedness by God. Repeatedly throughout the New Testament, God commands women to be clothed in modest apparel because nakedness is undoubtedly a sin.



Many IFB churches would agree with this teaching can someone rightly interpret Isaiah 47:2-3 and Ezekiel 28:42 in it's proper context?

 

[Rob_BW]

Independent Fundamental Baptists - Exodus 28:42 reads, “And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach.” God is commanding here for a man to wear pants or shorts that cover his entire thigh (down to the knee) in order not to be naked.

Isn't that verse talking about underwear, not an outer garment?

 

[DHK]

See if this article by Christianity Today helps:
http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/chri...o-many-women-show-off-cleavage-in-church.html

 

[Truth Seeker]

I do believe in dressing in modesty. My question is about those scriptural proof texts.

 

[agedman]

Proof texts are exact that. They are taken out of context and used more often to establish something that was never intended.

 

[DHK]

Proof texts are exact that. They are taken out of context and used more often to establish something that was never intended.

Not all scripture quoted without context are simply "proof texts," or scripture taken out of context. I am sure you would agree with me in a scripture often used out of context such as:

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Pro 3:6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

A lot could be said about the context here, but is it necessary? The above is a timeless truth. It can be quoted without context and be true for every believer in every age no matter what the situation.

There are many such scriptures. They are principles to abide by. Their principles never diminish with time.
One of the ones quoted in the article I referred to was 1Tim.2:9. The exact quote in the article was:

Paul instructed Timothy that women should “adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation” (1 Tim. 2:9),

That women should wear modest apparel is never outdated no matter what the context.

 

[annsni]

That women should wear modest apparel is never outdated no matter what the context.

But what is modest does change for the times, doesn't it? Uncovered arms was once a sign of immodesty. Uncovered heads as well. Today we consider these normal and not at all immodest.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Here is the proof text used in IFB churches in these parts about women exposing their thighs:

'And Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his household, who had charge of all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh', Genesis 24:2

The thigh is 'holy' was the argument.

 

[DHK]

Here is the proof text used in IFB churches in these parts about women exposing their thighs:

'And Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his household, who had charge of all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh', Genesis 24:2

The thigh is 'holy' was the argument.

Utter nonsense. Proof you haven't studied the passage.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Utter nonsense. Proof you haven't studied the passage.

I didn't interpret it, I said what other IFB's around here use as a proof text. Did you just react, or did you take time to read and understand my post?

 

[DHK]

But what is modest does change for the times, doesn't it? Uncovered arms was once a sign of immodesty. Uncovered heads as well. Today we consider these normal and not at all immodest.

IMO, the passage about wearing a head-covering has nothing to do with modesty but with headship. It is a different topic altogether. The question there is why have women forsaken that command? When was it ever rescinded? In most other nations women wear head coverings, especially the eastern nations. We just think we are the "civilized" nations and don't have to?? I find that ironic.

Uncovered arms? Well, you be the judge? I have seen some "uncovered arms" are are still very immodest. When it becomes evident to others what is under the uncovered arm, well then....
For the most part it is common sense.

 

[lexinonomous]

I don't see anything wrong with not covering up. I feel like everyone should have the freedom to dress as they please without the fear of ridicule. Someone's clothing does not make them who they are. Clothing is nothing, really. At the end of the day, we have no problems with bathing suits, so I think we shouldn't have a problem with the way people dress. Modesty usually only comes into play when it comes to every day clothing.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

1 Sam. 16:7b. 'For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.' It's worth also considering 2 Sam. 6:20-23 in this context. The O.T. dress code is not applicable for us today, but the Moral Law is. Why is that woman wearing her skirt up around her midriff? If it's to take part in a Pilates class or something, that might be OK. If it's to show off her legs to the men at church, it isn't. Why is that fellow wearing his shirt open to the navel? Same points apply.

Exodus 28:42 is talking about the Aaronic priests, not the ordinary people. However, the principle of 1 Tim. 2:9 is of general application for Christians today.

 

[DHK]

I didn't interpret it, I said what other IFB's around here use as a proof text. Did you just react, or did you take time to read and understand my post?

Sure.

Here is the proof text used in IFB churches in these parts about women exposing their thighs:

'And Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his household, who had charge of all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh', Genesis 24:2

The thigh is 'holy' was the argument.

Does "these parts" mean your geographical location, or does it mean the BB?
If it means where you live, you live in a strange place. If you have looked at my profile you will notice that I am a missionary. I also am IFB. I have preached in over 30 of the 50 states. I have never heard that verse being used in that context when the subject has arisen.

If you are talking about this board. You have been here since the 7th of this month--a whopping 9 days.
I have been here since the year 2000. I still have never seen that argument used on this board.
Why don't you study what it means.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Sure.

Does "these parts" mean your geographical location, or does it mean the BB?
If it means where you live, you live in a strange place. If you have looked at my profile you will notice that I am a missionary. I also am IFB. I have preached in over 30 of the 50 states. I have never heard that verse being used in that context when the subject has arisen.

If you are talking about this board. You have been here since the 7th of this month--a whopping 9 days.
I have been here since the year 2000. I still have never seen that argument used on this board.
Why don't you study what it means.

Oh, so you're the resident expert, and if YOU'VE not heard of something then well well, it must not be true since you're the repository of all knowledge...yea, all things should funnel through you, and pass THE test of all tests.

I wonder if you address others like this in public, or just from behind a keyboard? It's sad to witness really. And then to top it off you're a 'missionary'? Sorry, but no, I didn't feel compelled to look at your 'credentials' for some reason or another.

 

[Rolfe]

*woof*

*laugh*

 

[DHK]

Oh, so you're the resident expert, and if YOU'VE not heard of something then well well, it must not be true since you're the repository of all knowledge...yea, all things should funnel through you, and pass THE test of all tests.

I wonder if you address others like this in public, or just from behind a keyboard? It's sad to witness really. And then to top it off you're a 'missionary'? Sorry, but no, I didn't feel compelled to look at your 'credentials' for some reason or another.

You quote such a strange verse with authority and then attribute it to the IFB. I'm just saying....

 

[Scarlett O.]

Nowhere in 1 Timothy 2:9 is Paul talking about women covering their bodies or body parts.

[1] He had JUST told the men how to behave. Expressing holiness, not giving to anger, and not fighting amongst themselves.

Then he says "likewise"....

[2] He says women should dress "modestly" - with shamefacedness and seriousness. Showing their good works. This is behavior. If you want to make this verse about women's clothing - it isn't about not showing skin - it's clothing in opposition to ostentatious clothes - clothes in opposition to "costly array" - his examples of ostentatious "costly array" in women's clothes at that time were braided hair, gold, and pearls. That can or cannot be ostentatious today. What is "costly array" for each culture is different.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Nowhere in 1 Timothy 2:9 is Paul talking about women covering their bodies or body parts.

[1] He had JUST told the men how to behave. Expressing holiness, not giving to anger, and not fighting amongst themselves.

Then he says "likewise"....

[2] He says women should dress "modestly" - with shamefacedness and seriousness. Showing their good works. This is behavior. If you want to make this verse about women's clothing - it isn't about not showing skin - it's clothing in opposition to ostentatious clothes - clothes in opposition to "costly array" - his examples of ostentatious "costly array" in women's clothes at that time were braided hair, gold, and pearls. That can or cannot be ostentatious today. What is "costly array" for each culture is different.

That is refreshing to see Scarlett O!

 

[John of Japan]

Here is the proof text used in IFB churches in these parts about women exposing their thighs:

'And Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his household, who had charge of all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh', Genesis 24:2

The thigh is 'holy' was the argument.

Never heard of that one in my 60+ years as an Ind. Bapt.