I just replied to the discussion of John 13.4 of the Dec. 10 Issue of the Fig Leaf Forum Daily Digest about Jesus disrobing during the supper. Is this a call for social nudism? Is this what Jesus was teaching?

******************* I wrote:

Replying to "Some may question what relevance this
passage has in a discussion about social
nudism/naturism." in the Dec. 10 issue:

I would not personally say that this is an "excuse" or
"support" for social nudism. However, if someone
today did this same act in a modern (American) church,
they would have been cast out and persecuted to no
end! It is an observation of how well they (the early
church) understood the human body in a way we do not.
They do not feel it is something to hide in shame. It
is more than an act of "Hey, I can take off my clothes
in public (women present or not) and get by with it".
It isn't an act or show of how to worship God. It is
Jesus playing - living - the role of a servant/slave
to his disciples when in their eyes, it should have
been the other way around. Jesus is the Master, we
should be a servant to Him, not Jesus being a servant
to us. But this is how Jesus wants us to be towards
each other. Not lords or masters, but servants. I
feel this is all that this means, and I would not want
to use this as an excuse for social nudism. But I
would let others know that it does exist and if they
saw Jesus doing that today, how would they react?
It's to help us to reflect and understand our
relationship with God and man, which is far more
important than whether we wear clothes or not.

End copy*****************

Any thoughts on this?

Boyd Allen

[ You may get yourself on the FLF Daily Digest if you have not done so already. A lot of thought provoking subjects and articles. You can ask John Kundert for the Dec. 10 issue. (It's free via email) ]

Boyd,

I think you and I see this passage the same way, for the same reason we see the entire Bible in much the same way.
Firstly, scripture verses do have a main point, maybe two that we should focus on when we begin to study a book of the Bible. It's all too common for folks to get sidetracked, but out of reverence for the one we call The Word of God, we should listen first, then consider side issues.

The most extreme form of this misplaced priority of scripture study is the "Bible Code" fad that has people counting out letters and adding up the numbers that form to spell out hidden messages from God.

If God hid messages in his word to prove the divine origin of the text, that would be well and good, but even if this were true, shouldn't we pay greater attention to the overt meaning of the words that God uttered to us?

Now Jesus' nudity at the Last Supper is not without significance and it puts to shame the prudishness of modern Christians who are acting like King David's wife Michael.

Just a cautionary note to those who are hoping for a biblical mandate for perpetual nudity: Jesus was dressed for the Passover supper. He could not have removed his garments to wash the disciples' feet if he were already nude. But if nudity were sinful, Jesus would have found some other way to teach servanthood to his disciples.

Elsewhere in the gospels, the Bible mentions in passing that Peter was nude as he fished in the Sea of Galilee and neither Jesus nor people on shore criticized Peter for being nude. Archaeological evidence indicates that fishermen in that area in those times were often depicted nude in paintings and mosaics.

First century Judaea and Galilee were not clothing-optional societies. Peter dressed before we went on shore to meet Jesus and whoever else might be gathered there. It is clear from the passage that God's people of those days were far less prudish than many Americans are.

I know that the more zealous among us want to emulate every last detail of Judaean first century culture, but we should not use them as an infallible guideline for God's will for our day. Custom of the biblical world does not equal a command from God. If anything, it seems that God gives his blessing to enormous diversity of culture among his people (within the framework of God's commandments).

And I don't think that God merely tolerates our clothesfree ways. It seems to me that it is no coincidence that God has moved on many hearts to restore the body to its rightful place as the handiwork of The Great Artist and that he has also moved us to restore clothing to its rightful place as nothing more than our protection from the elements and the eyes of those who do not yet understand.

The Bible speaks more favorably of nudity than many Christians are aware. Many pastors and bible teachers have steered clear of those verses when they did mention it, nudity was condemned out of context.

So to try to sum this all up, the focus of Jesus earthly ministry was not about nudity, but he was not averse to using nudity in his demonstration of servanthood.

In a broader context the Bible does not specifically advocate nudism, but there has been a great "cover up" of godly nudity by those who should know better.

It is a mark of Christian maturity when we can demonstrate that we know how to rightly divide the word of God, deriving principles of conduct in addition to direct mandates.

The bible is written using poetry, stories, examples, apocolypses, and they point to one thing, and that is the coming of the messiah to bring mankind back in relationship with God.

Therefore, the bible is a love story between God and man. It is how we had and can return to a relationship with the Trinity.

We are a part of that Trinity. On the seventh day, God rested. Unlike the previous six days, it does not say that the "morning and evening was one day" or something like that. It did not mention a morning or evening. It said that God rested and never mentioned an end to that rest. It's because that "sabbath" is still going on today, and God invited us "into his rest" (See Hebrews).

He invited Adam and Eve via the Tree of Life. It's interesting that God told Adam and Eve what NOT to eat, then generically told them to eat of "any tree in the garden" which would have included the Tree of Life when the got around to it. But later, God told humanity (Isreal) "Choose life, so you may live" when given a choice between life and death.

Interesting, God had to tell us to choose life, then felt it necessary to tell us why we should choose life, "so you may live"...duh. But it seems that God had to actually point that out to us since we don't seem to get it!

Later, in the New Testament, we were told, "I came that you might have life and have it more abundanty" by Jesus.

It's not about laws, but about a relationship with God. When our relationship is so powerful with God, we are not concerned about clothing, food, and other things. We enjoy them, we work for them and yes, we need them. But it is not an all encompassing focus of our lives. Or is shouldn't be anyway.

Boyd

Upon reading your comments Boyd I thought I'd see what bible.org said.

Jn.13:3 Because Jesus8 knew that the Father had handed all things over to him,9 and that he had come from God and was going back to God, 13:4 he got up from the meal, removed10 his outer clothes,11 took a towel and tied it around himself.12 13:5 He poured water into the washbasin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to dry them with the towel he had wrapped around himself.13

Bible.org is a commentary on why they transtated the way they did. I've really enjoyed reading it the last year. Here are their comments on Jn.13:3-5

8tn Grk “Because he knew”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

9tn Grk “had given all things into his hands.”

10tn Grk “and removed”; the conjunction êáß (kai, “and”) has been left untranslated here for improved English style.

11tn The plural ôὰ ἱìÜôéá (ta Jimatia) is probably a reference to more than one garment (cf. John 19:23-24). If so, this would indicate that Jesus stripped to a loincloth, like a slave. The translation “outer clothes” is used to indicate that Jesus was not completely naked, since complete nudity would have been extremely offensive to Jewish sensibilities in this historical context.

12tn Grk “taking a towel he girded himself.” Jesus would have wrapped the towel (ëÝíôéïí, lention) around his waist (äéÝæùóåí ἑáõôüí, diezwsen Jeauton) for use in wiping the disciples’ feet. The term ëÝíôéïí is a Latin loanword (linteum) which is also found in the rabbinic literature (see BDAG 592 s.v.). It would have been a long piece of linen cloth, long enough for Jesus to have wrapped it about his waist and still used the free end to wipe the disciples’ feet.

13tn Grk “with the towel with which he was girded.”

I guess Jesus even being dressed in just a loin cloth would shock most church memebers.

Oh and I didn't read the context of your comments Boyd. Sounds like some say a sevant would get nude to wash feet?

thanks
dayhiker

Thanks, I would say that it is a very good translation, at least something that made some sense.

I have never argued that Jesus was nude, and I will not fight for that idea just because of who we are. I did say that he stripped himself down as a servant, to remove the "robe of a master" and put on humility as a servant, to serve rather than to be served. And of course, he asked the disciples to be this way to each other.

If we nudists are taking the idea of Jesus being naked a bit too far, we can be guilty of playing the verses into our own hands just for our pet ideas, and that is not a good idea at all. We are in danger of taking the verses out of context.

It is not important that Jesus was nude or in a loin cloth. Well, yes, I guess it would be important to a degree, but not for nudists, but for the general idea of how far Jesus would go to serve. But people today would be shocked if their pastor done the same for them.

For some churches, especially the legalistic style, evangelical churches, a pastor coming to church with a pair of jeans,a T-shirt and running shoes, would be enough to tip people over into a committee huddle for pastor replacement duty. I can see the deconnesses toppling over with "WELL! I NEVER!" Forget anything less!

No, Jesus wouldn't pass today. People would freak out.

Boyd

Ya, with the teaching being in some groups that the 1st time we should see a member of the opposite sex nude is on our wedding night, even the idea of Jesus being down to a loin cloth sure would be shocking.

I once attended a Brethern church for 4 months. Had some really sweat fellowship with them. They had a foot washing service. We all went down stairs and the ladies were in the sunday school rooms one side of the hall and the men on the other side. It was OK but to me it also seems rather contrived. Some stood in the hall and tried to have everyone singing a song together even tho we could hardly hear the people from the other rooms. Ahh, well, I'll see them in Heaven, but people so have some funny ideas about what holy means.

I like the way you worded Jesus being a servant.
dayhiker