i saw something that really piqued my interest, bu..

know scripture? can you help me?

3 d

i saw something that really piqued my interest, but i could definitely use some help here.
of all things, it's to do with garments, clothing.
(i started off actually just looking for when cloth first came into the picture, the upgrade from animal skins...)
let me show some connects first.

gen 3
- 7And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; so they sewed together fig leaves and made coverings for themselves. -
rev 3
- 17You say, ‘I am rich; I have grown wealthy and need nothing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked. 18I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, white garments so that you may be clothed and your shameful nakedness not exposed, and salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. -

so, basically, one gets the idea that nakedness is shameful. this may seem too obvious to even state. let's thicken the plot.

gen 9
- 22And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside.
23Then Shem and Japheth took a garment and placed it across their shoulders, and walking backward, they covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned away so that they did not see their father’s nakedness. -

so, again it is brought up in connection with nakedness.
the sons didn't even want to SEE their father's nakedness...
now, the word garment is simlah, here's strong's exhaustive concordance

- apparel, clothes garment, raiment
Perhaps by permutation for the feminine of cemel (through the idea of a cover assuming the shape of the object beneath); a dress, especially a mantle -- apparel, cloth(-es, -ing), garment, raiment. -

this is where it gets interesting, it's very carefully showing a connect to cemel (semel), again, strong's exhaustive

- figure, idol, image
Or cemel {say'-mel}; from an unused root meaning to resemble; a likeness -- figure, idol, image. -

so, roughly going with a thought wondering if clothing as covering is in some way a form of idolatry, we look at the theme of the original iniquity, of adam, that got him (and eve) to want to clothe themselves.
and up pops job 31

- 33if I have covered my transgressions like Adam
by hiding my guilt in my heart, -

now, to be fair, it actually says bosom, not heart.
but this looks to say one clothes oneself to 'hide' one's guilt.
job says adam covered his transgressions, and genesis says he covered his nakedness. same thing(?).
and now the connect between clothing and idols makes more sense.
we wear clothing to cover our nakedness, but are we actually attempting to hide our guilt over our transgressions in our hearts?
this is not possible of course, as what the Father looks at in us is precisely the heart.
and why the theme constantly comes back that the clothing we wear is nothing more than filthy dirty rags.

- “Who told you that you were naked?” asked the LORD God. -

why (in all innocence) need to cover one's nakedness if one has no guilt? why attempt to 'hide' what's in one's heart from the eyes of the Father?
could be another way to put it.

anyway, this is where i am so far, i hope you can see this is quite intriguing.

does anyone have any knowledge of texts that could expand on this, or does it trigger any thoughts in anyone?
please share them, i'd appreciate it.

Comment

I can't yet answer your question, but can add some further thoughts on the definition of clothing...

It is interesting how toddlers up to a certain age don't care for and sometimes doesn't even want to wear clothes. I recall young toddlers on the beach running in their skivvies enjoying themselves and they only become shy when their eyes are opened, and they know that they are naked; according to social norms. And I say by "social norms" as I wonder what the outcome would be if we don't keep telling our children that they are naked by our standards and should dress themselves???

Is it our upbringing which now influences our judgement as someone told us that we are naked or we might not have considered it to be a problem?

On the other side of the spectrum, does that say something of native tribes who generally don't wear upper body coverings? We would consider them naked and yet it is acceptable and right according to their own social norms.

And what is the norm? Who sets it?

If we say that the Bible sets the standard then what I see in the instruction to the priests in Exodus 20:26 (“And you shall not go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on it.”) and in Nahum 3:5 (“I will lift up your skirts over your face, and nations shall see your nakedness…”) is that nakedness is the revealing of the lower body. But nowhere in the Bible does it talk about exposed breasts as being nakedness or that either men or women must cover their breasts.

Our mental pictures of Eve is influenced by what we have been taught and in that version she is always dressed to cover her breasts.

So coming back to the native tribes, are they according to Bible standards covered? And are the general norm of having ones breasts covered not directly instructed and therefore a social norm which we now say is Torah? What then when the social norms change, do we then interpret Torah differently?

What is interesting is that all future promises are to receive white robes in the here after. Aren't there any trousers on the new earth as we only read of robes or is it because the writers were writing from the perspective of their own social norms and what was known to them?

It also never says that people will walk around like Adam and Eve. So does it mean that the knowledge of sin and therefore the choice to do sin will continue?

Or on your question of clothing being an idol, does it mean that YHWH replaces our idols with versions of His own which He accepts so that we are still covered?

I can't yet answer your question, but can add some further thoughts on the definition of clothing... 
 
It is interesting how toddlers up to a certain age don't care for and sometimes doesn't even want to wear clothes.  I recall young toddlers on the beach running in their skivvies enjoying themselves and they only become shy when their eyes are opened, and they know that they are naked; according to social norms.  And I say by "social norms" as I wonder what the outcome would be if we don't keep telling our children that they are naked by our standards and should dress themselves??? 
 
Is it our upbringing which now influences our judgement as someone told us that we are naked or we might not have considered it to be a problem? 
 
On the other side of the spectrum, does that say something of native tribes who generally don't wear upper body coverings?  We would consider them naked and yet it is acceptable and right according to their own social norms. 
 
And what is the norm?  Who sets it?   
 
If we say that the Bible sets the standard then what I see in the instruction to the priests in Exodus 20:26 (“And you shall not go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on it.”) and in Nahum 3:5 (“I will lift up your skirts over your face, and nations shall see your nakedness…”) is that nakedness is the revealing of the lower body.  But nowhere in the Bible does it talk about exposed breasts as being nakedness or that either men or women must cover their breasts. 
 
Our mental pictures of Eve is influenced by what we have been taught and in that version she is always dressed to cover her breasts. 
 
So coming back to the native tribes, are they according to Bible standards covered?  And are the general norm of having ones breasts covered not directly instructed and therefore a social norm which we now say is Torah?  What then when the social norms change, do we then interpret Torah differently? 
 
What is interesting is that all future promises are to receive white robes in the here after. Aren't there any trousers on the new earth as we only read of robes or is it because the writers were writing from the perspective of their own social norms and what was known to them? 
 
It also never says that people will walk around like Adam and Eve.  So does it mean that the knowledge of sin and therefore the choice to do sin will continue?   
 
Or on your question of clothing being an idol, does it mean that YHWH replaces our idols with versions of His own which He accepts so that we are still covered?

· Reply · 1763451967

3 Replies

working on clothing being a form of covering, and covering being an attempt to hide iniquity, i look at 1 corinthians 11 again.

- 3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man -

so, further references to the head, for instance of the man, can at times refer to who his head is, not his own head.

- 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. -

so a man praying with his physical head covered is dishonoring who his head is, Yeshua.
and

- 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head -

a woman praying with her physical head uncovered is dishonoring her husband.

how?
well, Yeshua has not performed any iniquities that He needs to cover, and so the man who covers his head is dishonoring Yeshua by implying Yeshua has some form of guilt.
conversely, a woman not covering her head is either implying her husband has no guilt or, more directly, by not covering her head is putting his shame out for all to see, displaying his iniquities, as it were.

verse 5 continues,plus verse 6

- for it is just as if her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. And if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. -

this is saying that for a woman to pray without covering her head she should shave her hair-covering off, now she's unequivocally showing what's the guilt of her husband, and if that is shameful, and for which husband would it not be, better cover her head.

verse 7 is reinforcing this, showing that one is a reflection of someone else's glory

- 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. -

excepting that normal men aren't really that glorious, guilt ridden sinners that they are.
and so, in private, when a woman does not cover her hair to indicate to others she is united with her man, she does something really cool by wearing her hair long.

- 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. -

her glory? her glory is of her man. and so she, by covering her head with long hair is covering his iniquities, amplifying his glory, or, not seeing his faults. which is an answer to a question so many men ask, what does she see in me? well, she sees you without your faults.

and conversely,

- 14Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, -

again, what's being talked about is the man, by covering his head with long hair, is in fact disgracing Yeshua, implying He has faults that need covering.

right, this is tentative, i can't say i've built a water-tight case here.
but it does show how the idea of covering one's iniquities, or someone else's, can be inferred by talking of clothing, head-covering, or even hair itself.
whaddaya fink?

working on clothing being a form of covering, and covering being an attempt to hide iniquity, i look at 1 corinthians 11 again. 
 
- 3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man - 
 
so, further references to the head, for instance of the man, can at times refer to who his head is, not his own head. 
 
- 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.  - 
 
so a man praying with his physical head covered is dishonoring who his head is, Yeshua. 
and 
 
- 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head - 
 
a woman praying with her physical head uncovered is dishonoring her husband. 
 
how? 
well, Yeshua has not performed any iniquities that He needs to cover, and so the man who covers his head is dishonoring Yeshua by implying Yeshua has some form of guilt. 
conversely, a woman not covering her head is either implying her husband has no guilt or, more directly, by not covering her head is putting his shame out for all to see, displaying his iniquities, as it were. 
 
verse 5 continues,plus verse 6 
 
- for it is just as if her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. And if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. - 
 
this is saying that for a woman to pray without covering her head she should shave her hair-covering off, now she's unequivocally showing what's the guilt of her husband, and if that is shameful, and for which husband would it not be, better cover her head. 
 
verse 7 is reinforcing this, showing that one is a reflection of someone else's glory 
 
- 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. - 
 
excepting that normal men aren't really that glorious, guilt ridden sinners that they are. 
and so, in private, when a woman does not cover her hair to indicate to others she is united with her man, she does something really cool by wearing her hair long. 
 
- 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. - 
 
her glory? her glory is of her man. and so she, by covering her head with long hair is covering his iniquities, amplifying his glory, or, not seeing his faults. which is an answer to a question so many men ask, what does she see in me? well, she sees you without your faults. 
 
and conversely,  
 
-  14Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, - 
 
again, what's being talked about is the man, by covering his head with long hair, is in fact disgracing Yeshua, implying He has faults that need covering. 
 
right, this is tentative, i can't say i've built a water-tight case here. 
but it does show how the idea of covering one's iniquities, or someone else's, can be inferred by talking of clothing, head-covering, or even hair itself. 
whaddaya fink?

· Reply · 1763553014

know scripture? can you help me?

Rhy Bezuidenhout

Henk Wouters

Frankincense - Hojary Superior (Boswellia sacra)

Exodus, fine art print

Day One, fine art print

Garden of Emunah, fine art print

Eyes of Grace

Bookmark - Num 6:24-26