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."
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.
And anyway, so what if he did dance naked in front of the people? Would that have been wrong? A sin? Where's the no-nakedness commandment, anyway?
(Not advocating public nudity. I'm just sayin'. As usual. )
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.
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
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
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.
Adam and Eve were certainly innocent before the fall. But once sin entered their hearts, innocency was gone and mad could not handle certain situations without further sinning.
__________________ ...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."
Adam and Eve were certainly innocent before the fall. But once sin entered their hearts, innocence was gone and mad could not handle certain situations without further sinning.
But they were husband and wife, so why was nudity a problem? It wouldn't have been sinful, even if they had looked at each other and wanted to act upon the "situation."
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
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.
Which is why I think modesty is a relative concept.
How much clothing is worn at any given time is directly related to the present company and culture.
I am modest as a courtesy to other people, and only in that sense is it unto the Lord. I don't think God cares one iota whether we are clothed or not, except as it affects others around us .
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
Adam and Eve were certainly innocent before the fall. But once sin entered their hearts, innocency was gone and mad could not handle certain situations without further sinning.
But why did Adam and Eve need clothes if they were the only people in the world?
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
)
Linear Mode
