I think it would have been immodest, yes. It certainly wouldn't have been in keeping with Jewish culture.
But, more to the point, I think the Bible clarifies it's accounts pretty well (such as with Peter), and if David had been entirely naked, it would have said so. JMO!!!!
Look at the shame that was inferred upon Ham when he saw his naked, drunken father in the tent...and yet dancing naked on the streets with women(and probably children) watching would have been acceptable to the Lord? I doubt it. (That story also clarifies that Noah was naked.)
Anyway, the story about David states that he was girded with a linen ephod. It is possible that he wore it around his waist, since "girded" means "as a belt; armor", and "ephod" means a "girdle; specifically the...high priest's shoulder piece."
Also, that might fit in the context of what Michal said, when she accused him of uncovering himself as one of the "vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself." The picture that comes to my mind is a young man taking his shirt off.
Since the scripture does say that he was wearing something, then I'm going to agree with it, and say he was not entirely naked. BUT, it's possible he was flashing some skin. I just doubt he was flashing his white and shiny hiney.
That makes sense. It's odd, though, that so many other things are commanded clearly, but this one seems to be just hinted at indirectly, and it almost always has to do with people's attitude toward it, and not God's (Ham and Noah being a possible exception). Adam and Eve felt shame for their nakedness after the fall, but God didn't seem to be bothered by it as if it was a sin. And it must not have been a sin before the fall.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Aquila, I think you read alot into the scripture, things that aren't there. With the meaning of people's name, doesn't mean they are actually like the meaning of their name. But it was the most interesting read so far.
Aquila, I think you read alot into the scripture, things that aren't there. With the meaning of people's name, doesn't mean they are actually like the meaning of their name. But it was the most interesting read so far.
DM, aren't you embarrassed to have that avatar yet?
7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea. KJV
7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea. KJV
Notice that Peter was with men alone, whereas David was amongst women.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea. KJV
How 'bout the prophet Isaiah, whom the LORD commanded that he walk naked and barefoot for three years?
At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.
And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;
So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.
He was naked - He was only in his vest. Γυμνος, naked, is often used to signify the absence of this upper garment only. In 1Sa 19:24, when Saul had put off his ἱματια, upper garments, he is said to have been γυμνος, naked; and David, when girded only with a linen ephod, is said to have been uncovered, in 2Sa 6:14, 2Sa 6:20. To which may be added what we read in the Sept. Job 22:6, Thou hast taken away the covering of the naked; αμφιασιν γυμνων, the plaid or blanket in which they wrapped themselves, and besides which they had none other. In this sense it is that Virgil says, Geor. i. 299: Nudus ara, sere nudus, i.e. strip off your upper garments, and work till you sweat. See more examples in Bp. Pearce.
BARNES:
He was naked - He was undressed, with nothing on but the undergarment or tunic. The word does not require us to suppose a greater degree of nakedness than this. See the Mar 14:51 note; also 1Sa 19:24 note.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Notice that Peter was with men alone, whereas David was amongst women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
More opinions:
CLARKE:
He was naked - He was only in his vest. Γυμνος, naked, is often used to signify the absence of this upper garment only. In 1Sa_19:24, when Saul had put off his ἱματια, upper garments, he is said to have been γυμνος, naked; and David, when girded only with a linen ephod, is said to have been uncovered, in 2Sa_6:14, 2Sa_6:20. To which may be added what we read in the Sept. Job_22:6, Thou hast taken away the covering of the naked; αμφιασιν γυμνων, the plaid or blanket in which they wrapped themselves, and besides which they had none other. In this sense it is that Virgil says, Geor. i. 299: Nudus ara, sere nudus, i.e. strip off your upper garments, and work till you sweat. See more examples in Bp. Pearce.
BARNES:
He was naked - He was undressed, with nothing on but the undergarment or tunic. The word does not require us to suppose a greater degree of nakedness than this. See the Mar_14:51 note; also 1Sa_19:24 note.
Hybrid Mode
