IFB - Showing Your Thighs Is Sin

[TruthSeeker]

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?

[grace2live]

Well for starters those verses don't single out women. In fact, the Isaiah passage specifically references a man!

[Darren]

There's a lot that can be said here.
First of all, in the Leviticus passage, "uncover nakedness" is a euphemism for sex. It really has nothing to do with the amount of clothes on a person's body. It is all about prohibiting sexual relations among family members, which was apparently fairly common among the culture of the time. In fact the HCSB, which happened to be the first Bible I picked up, actually substitutes "sexual intercourse" for "uncover nakedness."

The Exodus passage does not make sense at first- Why do they need undergarments when they have long robes that come to their ankles? But when you realize some of the priestly work was done on a raised altar, it makes sense. Someone standing next to the altar might be able to look up into the priest's open (at the bottom) robe when he stood at the edge of the altar, since there was no belt with which to "gird up the loins," which literally meant to gather up the robe to cover the private area while the legs were free to run or work.

The Isaiah passage is a poetic reference to Babylon's humiliation. Notice that at first she was a virgin, a princess, seated on a royal throne, but now she sits on the ground (vs. 1). Next she has to grind meal, she lost the covering for her hair, and, rather than being carried across the river, she has to lift her skirts and wade across like a servant (vs. 2). Her final humiliation is that she is raped (note the reference to uncovered nakedness again) and further abused by the nations of the world (vs. 3). This is one of several passages in the prophets which uses sexual metaphors to describe the sin or the judgment of a nation. Ezekiel 23 is another example, and there are more.

As always, context is key in understanding these passages, but most fundys (and certainly plenty of other Christians as well) are only too happy to twist the words in front of them to fit their own ideas. See 2 Peter 3:15-16

[Mommy2Kids]

(07-16-2011 06:30 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  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?

You added your personal translation here. I don't see any reference to a knee. So why don't we cover all the way down to the ankle to be SURE we don't flash any leg. I think that's a great argument for women wearing PANTS.

[captain_solo]

The Isaiah 47 passage also references a covenant or agreement.
For example,
Genesis 47:29 Isaac tells Joseph to carry his bones back to Canaan and has him place his hand under his thigh to swear it. (something about the power of the genitals for procreation made them something to swear an oath by) The phrase "uncovering the thigh" has also been though to refer to breaking a covenant of this kind.

Besides, its the same old interpretive crisis on every issue with fundies. Of course I agree that nakedness is to be avoided, but that doesn't mean that shorts are evil or that women can't wear pants, the Bible does not clearly teach those for our cultural setting, and in fact doesn't teach either of those in any cultural setting since they were generally not part of the wardrobe of men or women for outer clothing.

[Disco_Dancing_Hyles]

Jack Hyles said that women showing thighs was the ultimate sin.

[GraceThruFaith]

(07-16-2011 08:18 AM)Darren Wrote:  There's a lot that can be said here.
First of all, in the Leviticus passage, "uncover nakedness" is a euphemism for sex. It really has nothing to do with the amount of clothes on a person's body. It is all about prohibiting sexual relations among family members, which was apparently fairly common among the culture of the time. In fact the HCSB, which happened to be the first Bible I picked up, actually substitutes "sexual intercourse" for "uncover nakedness."

The Exodus passage does not make sense at first- Why do they need undergarments when they have long robes that come to their ankles? But when you realize some of the priestly work was done on a raised altar, it makes sense. Someone standing next to the altar might be able to look up into the priest's open (at the bottom) robe when he stood at the edge of the altar, since there was no belt with which to "gird up the loins," which literally meant to gather up the robe to cover the private area while the legs were free to run or work.

The Isaiah passage is a poetic reference to Babylon's humiliation. Notice that at first she was a virgin, a princess, seated on a royal throne, but now she sits on the ground (vs. 1). Next she has to grind meal, she lost the covering for her hair, and, rather than being carried across the river, she has to lift her skirts and wade across like a servant (vs. 2). Her final humiliation is that she is raped (note the reference to uncovered nakedness again) and further abused by the nations of the world (vs. 3). This is one of several passages in the prophets which uses sexual metaphors to describe the sin or the judgment of a nation. Ezekiel 23 is another example, and there are more.

As always, context is key in understanding these passages, but most fundys (and certainly plenty of other Christians as well) are only too happy to twist the words in front of them to fit their own ideas. See 2 Peter 3:15-16

(07-18-2011 07:59 AM)captain_solo Wrote:  The Isaiah 47 passage also references a covenant or agreement.
For example,
Genesis 47:29 Isaac tells Joseph to carry his bones back to Canaan and has him place his hand under his thigh to swear it. (something about the power of the genitals for procreation made them something to swear an oath by) The phrase "uncovering the thigh" has also been though to refer to breaking a covenant of this kind.

Besides, its the same old interpretive crisis on every issue with fundies. Of course I agree that nakedness is to be avoided, but that doesn't mean that shorts are evil or that women can't wear pants, the Bible does not clearly teach those for our cultural setting, and in fact doesn't teach either of those in any cultural setting since they were generally not part of the wardrobe of men or women for outer clothing.

/thread

Fundies mis-interpret many portions of Scripture, and that leads to the mis-application of Scripture.
Even when they properly interpret Scripture, they will still managed to mis-apply, anyway.

[Bob M]

(04-19-2012 12:03 PM)Disco_Dancing_Hyles Wrote:  Jack Hyles said that women showing thighs was the ultimate sin.

I must be the worst of sinners then.

[JoeR]

(04-19-2012 12:30 PM)Bob M Wrote:  

(04-19-2012 12:03 PM)Disco_Dancing_Hyles Wrote:  Jack Hyles said that women showing thighs was the ultimate sin.

I must be the worst of sinners then.

So you ARE a woman?

[exOBCstudent]

(04-19-2012 12:47 PM)JoeR Wrote:  

(04-19-2012 12:30 PM)Bob M Wrote:  I must be the worst of sinners then.

So you ARE a woman?

Lol!