The "DAVID DANCED WHILE NAKED" error

[Jay]

What to say, what to say?

I had never really thought about it all that much until now. I believe that when the Bible was translated the words naked meant fully unclothed, while the word nakedness implies that there is little or nothing being worn, or that you are committing what we would call today 'indecent exposure'.

That having been said, I do not find David to be dancing until he was entirely naked, but only until he had was dancing in an ephod, this could have been an undergarment that was more revealing than his other clothing without actually showing any 'nakedness'. I do think that his wife was appalled by his actions, and was jealous over his kingly dignity. Her father would have influenced what her visions of proper royal decorum would have been.

All of this, compounded by a seeming lack of interest in the things of God on her part, set the seen for the sad finale on what was a very happy day. David says that he would be more base in his own site, but be had in honor.

I would say it is not that different a situation from ours, when we take off the suit coat and dance until the shirt is entirely untucked, and we hunt for the tie on the third row, and who knows where the watch and pocket change are. Women shout their hair down, and then there are pins lying all over the floor. We have abased ourselves in our eyes, and in the eyes of our fellow men. We are told that we look like we are insane and crazy. However, such is our zeal for God, that we do not care what others say.

I hold that is a similar circumstance with David.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jay

What to say, what to say?

I had never really thought about it all that much until now. I believe that when the Bible was translated the words naked meant fully unclothed, while the word nakedness implies that there is little or nothing being worn, or that you are committing what we would call today 'indecent exposure'.

That having been said, I do not find David to be dancing until he was entirely naked, but only until he had was dancing in an ephod, this could have been an undergarment that was more revealing than his other clothing without actually showing any 'nakedness'. I do think that his wife was appalled by his actions, and was jealous over his kingly dignity. Her father would have influenced what her visions of proper royal decorum would have been.

All of this, compounded by a seeming lack of interest in the things of God on her part, set the seen for the sad finale on what was a very happy day. David says that he would be more base in his own site, but be had in honor.

I would say it is not that different a situation from ours, when we take off the suit coat and dance until the shirt is entirely untucked, and we hunt for the tie on the third row, and who knows where the watch and pocket change are. Women shout their hair down, and then there are pins lying all over the floor. We have abased ourselves in our eyes, and in the eyes of our fellow men. We are told that we look like we are insane and crazy. However, such is our zeal for God, that we do not care what others say.

I hold that is a similar circumstance with David.

But an ephod was a priest's garment, not undergarments.

[Jay]

Sorry if I went long and waxed redundant. Hazards of having long periods without sleep.

[Amanah]

I personally would rather people be clothed, I don't want to see everyone's whereforall.

[Aquila]

David's disposition was described by an eye witness...

2 Samuel 6:20
King James Version (KJV)
20Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!

I think David's ephod was flapping while he danced with all his might. These ephods are modest... if one isn't dancing like crazy. Wear one with nothing underneath and watch and see if you have a chance of exposing yourself. Get my drift?

Anyway... it's evident that the handmaids and servants were worshiping also, and so weren't gawking at David's "uncovered" parts. However, in all of this Michal clearly was more focused on David's "junk", and the embarrassment it presented to the "royal office".

I'm not saying it's okay to dance naked. But if one is dancing in church and a little leg, or clevage, or chest, shows... are you going to be aghast, judging them for not being "proper" in our high Pentecostal formalities, or will you be rejoicing with them about what the LORD has done????

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

David's disposition was described by an eye witness...

2 Samuel 6:20
King James Version (KJV)
20Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!

I think David's ephod was flapping while he danced with all his might. These ephods are modest... if one isn't dancing like crazy. Wear one with nothing underneath and watch and see if you have a chance of exposing yourself. Get my drift?

Anyway... it's evident that the handmaids and servants were worshiping also, and so weren't gawking at David's "uncovered" parts. However, in all of this Michal clearly was more focused on David's "junk", and the embarrassment it presented to the "royal office".

I'm not saying it's okay to dance naked. But if one is dancing in church and a little leg, or clevage, or chest, shows... are you going to be aghast, judging them for not being "proper" in our high Pentecostal formalities, or will you be rejoicing with them about what the LORD has done????

How do we know David was not wearing the undergarments priests wear?

Why does this mean his genitals were exposed? I've seen girls at church jump or dance and at some point thier skirt rose up a bit but not enough to see their underwear yet one might still have the same thought of David's jealous wife

[Praxeas]

Keil& Delitzch
The proud daughter of Saul was offended at the fact, that the king had let himself down on this occasion to the level of the people. She availed herself of the shortness of the priests' shoulder-dress, to make a contemptuous remark concerning David's dancing, as an impropriety that was unbecoming in a king. "Who knows whether the proud woman did not intend to sneer at the rank of the Levites, as one that was contemptible in her eyes, since their humble service may have looked very trivial to her?" (Berleb. Bible.)

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

How do we know David was not wearing the undergarments priests wear?

Why does this mean his genitals were exposed? I've seen girls at church jump or dance and at some point thier skirt rose up a bit but not enough to see their underwear yet one might still have the same thought of David's jealous wife

I didn't say anything specific about genitals. Remember, the thigh was considered "nakedness". Not to mention, even the undergarment was considered improper attire before the servants and handmaids.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Wear one with nothing underneath and watch and see if you have a chance of exposing yourself. Get my drift?

Anyway... it's evident that the handmaids and servants were worshiping also, and so weren't gawking at David's "uncovered" parts. However, in all of this Michal clearly was more focused on David's "junk", and the embarrassment it presented to the "royal office".

Originally Posted by Aquila

I didn't say anything specific about genitals. Remember, the thigh was considered "nakedness". Not to mention, even the undergarment was considered improper attire before the servants and handmaids.

I recommend re-reading what you post before responding to me next time Aquila. You clearly implied David's genitals or "junk" were being exposed. Shame on you!

[Aquila]

What I do find interesting is that some are so disturbed at the idea that David may have simply danced so feverishly that he improperly revealed himself in some way during exuberant worship that they will actually try to PROVE such action couldn't have possibly happened... without focusing on the very point of the passage.

In a way... isn't this much like Michal's issue? Yes, David obviously was improperly uncovered. Not in a perverted manner (like many who automatically see perversion in the very thought)... but rather David was uncovered when lost in worship.

Oh that we all realize that we must get so beyond ourselves to be naked before God, without religious pretense, pride, and arrogance.

David worshiped so ecstatically... he didn't care about what he looked like. And honestly, neither did those who worshiped with him. However, Michal was clearly more focused on what David was doing... and not on what the LORD had done.