March 18, 2015 – Jeremiah 13:1-11<\/a> is an interesting read.\u00a0 It gives what might be called the <\/span>Parable of the Dirty Underwear<\/em><\/strong>. <\/span>Verse 1 begins, \u201c<\/span>This is what the Lord<\/span> said to me:\u00a0 \u2018Jeremiah, go and buy a linen loincloth. Then put it around your waist. Don\u2019t let it get wet.\u2019<\/em>\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n One footnote said a loincloth<\/em><\/strong> was a \u201ccommon undergarment in ancient Judah,” a short skirt that “wrapped around the hips. It reached about halfway down the thighs.\u201d And according to Jeremiah 13, REV Bible and Commentary<\/a>, the term can<\/span><\/span> also be translated \u201cwaist cloth.\u201d\u00a0 <\/span> So, Jeremiah did what he was told. Then the Lord instructed him a second<\/em> time: \u201cJeremiah, take the loincloth you bought and are wearing, and go to Perath [a small village near Jerusalem]. Hide the loincloth there in a crack in the rocks.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>Then Jeremiah got a third<\/em> message from the Lord. He followed orders, went to the “cleft of a rock” a few days later and saw that the waist cloth was ruined. So Jeremiah figured “There’s some kind of lesson here!!!<\/em><\/strong>“<\/p>\n All of which got me wondering.\u00a0 Was a waist cloth some kind of early underwear?\u00a0 (Before even tighty-whiteys?<\/em>) I did some research and came up with the following sources:<\/p>\n 1) The Sign of the Loincloth: Jeremiah (13:1-11)<\/a>, \u00a0 2)\u00a0 Loincloth – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<\/a>,\u00a0 3)\u00a0 Strong’s Hebrew: 232. \u05d0\u05b5\u05d6\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8 (ezor) — a waist cloth – Bible Hub<\/a>, and\u00a0 4)\u00a0 Intimacy during Menstruation | IslamToday – English<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The first source said, “Jeremiah\u2019s vision of the sign of the loincloth is an affluent passage whose depth cannot be fully understood without a proper exegetical exploration.”<\/p>\n Which is a wordy way of saying, “There’s more to this story than meets the eye<\/em><\/strong>.”<\/p>\n The last<\/em> source was the most interesting.\u00a0 It defined a waist cloth in terms of “intimacy.”\u00a0 And according to this narration, the general consensus is that the area “typically covered by the waistcloth [is] the area between the navel and the knee.”<\/p>\n According to Strong’s<\/em><\/strong>, the Hebrew word is ezor<\/em>, derived from the term azar<\/em>: “to gird, encompass, equip.”\u00a0 (Equip?\u00a0 <\/span>Verrry interesting<\/a><\/em>…<\/em>)\u00a0 And aside from “waist cloth,” it’s also translated as a belt or belts, or as a girdle or a waistband.\u00a0 Not to mention loincloth<\/em>. Wikipedia<\/a> defined that as a “one-piece garment \u2013 sometimes kept in place by a belt<\/a> \u2013 which covers the genitals<\/a> and, at least partially, the buttocks<\/a>.”\u00a0 Such cloths<\/em> are worn:\u00a0 1) in societies where no other clothing is needed or wanted,\u00a0 or 2) as an undergarment<\/a> or swimsuit<\/a>.\u00a0 In turn:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Undergarments are clothes<\/a> worn beneath outer clothing, usually in direct contact with the skin, but may comprise more than one layer.\u00a0 They keep outer garments from being soiled<\/strong> or damaged by bodily substances<\/a>, lessen abrasion<\/a> or friction<\/a> against the skin, shape the body, and provide concealment or support for parts of it.\u00a0 (E.A.)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n (But see Pencil Thin Mustache<\/a>, “now I’m gettin’ old, don’t wear underwear, I don’t go to church, and I don’t cut my hair,” a la <\/em>Jimmy Buffett<\/a>.)\u00a0 All of which gets us back to the original question:\u00a0 Was a waist cloth some kind of early underwear, before even tighty-whiteys?\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n But first I had to research that term itself. (Again, to be assiduous<\/a>.<\/em>)<\/p>\n For one thing, there’s some debate whether the proper term is “whitey-tighties” or “tighty-whiteys.”\u00a0(Some people have way<\/strong> too much time on their hands.<\/em>) Then I found this definition:<\/p>\n If you are a boy or man it is the first kind of underwear your mother bought you.\u00a0 White and tight, you didn’t have anything yet to be proud of<\/em><\/strong>, so they were ok.\u00a0 But then you grew, and you were wearing the same underwear at 13 or 14 that you were wearing when you were 10.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n That’s from Urban Dictionary: whitey tightys<\/a> (emphasis added).\u00a0\u00a0 The site added this:\u00a0 “White briefs, sometimes including brown stains, also known as skid marks.”<\/p>\n Famous manly men<\/em> who wear whitey tighties were said to include:\u00a0 “Vegeta<\/a>, Vin Diesel, Billy Ray Cyrus [and that] mouse in the nutcracker.”\u00a0 Finally the site said, “The term ‘tighty whitey’ is not only incorrect but inferior.\u00a0 Whitey tighty<\/em><\/strong> is the proper term for white briefs.”<\/p>\n Then there’s Language Log: Tighty-whities: the semantics<\/a>, which added a few nuggets of wisdom, starting with the idea that the expression is fairly new.\u00a0 The absence of the term from the “standard dictionaries and sources of information on word and phrase histories suggests that it’s probably not more than twenty or so years old.”\u00a0 (That is, going back to about 1990.)\u00a0 The blogger added this, perhaps to explain some negative connotations<\/em><\/strong>:<\/p>\n A further subtlety is the evaluative dimension of tighty-whities.\u00a0 It’s not entirely clear to me whether the judgments here are directly [at] the sort of men who would wear them…\u00a0 I [do] know that some American speakers now view tighty-whities<\/em> as a negative, dismissive label (perhaps through association with uptight<\/em> and tight-assed<\/em> and even the racial tag whitey<\/em>)…<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I’m not sure what “evaluative dimension” refers to, but like I said:\u00a0 Some people seem to have way <\/em>too much free time on their hands.\u00a0 Meanwhile, back at Jeremiah…<\/em><\/p>\n As the IBC went on to say, the “close intimacy” with God – enjoyed by the people of Israel – “had been marred by contact with pagan and idolatrous streams of influence.”\u00a0 Those streams of influence<\/em> in turn had “destroyed the people’s pride in their God and so soiled<\/em><\/strong> them…\u00a0 The nation, like the garment, is now good for nothing, and will be soiled<\/em><\/strong> in exile.” (E.A.) So – as\u00a0Sign of the Loincloth<\/a> said – this passage is exceedingly more complex than it seems:\u00a0 “The meaning of this passage in today\u2019s context is very complex and complicated to determine.”<\/p>\n Then too it brings new meaning to Mom’s old adage, \u201cAlways wear clean underwear in case you get in an accident<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d (Which seemed to be in every mother’s playbook back in the 1960’s.)<\/p>\n For years we Baby-boomers laughed at Mom’s advice, or thought it was just ludicrous.\u00a0 “Heaven forbid if you got your leg cut off and had on dirty ‘drawers.'”\u00a0 But with the passing years, maybe Mom was right after all.\u00a0 “The goal is to have a little foresight, and plan in advance such that you can retain your dignity in the case of an unforeseen event.”\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Then too there’s always that symbolic “close intimacy” that people may still want to find with The Force that Created the Universe<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 Or maybe it’s just a matter of sound stewardship<\/a>…<\/p>\n And it should also be noted that Harry Golden<\/a> had something to say about all this:<\/p>\n Our religions have really conditioned us to what we call good taste and propriety.\u00a0 I think of that wonderful Jewish legend of the girl who had been sentenced by the Inquisition<\/a> to be dragged through the streets to the funeral pyre.\u00a0 She was asked if she had a last request, and she pleaded for a few pins, , and when they gave them to her, she pinned her skirts carefully between her legs so that her body would not be uncovered as she was being dragged through the streets to her death…<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n That’s from Golden’s book Only in America<\/a><\/em>, and specifically his column<\/a>, “Causerie on death.”\u00a0 <\/em>(What could be called the functional equivalent of a modern blogpost<\/a>.)<\/p>\n That is, a causerie<\/em> is generally defined as a short, light, humorous essay, but Golden defined it as “French for ‘schmooze<\/em>.'”\u00a0 (See also Dichotomy<\/a>.)<\/p>\n The point is: few people would use “schmooze” and “death” in the same sentence, let alone the same title, but Golden did.\u00a0 In fact this causerie<\/em> was one of his longer essays, but his point was:\u00a0 Tomorrow may never come<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0 We all plan<\/em> to live long, full and rich lives, but for all we know we might get run over by a bus ten minutes from now.\u00a0 (And so among other things we should focus on important things, like letting our family and friends know how we feel about them…<\/em>)<\/p>\n In turn, maybe being sure to wear “clean underwear” isn’t as ridiculous as we thought.\u00a0 Maybe it’s just a form of mindfulness<\/a>, of being aware that death could come at any minute, yet not being greatly troubled by it.\u00a0 Then there’s the symbolism of the intimate nature<\/em> of the loincloth, representing “the close intimacy the people with their Lord.” And finally:<\/p>\n * \u00a0 * \u00a0 * \u00a0 *<\/p>\n * \u00a0 * \u00a0 * \u00a0 *<\/p>\n See the full text at Jeremiah 13:1-11<\/a>.\u00a0 The text and footnote are from the Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)<\/a><\/em>.\u00a0 It was the Old Testament reading for Saturday, March 14, 2015, in the Daily Office<\/strong>.\u00a0 (See DOR<\/a><\/em>.)<\/p>\n The full reference to Only in America by Harry Golden<\/a>:\u00a0 Penguin Books (1959), at page 10. \u00a0 The quote is from his column, “Causerie on death.”\u00a0 See also Causerie – Wikipedia<\/a><\/em>, and The “Golden” Era of Civil Rights: Consequences of the Carolina Israelite<\/strong><\/a>.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n The Jimmy Buffett image is courtesy of www.wsbtv.com\/news\/entertainment\/zac-brown-band-kiss<\/a>…<\/em><\/p>\n The Jeremiah<\/a> image is courtesy of Wikipedia<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n Re: “Meet your maker.” See for example Understanding “meet one’s maker” Idiom<\/a> – a common expression in English which “refers to the moment when someone dies and meets their creator or God” –\u00a0Going to meet your maker – Idioms by The Free Dictionary<\/a>, and <\/span>MEET YOUR MAKER Definition & Meaning – Merriam-Webster<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n The lower image is courtesy of Loincloth – Wikipedia<\/a>, with the full caption, “A form of loincloth worn with a cape by an Aztec ruler, circa 1500.” The original post closed with an image –<\/em>\u00a0“Capricho \u2116 80: Ya es hora (It is time)<\/strong>” – courtesy of the Wikipedia article <\/span>Spanish Inquisition<\/a><\/em>. Los Caprichos<\/a><\/i><\/strong> “are a set of 80 prints in aquatint<\/a> and etching<\/a> created by the Spanish artist Francisco Goya<\/a> in 1797 and 1798, and published as an album in 1799…\u00a0 Goya described the series as depicting ‘the innumerable foibles and follies to be found in any civilized society, and from the common prejudices and deceitful practices which custom, ignorance or self-interest have made usual.'” But after further review – editing and updating this post in March 2025 – it didn’t seem that appropriate<\/em><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n\n
<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/7\/78\/SA_160-Jeremia_op_de_puinhopen_van_Jeruzalem.jpg\/220px-SA_160-Jeremia_op_de_puinhopen_van_Jeruzalem.jpg\")
I tried to read through Sign of the Loincloth<\/a> again, but the International Bible Commentary (IBC) seemed to have the best spin<\/a>. It said the intimate nature of the loincloth was supposed to “symbolize the close intimacy the people [of Israel] once enjoyed with their Lord.”\u00a0 Both sources agreed that the loincloth started out chaste<\/em>, “placed upon Jeremiah\u2019s loins, without touching any water, and thereby symbolizing that it was pure and lacking damage.”\u00a0 But then came the soiling<\/em>…<\/p>\n\n
Would you want to <\/em>“meet your Maker” <\/em>dressed like this?<\/em><\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/9\/96\/Nezahualpiltzintli.jpg\")
<\/p>\n