Should we use the Old Testament to bind covering our thighs?
Question:
Good evening,
Should we use Exodus 28:42 to bind covering our thighs all the way down to the knees?
There has recently been controversy over whether the context of this verse provides a clear indication of what the Hebrew word yarek refers to. I've heard sermons from both sides, and I'm curious about your thoughts.
Thanks.
Answer:
Exodus 28:42 is a part of the Old Testament laws for the priests. We are not under the Law of Moses, so it is not binding upon us. However, that is not why people cite this verse. The New Testament tells Christians to dress modestly (e.g. I Timothy 2:9), and we would like to define "modesty." One aspect of modesty is "shamefastness" (having a sense of shame or embarrassment). That would include not exposing our nakedness. See "What is the difference between principle and standard, and how does this apply to modesty?" In the answer, there is a discussion of why "nakedness" can be defined by examining the Old Testament.
The question of how much of the thigh needs to be covered is debated, but I prefer to stay with what God said. The exposure of the genitals, buttocks, loins, and thighs was considered nakedness; therefore, I keep those areas covered. See also "Modest Dress."
