Dance, Jewelry, and Adornment
                                                        Exposure, Clothing, and Veiling
                                                             Article dR

                                                                           Part 1
           Considers David's Dance of 2 Samuel 6:20-22 Especially With Regards to the Greek.

        In the Greek Septuagint, King David's wife Michal, made a quite outstanding comment while criticizing David for
    uncovering himself while dancing or preparing to dance.  According to the Greek Michal said,  "How glorious was the
    King of Israel today, who uncovered today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, LIKE AS UNCOVERING
    UNCOVERETH ONE OF THE DANCERS".  Just what did Michal here have in mind in her particular statement
    "LIKE AS UNCOVERING UNCOVERETH ONE OF THE DANCERS"?  Michal here obviously related uncovering
    with the behavior of dancers, but what did she really mean?       dR-1

        Was Michal here in criticizing David for uncovering himself as one of the dancers, thinking of all such uncovering
    and dance as wicked and vile, or was she simply criticizing David because she did not think it was well mannered or
    honorable for her special husband, the King of Israel to here have uncovered as might be done by particular ones in
    particular dances?  The below carefully considers this question.      dR-2

        In studying Michal's comment one should consider that if Jewish religious laws demanded strict modesty at all times,
    quite obviously David, who meditated on and loved God's laws, and who was a man after God's own heart, would not
    here have uncovered himself as he did, nor given Michal any reason to criticize him as she did.  It very much should be
    realized that David in this dance was in the crucial process of moving the Holy Ark of the Covenant.  Thus David here
    naturally would have been additionally careful to not do anything he felt was against God's laws and displeasing to Him,
    and further would have been extra careful, because just before this time while trying to move this very Ark, Uzzah was
    struck dead for his misconduct in moving it!        dR-3

        Considering all these things it becomes basically obvious that although Michal quite strongly criticized David's
    behavior, that yet King David was trying to please God, and did not consider his particular exposure (while preparing to
    dance or while dancing) as vile or base before God.  Further after Michal had criticized David as this, he quite sharply
    defended himself and according to the Greek said he was playing and dancing before the Lord and would uncover
    himself yet as this.  This would further indicate that David did not feel his earlier conduct had been evil before his God.  
    These issues all indicate that Michal, being of the same religious society as David, would not have had reason to accuse
    David of vilely transgressing God's laws, and that she thus was rather simply criticizing David for doing what she did not
    think was well mannered or honorable for her husband the King of Israel to here have done.      dR-4

        In studying Michal's statement "LIKE AS UNCOVERING UNCOVERETH ONE OF THE DANCERS" it also
    should be noticed how David therewith said "I WILL PLAY AND DANCE BEFORE THE LORD AND I WILL
    UNCOVER YET AS THIS" which statement could also be understood as a particular relating of uncovering with
    dance.  Just what did David and Michal have in mind by these statements?       dR-5

        Although the Song of Solomon speaks of a very exposed feminine display which appears involved a dance, most
    English translations of this unveiled display or dance have a chapter break in the text, which neither the Hebrew or
    Greek have, and which significantly obscures this Scripture (Song of Solomon 6:13-7:5).  Further the KJV for some
    reason does not use the word dance in this Scripture although most other translations do, and although according to the
    setting and both the Hebrew and Greek text, the word dance would fit very well.  Why is this?       dR-6

        Note in this paragraph I am not trying to promote careless or casual public nudity, but am simply further researching
    what Michal really might have meant in saying, "LIKE AS UNCOVERING UNCOVERETH ONE OF THE
    DANCERS".  In researching this subject one should consider that Jewish standards about exposure were very different
    than what is accepted among many Christians today.  Yes very different.  God told famous prophet Isaiah to take the
    sackcloth from off his loins and his shoes from off his feet, and which Isaiah did and thus prophesied 3 years with his
    buttocks uncovered and appears totally nude, as a sign of upcoming hardships (Isaiah 20:2-4).  It appears the wearing of
    sackcloth alone (as quite often was done in old times), created significant exposure, but here even that was removed.  1
    Sam 19:24 also speaks of particular prophets stripping and being nude or near to nude reading, "And he stripped off his
    clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore
    they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?"  This very situation happened when Saul was pursuing David, so King
    David obviously was aware of such uncovering situations of the prophets.  The Bible considers David a prophet and not
    only a King, while in the above Scripture some prophets in David's time obviously did some significant uncovering.       
        Regarding ancient Jewish manners about sexuality, beauty, and marriage, things obviously were quite different than
    among Christians today.  When David was old and sick the most beautiful maid in the land was sought to lay in his
    bosom and help revive him, which young damsel likely would have just been considered another one of his numerous
    wives or concubines, and which manners today would be considered very vile (1 King 1:1-4).  Famous Queen Esther
    also replaced a queen that was rejected because of refusing to come forth to show her beauty to the King's guests, and
    what reason did she have to cooperate in becoming queen in this situation, if she also would have refused?  Yes, Esther
    spent a whole year becoming prepared and attractive for the King.  Beautiful Judith of the Apocrypha wearing her
    garments of gladness and special jewelry, went forth intending to use her special beauty to allure the enemy captain into
    her hands, after which she would slay him.  The Apocrypha Bible speaking of these things reads, "...and put on her
    garments of gladness, wherewith she was clad during the life of Manasses her husband ...and decked herself bravely, to
    allure the eyes of all men that should see her", and further speaking of the enemy soldier's reaction reads, "And they
    wondered at her beauty, and admired the children of Israel because of her, and every one said to his neighbour, Who
    would despise this people, that have among them such women?" (Judith 10:3-4&19).  After Saul died, King David told
    the women to weep for King Saul who had clothed them with scarlet and other delights and with ornaments of gold (2
    Sam 1:24).  The Apocrypha Bible reads, "The beauty of a woman cheereth the countenance, and a man loveth nothing
    better" (Ecc of Sir 36:22).  Further Apostle Paul spoke of woman being made for man and being the glory of man, and
    spoke of her long hair being a glory to her which is a shame to remove, and according to the Greek said it was given her
    instead of a veil, and likely meaning the secluding and grievous veil worn by some religious Greeks (note such veiling is
    clearly revealed in ancient writings and archeological findings and is discussed later).      dR-8

        Although the ancient Israelites were quite liberal about marriage, women, and adornments, and although Apostle Paul
    spoke of woman being the glory of man, and of her long hair being a glory to her, yet the chiefs of so called early
    Christianity, spoke of women being the devil's gateway and something worthy of nothing more than animal skins,
    advocated that even women's faces should be veiled, and further counted sex even in marriage a disgrace, and therewith
    largely disallowed it in marriage.  What a shocking difference!  Because of such influence, even today a large portion of
    so called Christianity still does not allow it's elders to marry, and although Apostle Paul related disallowing marriage with
    the doctrines of Devils (1 Tim 4:1-3).  Oh may God help us find His standards in these matters in our world today,
    where we are faced with the likely too liberal standards of the ancient Israelites, and then on the other hand with the so
    opposite, yet false standards of many erring Christians.  Who and whose standards are leading your Christianity
    today?      dR-11

                                                                           Part 2

           Considers the Difference Between The English and Greek Versions of 2 Samuel 6:20-22.

        Although the Greek version of Michal's emphatic rebuke to David reads, "How glorious was the King of Israel today,
    who uncovered today, ...LIKE AS UNCOVERING UNCOVERETH ONE OF THE DANCERS", yet the English and
    KJV reads, "...How glorious was the king of Israel today, who uncovered himself today ...AS ONE OF THE VAIN
    FELLOWS SHAMELESSLY UNCOVERTH HIMSELF!"  Although these Greek and English texts are strikingly
    different, the Greek statement, "like as uncovering uncovereth one of the dancers" was here intended to be understood
    as being a disgrace to David, and thus could have largely meant the same as the English.  Michal in accusing David,
    saying he uncovered like one of the dancers, may have felt such here was very unbecoming for David, and similar to
    how the English portrays.  Yet even that would not need mean Michal had in mind that all uncovering in dance was
    shameful and vile.      dR-12

        Regarding David's response to Michal's emphatic rebuke, the Greek and English translations are also very different.  
    According to the Greek, David's response to Michal's rebuke was, "...before the Lord I danced, and I will ...dance
    before the Lord  ...AND I WILL UNCOVER YET AS THIS", while according to the English and KJV David replied
    saying, "It was before the LORD, ...and I will yet be MORE VILE THAN THUS, and WILL BE BASE IN MY OWN
    SIGHT".  One might conclude that the Greek here also was meant to be understood the same as the English, but these
    differences are more difficult to reconcile.  It is largely certain that King David while in the crucial process of moving the
    Holy Ark would not have done anything he felt was vile or transgressing God's or Jewish laws, and neither would have
    given Micah reason to believe he did.  Nor would David, after being rebuked by Michal, said he was going to do
    something even more base or vile in the sight of his God.  Yet English translations of 2 Sam 6:20-22, speaking of Michal
    and David's controversy, use very drastic and condemning words such as, base, shameless, indecent, vulgar,
    contemptible, mindless fool, and lewd.  Regarding these derogatory and quite malicious terms, should they also be used
    in speaking of the particular uncovering of the prophets in David's time as spoken of in 1 Sam 19:24?  It also is note
    worthy that Apostle Peter put clothing on as he prepared to jump out of their boat and likely swim to shore to meet
    Jesus, while many modest people today, might need to take some off, so they could swim better (John 21:7).  The Bible
    says Peter had been naked, and he must have been quite naked.       dR-13

        I believe it is possible the faulty anti sex emphasis of early Christianity, which largely disallowed sexual love in
    marriage, and whose demands of modesty even demanded women's faces to be obscured (and which emphasis has had
    much influence on our world), might be some reason such condemning and drastic words are used in English translations
    speaking of David's dance.  Concerning David's uprightness after the time of this dance, it was soon after this dance
    when David wanted to build a temple for the Holy Ark of the Covenant which he had just moved, and Prophet Nathan
    then told David to do all that was in his heart as God was with him.  Yet God then revealed to Nathan that Solomon,
    David's son, instead should build this temple, as David was a man of blood and wars (2 Sam 7:1-13, Chron 22:8).       

        For some reason the New American Standard Bible translation of 2 Sam 6:20-22 does not use as harsh a words as
    do most English translations, although it still is worded very differently than the Greek.  This translation speaking of
    Michal's accusation (which readily could have been both unreasonable and harsh), reads, "...He uncovered himself today
    in the eyes of his servants' maids as one of the foolish ones shamelessly uncovers himself!"  And then speaking of
    David's response reads, "I will celebrate before the Lord. And I will be more lightly esteemed than this and will be
    humble in my own eyes, but with the maids of whom you have spoken, with them I will be distinguished".        dR-15

        Concerning clothing and dance, lesser clothing obviously would allow for easier movement while dancing.  Possibly
    that has something to do with why David uncovered himself as he did, and with why Michal related uncovering with
    dance.  Concerning Greek women it appears some were oppressively veiled even in dance.  A bronze statue of about
    200 BC shows a Greek dancer dancing while being so veiled her face was even wrapped up.  This stature can be seen at
    2E118%2E95 .  Obviously Jewish women were not required to veil their faces as this at any time, and were more
    exposed than this all the time.  Further, it is likely that Apostle Paul saying, that a woman's long hair is a glory to her and
    given her instead of a veil, and that where the spirit of the Lord is their is liberty, and that both man and woman should
    come before God with an unveiled face, was speaking against veiling as worn by this Greek Dancer.  Yes Paul said the
    above in his two letters to the Greeks of Corinth.  Further Paul in these letters said that woman who is the glory of man
    and made for man, should have power or freedom on her head because of the angels, and likely meaning with the
    angels, or because of their example (1 Cor 11:7-15, 2 Cor 3:16-18).  Can you imagine the glorious angels of heaven
    going around with even their faces veiled?       dR-16

        In concluding and again considering Michal's statement "who uncovered today, ...LIKE AS UNCOVERING
    UNCOVERETH ONE OF THE DANCERS", and what Michal might really have meant by it, one should remember and
    consider the following four issues,      dR-17

        Firstly remember that David in his peculiar uncovering and dancing while moving the Holy Ark, quite obviously
    would not have done anything that he considered wicked or ungodly.       dR-18

        Secondly consider that Michal being of the very same religious culture as David, very likely neither had reason to
    have thought of David's uncovering and dancing as actually wicked or ungodly in God's eyes.       dR-21

        Thirdly consider that Michal being of a society where exposure was not thought so incredible, and where David's
    dance was not ungodly, would thus have had lesser reason, in her relating of uncovering with dance, to thereby have had
    in mind all such was vile and ungodly.       dR-22

        And lastly consider that Michal thus, (in her accusation and special relating of uncovering with dance), could simply
    have been criticizing David for doing something she did not feel was well mannered and honorable for him the King to
    have here done, although being common for some dancers in some dances.       dR-23

        Note, if uncovering in dance was vile and wicked in God's eyes and thought of as such in their religious society, why
    did David after Michal's rebuke, tell her he would play and dance before the Lord and uncover himself yet as this?  Or
    must we conclude David, while moving the Holy Ark was being vile in God's eyes, and that he then promised Michal to
    even be more wicked and vile?  One should consider that God never reproved David for this behavior, although he
    clearly reproved David for various errors, and consider that rather Prophet Nathan soon after this time gave David the
    testimony that God was with him.  May we not allow the morals or standards of those who advocated women's faces
    should be veiled and who disallowed marriage, and which Paul related to the doctrines of Devil's, to influence us to
    wrongly judge King David in this situation.      dR-24

        I for some time have had questions about old Jewish dance manners, and am still trying to understand what they
    might have involved.  Some Bible translations speaking of the exposed feminine display of the beautiful Shulammite
    (spoken of in the Song of Solomon), speak of it being like the "dance of Mahanaim" (Song 6:13-7:5).  What was that
    dance?       dR-25

                                                                   Part 3
                                                         Clothing and Adorning

        Although old Jewish manners with regards to clothes and modesty might surprise us, yet it is clear that in the Jewish
    society it was considered a privilege to be nicely or beautifully clothed, and thus nakedness most often was related to
    poverty.  No, the Israelites were not nudists as some people for some reason want to be in our day.  Nor were the early
    Christians nudists.  Nor should we be such.  Yet it appears particular dance and exposure was not considered wicked
    and vile in old Jewish times as it is by many in our day.       dR-26

        It appears we have two extreme kinds of people in our world today.  The one extreme almost has clothing, and
    traditions about it, as the heart of their religion, and might almost be glad that Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of
    Eden so they need no longer be nude in the paradise garden.  The other extreme advocates everybody should be nude
    even today and basically all the time, even though are bodies now are cursed, unclean, and have a element of shame
    about them, which I do not believe they had when God first created man.  I simply do not believe that Adam and Eve
    by disobeying and sinning in Eden thereby became intelligent or wised up to how shamefully God had created them, and
    thus now wanted obscured and covered.  I rather believe because of man's disobedience the human body being cursed
    has become unclean and shameful insomuch that clothing often times now is very desirable.  Article dG quite extensively
    considers shameful nudity.        dR-27

        1 Timothy 2:9 also slightly relates to this subject and according to the KJV reads, "In like manner also, that women
    adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or
    costly array;".  Note, how this Scripture does not say women must make themselves unattractive with excessive and
    repugnant apparel (as some Christians and Moslems seem to think) but rather says they should adorn themselves with it,
    although with discretion and while refraining from costly adornments or clothes.  According to the Greek this Scripture
    says women should adorn themselves with KATASTOLA, and with reverence and thoughtfulness, although not with
    hair adornments, or gold or pearls or costly clothing.  KATASTOLA is sort of a key word in this verse and only appears
    in one other Greek verse being Isaiah 61:3 and their happens to be speaking of a garment of glory or praise which God
    would give rather than the Spirit of heaviness.  Yet KATASTOLA might simply mean any garment.  Note, although it
    appears no Greek word in 1 Tim 2:9 particularly pertains to the amount of clothes or exposure, yet this verse teaches
    that Christian women should dress with discretion.       dR-28

        1 Peter 3:3-4 also pertains to this subject, with the KJV reading,  "Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning
    of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel.  But let it be the hidden man of the heart...".  
    Concerning this crucial and special verse the original Greek for some reason is significantly different reading, "Whose
    person or being, let it not be from without, in ornaments of the hair, or wearing of gold, or putting on of adorning
    apparel; {4} But let it be the hidden man of the heart, ...even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit...".  Although the
    KJV significantly has adorning as the subject of the verse, the Greek simply emphasizes that Christian women's
    uniqueness should come from within, rather than from an extravagant outward display.  Apostle Peter with good reason
    did not want Christian women to be obsessed with outward and expensive adornment, nor did he want Christian women
    to be known by such, but rather wanted them to focus on quality inner character, and be exceptional and known
    because of such.  In researching this Scripture it also should be noticed that although Peter wrote of adornment as this,
    he in the next verses then lifted out Holy women of old as examples to follow, which women although having very good
    inner qualities, yet obviously did adorn themselves and were so attractive Kings desired them.  With regards to the
    English text, this Scripture might be understood to oppose all adorning and some might think it means that women
    should do nothing to be attractive outwardly, which obviously would be a very very drastic change from old Jewish
    manners, nor would such align with Paul's teaching that women yet is the glory of man, and her long hair a glory to her
    that is a shame to remove.   No, even the KJV need not be understood to oppose adornment as such.  Regarding this
    Scripture it is also interesting that the Greek word EMPLOKAS translated as PLATING the hair (KJV), is used in Ex 35:
    22 and Num 31:50 in speaking of valuable jewelry, which was donated to the Jewish treasury.        dR-31

        In old times God's people often were promised riches, and often were rich. Yet Jesus and the Apostles spoke of the
    followers of Christ in the Christian era, being those who unselfishly share and being the poorer of this world, although
    being rich in faith.  Is that why expensive adornments and clothes are rebuked as they are in the above Scriptures?  
    Further it should be considered a woman's natural covering of longer hair and when accompanied by a kind, discrete,
    and loving smile, does much more than expensive ornaments to make her beautiful.  No, it is not expensive clothes and
    adornments that make a woman attractive and beautiful.      dR-32

        Yet regardless of what the truth is, it appears many erring religious people will continue on just as before, even
    disallowing marriage for their elders, and veiling women insomuch they can hardly be recognized.  It would take an earth
    shaking miracle to change these things.  Yet even that is not impossible with God.  It is very sad that regardless of how
    much the ancient Israelites honored and adorned their women, and regardless of how Apostle Paul emphasized that
    woman is the glory of man, and that her longer hair is a glory to her which is a shame to remove, and given instead of a
    veil, and regardless of how Paul emphasized woman should have power and liberty on her head because of or with the
    Angels, and regardless how he advocated that where the Spirit of the Lord is their is liberty and that Christ took away
    the veil and that both men and women should come before God with an unveiled face, yes regardless of all those things,
    it appears many Moslem women will continue veiling even their faces, and making themselves appear almost like a
    gloomy bag of beans, while also many Catholic nuns as well as Mennonite and Amish women, will continue to deal with
    their longer hair, which Paul spoke of as a glory and covering to women, as if it were a wicked beauty, and in a manner
    which makes it largely look no different than if it were cut off, which Paul spoke of as a shame to do.  Further it appears
    that regardless of how the ancient Israelites, honored, celebrated, and adorned their women, and regardless of the fact
    that even our Holy Bible honorably describes a revealing feminine display, many Christians will continue to count any
    photo displaying what the Song of Solomon clearly honors and displays with words, the same as vile pornographic
    photos which display and encourage perversion and gross sexual sins.       dR-33

        Further some erring religious people will advocate one thing with their mouths, to thus be honored in their religious
    society, but will uphold another thing in heart and practice.  How many blessings have been stolen and how much pain
    been caused, by erring religious people, and the doctrines of Devils?  These have not only significantly disallowed
    marriage, but have also shamed woman and greatly obstructed and confused many blessings relating to God's creation of
    woman and marriage.  The Apocrypha Bible reads, "The beauty of a woman cheereth the countenance, and a man
    loveth nothing better", while it appears that many religious groups and people feel they are appeasing God and becoming
    Holy by distorting, obscuring, and rejecting what they like best.  No, not only has the beautiful for the eyes been
    shunned, in man's self oriented effort to be Holy before the Almighty, but also the beautiful for the ears, and the good
    for the mouth.  Yet Apostle Paul spoke of it being the doctrine of Devil's that forbids meats and marriage, and King
    David said, "For the LORD God is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold
    from them that walk uprightly", and said "And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts."  (Psa 84:11, 119:45).  
    Further Jesus said, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the
    truth shall make you free", "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might
    have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." (John 8:32 & 10:10).  Further Apostle Paul often advocated that
    our self chosen works will never save us, and that they really subtract from our real source of salvation which is
    believing in and following Jesus, while Jesus advocated that all God's laws hinge on a proper love for God and our
    fellowmen, and wept because of people not realizing what belonged to their peace and blessing (Matt 22:36-40, Luke 19:
    42).  Yes, God's emphasis is that you love Him with all your heart and unselfishly love others as yourself, and not that
    you distort and shun what He created to bless humanity.  This vital truth and God's good plan for man is vividly exposed
    and considered in an interesting allegory, found at http://www.teachmegod.com/home1a2.htm .       dR-34

        One of my first Bibles has a very unusual tear in it, and which looks like a big bite taken out of a page, and further
    this unusual tear is at an amazing place.  Yes the unusual tear is in 1 Cor 11 and starts right at verse 7 where Paul speaks
    about woman being the glory of man, and then the tear continues right on where he teaches that woman should have
    power and freedom on her head because of or with the Angels, continues right on to where Paul advocates that it
    obviously is repulsive for a woman to pray in public lacking a proper covering, (then adding that long hair is yet a shame
    to man), then the tear continues on to where Paul concludes saying, "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her:
    for her hair is given her for [exchange and instead in the Greek] a covering.  A further amazing thing is that my wife's
    older Bible also has a similar unusual tear in it and that tear is in Genesis 38 where Tamar was thought to be a harlot
    because she veiled her face!  We have no idea when and how these old and unusual tears happened, and at these special
    places!  Yet it is clear that these unusually torn and damaged verses need to be reconsidered, and the message they bear
    out regarding veiling needs to be understood not only by the Moslems, but by many Christians.  Photos of those unusual
    tears are included in article dN and can be seen at http://www.teachmegod.com/jewelry_verses_veiling.htm .  Numerous
    articles that extensively consider the things discussed above are accessible at; http://www.teachmegod.com and http:
    //www.biblicalsexuality.com.      dR-35

        In concluding I would like to yet give William Tyndale's translation of Col 2:20-23 which reads, "Wherefore if ye be
    dead with Christ from ordinances of the world, why as though ye yet lived in the world, are ye led with traditions of
    them that say Touch not, taste not, handle not? which all perish with the using of them and are after the commandments
    of doctrines of men, which things have the similitude of wisdom in chosen holiness and humbleness, and in that they
    spare not the body, and do the flesh no worship unto his need.". (Col 2:20-23).  I believe the Greek could also be
    translated as "If dead with Christ from the traditions of the world, why as living in the world are you taken up with the
    rules of men.  Such as don't touch, neither taste, neither feel, which all are to failure and corruption in keeping, being in
    accordance with the commandments and teaching of men. Which teachings and commandments are indeed the words of
    the wisdom of a self chosen religion and humility of mind, and harsh treatment of the body, not in any respect toward
    satisfying the flesh."  The endeavor to keep man's laws rather than God's has resulted in much pain, corruption, and
    failure among religious elders as well as all humanity.       dR-36
    4965  041207