Nakedness and the Bible, 1 Samuel 19:24,etc.

[thefightinglamb]

1 Samuel 19:23-4
And he went there to Naioth in Ramah. And the Spirit of God came upon him also, and as he went he prophesied until he came to Naioth in Ramah. And he too stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel and lay naked all that day and all that night. Thus it is said, "Is Saul also among the prophets?"

Has the Spirit of God ever caused you to strip your clothes? Could the Sprit of God do this? IT seems the answer from scripture is yes. These verses just puzzle me...but then we have Jeremiah, I believe, also preaching naked for like 6 years I think?

Note I am not saying anything profane ever happened or endorsing anything profane whatsoever, but I am wondering about naked people in the Bible? If I were Samuel, I would have probably told Saul to dress himself and what does he think coming before me naked? That is unless the Lord told me otherwise, which it seems he told Samuel...

So what other nakedness in the Bible?

In the New Testament, we have that wierd guy who when Jesus was arrested, shed his one garment and ran away naked.

Adam and Eve were naked and felt no shame.

Jesus was naked on the cross.

I have always held streaking to be wrong, which I still believe, unless the Lord told you to? but I don't think he would tell you to; but how many streakers would be bold enough to preach to a crowd or prophesy naked?

It all just puzzles me...
May someone have wisdom enough from God to help me
tony

 

[thefightinglamb]

I really want someone at least to suggest a possible reading of this Samuel text...I mean apparently there was a bunch of men (maybe women as well) naked prophesying?

Please...it just seems strange.

God bless
tony

 

[1still_waters]

Well the Saul reference in Samuel happened long after Saul had lost his calling and gone corrupt. So maybe him laying naked is a sign of disgrace and testifies to how far off base he was at the time?

The guy stripping his clothes by Jesus was probably a symbol of extreme emotion on his part.

Adam and Eve being naked occurred before the fall. After the fall they became clothed.

Jesus was naked on the cross because that's how they crucified people.

These examples of people being naked all happened under very extreme situations and shouldn't be indicative of any normal behavior for us today.

And we know in normative situations, nakedness can cause folks to sin and lust.

Luke 17

Sin, Faith, Duty

1Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. 2It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. 3So watch yourselves.
"If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.

So, no, nakedness is not condoned because a defunct Saul got naked, or because some guy got naked when Jesus was crucified.

 

[thefightinglamb]

But it says that the Spirit of the Lord came upon him as it was on the prophets...who apparently were already naked...and then Saul strips when the Spirit comes upon him...it doesn't say Satan or a demon came upon him...but the Spirit of the Lord caused him to do this...were the prophets also corrupt? I doubt it...

Also Jeremiah's walking naked for six years...what about that?

I am not supporting them just puzzled over them...

The other references are me just wondering over trying to piece this verse with other scripture...

 

[dane_g87]

The Hebrew word for "naked" in this passage is "arom" and literally means nude, either partially or totally. You have to consider the context, the mindset of the people, and the society of the time in which these Scriptures are written. Those who were in their undergarments were considered "naked" as they were partially nude, when the appropriate attire included outer garments. Today, society views the term naked as "completely nude" which was not necessarily the case back then. You must consider the difference. The following are taken from several commentaries concerning the passage:

"He stripped off his royal robe and warlike habiliments, because they were either too fine or too heavy for this service, and fell into a trance as it should seem, or into a rapture, which continued all that day and night."

"He stripped off his clothes - Threw off his royal robes or military dress, retaining only his tunic; and continued so all that day and all that night, uniting with the sons of the prophets in prayers, singing praises, and other religious exercises, which were unusual to kings and warriors; and this gave rise to the saying, Is Saul also among the prophets? By bringing both him and his men thus under a Divine influence, God prevented them from injuring the person of David."

"Not all his clothes, but his upper garments, as men in such circumstances used to do, as the prophets sometimes did, and as it seems his messengers had done; according to Jarchi, R. Isaiah, and others, he stripped himself of his royal robes, and put on the habit of the scholars, the disciples, and sons of the prophets"

"...not entirely naked, both without his upper garment or royal robes, or else his armour; so an unarmed man is said to be naked, though otherwise he has his clothes on: thus Gelon having conquered the Carthaginians, and made himself master of all Sicily, went into the forum "naked" (i.e. unarmed), and declared he would restore the government to the citizens"

 

[thefightinglamb]

So, you are blaming it on a bad translation? I have little doubt that a translater into english would be careful to say outward warlike/royal robe...instead of clothes...I mean the strangeness of the verse kind of shows its authenticy...what translator would want to put it this way?

But what about the prophets? They seem to have already have been naked, so you thought that the prophets were armed and this disarmed themselves...and thus they throughout the ages have translated it sooooo controversially....?

Just wondering...but yes that is a good explanation, a bad translation...it shouldn't read all his clothes but just his "outer clothes": robe, warlike apparel...

It would help if they translated it better, which I am sure any version would be quick to do, if it was just outer garments...

Why would the prophets be armed?

God bless
tony

 

[thefightinglamb]

ps...I shouldn't have wrote "which I am sure any version would be quick to do", it is put too strongly and I don't want to disagree completely because it still is a possibility...but if that is true why such strange translations?--the whole post was put a little too strongly to be honest...I am just unsure why they didn't write just "outer garments."

 

[Piano_hero]

The Hebrew word for "naked" in this passage is "arom" and literally means nude, either partially or totally. You have to consider the context, the mindset of the people, and the society of the time in which these Scriptures are written. Those who were in their undergarments were considered "naked" as they were partially nude, when the appropriate attire included outer garments. Today, society views the term naked as "completely nude" which was not necessarily the case back then. You must consider the difference. The following are taken from several commentaries concerning the passage:

"He stripped off his royal robe and warlike habiliments, because they were either too fine or too heavy for this service, and fell into a trance as it should seem, or into a rapture, which continued all that day and night."

"He stripped off his clothes - Threw off his royal robes or military dress, retaining only his tunic; and continued so all that day and all that night, uniting with the sons of the prophets in prayers, singing praises, and other religious exercises, which were unusual to kings and warriors; and this gave rise to the saying, Is Saul also among the prophets? By bringing both him and his men thus under a Divine influence, God prevented them from injuring the person of David."

"Not all his clothes, but his upper garments, as men in such circumstances used to do, as the prophets sometimes did, and as it seems his messengers had done; according to Jarchi, R. Isaiah, and others, he stripped himself of his royal robes, and put on the habit of the scholars, the disciples, and sons of the prophets"

"...not entirely naked, both without his upper garment or royal robes, or else his armour; so an unarmed man is said to be naked, though otherwise he has his clothes on: thus Gelon having conquered the Carthaginians, and made himself master of all Sicily, went into the forum "naked" (i.e. unarmed), and declared he would restore the government to the citizens"

thats a lie. naked is what it sounds like . Naked is not wearing any clothing. The Bible never forbids nudity , but in western society nudity is sinful . However , there is Scripture that would seem to indicate that looking at certain poepel naked is forbidden. Examples are, the nakedness of a parent, or of a sibling etc , but most peopel believe this to be a prohibition of having relations with them and not literally "uncovering their nakedness" . Isiah waled around naked and even mentins his buttocks being exposed asswell , in fact so naked, that he was barefoot . Samuel also got naked . Adam and eve made them selves loin coverings to cover their nakedness. this proves taht someoen wearing undergarments was not considered naked since they made a waste belt to cover their nakedness (meaning eves breast were still exposed) . Alot of christians find these facts troubling adn perplexing becasue they have preconcieved notions about nakedness being a sin when it isnt . nakedness is seen as a negative thing in the same way that being hungry is . it is a sign of being destitute, but it is not a sin to be hungry . this prohibition of being naked comes from teh cathiolocs that also taught taht sex was sinful even when it was between a man and wife. These men taught that teh Holy Spirit would leave someoen when tehy had relations with their spouces

 

[dane_g87]

No I am not blaming it on a translation. The word "naked" is correctly rendered because there are different usages of the word "naked" according to the ancient Israel society, of which you are completely ignorant of. The same is true with the word "Heaven." In today's society, we have only one definition to the word "heaven", which is the eternal abode of God. However, in Hebrew understanding, the word "heaven" carries 3 separate meanings, including 1) the sky; 2) the universe; and 3) the abode of God. It is not a translation issue...it is an issue of ignorance on your part, and a failure to understand the context of the Scriptures.

You're mind is defiled and your thoughts are clouded if you truly believe that it is holy to prophecy or preach the gospel being completely nude.

 

[dane_g87]

God clothed Adam and Eve for a reason, not only because of the physical impact of the sin that now existed, which would lead to lust and sexual immorality, but also because of the illustration and spirituality of what nakedness, and being covered, represents. To be naked is to stand before God exposed. Before the fall, Adam and Eve were naked and it was "very good." There was nothing wrong with them morally, they were completely free from sin and pure. However, by falling into transgression and becoming guilty of sin, mankind could no longer stand before God exposed. Otherwise we would receive the due penalty for our sin, and be punished for it. That is why God covered them up, and that is why we are to dress modestly today. The blood of the sacrificed animals throughout the Old Covenant served as a temporary "covering" which enabled the judgment of God to pass over the people. This animal sacrifice foreshadowed the ultimate sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood would eternally cover the people who follow Him, enabling them to stand before God. In Revelation, we are told that the saints of God are "clothed with white robes" which signify that they can only live in communion with God through the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, only those who are covered by the blood of the Lamb can be permitted into Heaven. To be naked, therefore, is spiritually, to be exposed and God would view your sin and condemn you for it. Likewise, we are not to be naked physically, which is why God clothed Adam and Eve in the beginning, after their fall.

 

[Piano_hero]

There is a misconception that adam and eve were naked and it was good , but after they sinned, it was a sin to be naked. This is obviously false for the reason that anyone can tell you " why is it a sin if they were husband and wife?" . God made clothes for them becusa after being kicked out of teh perfect world , clothes is required to survive the elements . it also had symbolic connatations about sin adn shame and God covering humanities sins

 

[dane_g87]

Biblical Usage of the word Naked
This word denotes (1) absolute nakedness (Gen. 2:25; Job 1:21; Eccl. 5:15; Micah 1:8; Amos 2:16); (2) being poorly clad (Isa. 58:7; James 2:15). It denotes also (3) the state of one who has laid aside his loose outer garment (Lat. nudus), and appears clothed only in a long tunic or under robe worn next the skin (1 Sam. 19:24; Isa. 47:3; comp. Mark 14:52; John 21:7). It is used figuratively, meaning "being discovered" or "made manifest" (Job 26:6; Heb. 4:13). In Ex. 32:25 the expression "the people were naked" (A.V.) is more correctly rendered in the Revised Version "the people were broken loose", i.e., had fallen into a state of lawlessness and insubordination. In 2 Chr. 28:19 the words "he made Judah naked" (A.V.), but Revised Version "he had dealt wantonly in Judah," mean "he had permitted Judah to break loose from all the restraints of religion."

It is not a misconception that nakedness was forbidden after Adam and Eve sinned. Ham, one of Noah's sons, was cursed for looking upon the nakedness of his father (Genesis 9:21-25). Take a look at the reverence Noah's other sons had regarding nakedness. They reverently covered Noah with a garment by walking backwards to make sure they would not see their father's nakedness. Now why would they do this if nakedness wasn't forbidden?

In Exodus 20:26, nakedness was forbidden when approaching the alter of God. Many laws were given which forbade exposing the nakedness of others (Leviticus 18).

When dealing with the spiritual concept of nakedness, the Bible equates nakedness with shame (Isaiah 47:3), and that God protected His people by "covering their nakedness" (Ezekiel 16:8). On the contrary, when God's people disobeyed Him, the Bible says that their filthiness was poured out and their "nakedness became uncovered" (Ezekiel 16:36).

In Revelation, Jesus urges His followers to be faithful and seek heavenly wisdom, and white garments, "that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed" (Revelation 3:18).

All throughout the Bible nakedness is equated with shame and declared a disgraceful state, while being covered is equated with being protected and delivered by God.

 

[Piano_hero]

All throughout the Bible nakedness is equated with shame and declared a disgraceful state, while being covered is equated with being protected and delivered by God.

yes, just like starving is. but starving isnt a sin and neither is nudity . a sin is something the Tanakh says not to do

 

[dane_g87]

where is starving consistently equated in the Bible as shameful? show me the various verses.

Like I asked earlier, if nudity isn't a sin, then why was Noah's son, Ham, cursed for looking upon his father's nakedness? Why did Noah's other sons so reverently cover their father up, careful not to look upon his nakedness?

 

[Piano_hero]

where is starving consistently equated in the Bible as shameful? show me the various verses.

Like I asked earlier, if nudity isn't a sin, then why was Noah's son, Ham, cursed for looking upon his father's nakedness? Why did Noah's other sons so reverently cover their father up, careful not to look upon his nakedness?

Like i stated before, the Bible does say not to "uncover the nakedness" of certain people, amongst listed are parents . Also , many poeple understand that to mean that Ham raped him while he was passed out because "uncovering the nakedness" of someone is used to mean "had relations with" a person, also due to the fact that "And, awaking from his wine, Noah saw what his youngest son had done to him" . but even if it was taht he simply saw him naked, then it would still be under that prohibition against uncovering the nakedness of your parents .

Being destitue is shameful . things tha tmake one destitue are hunger, nakedness etc .

verses that mention nakedness and hunger in teh same context, not as sinful but as showing destituion. (notice we are commanded to cover teh naked teh smae way we are to feed the hungry, not beicase being naked or hungry is a sin)
"or oppress anyone, or retain a pledge, or commit robbery, but he gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with clothing," Eze 18:16
""They cause the poor to go about naked without clothing, And they take away the sheaves from the hungry." Job 24:10
""Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry And bring the homeless poor into the house; When you see the naked, to cover him; And not to hide yourself from your own flesh?" Isa 58:7
""Then they will reply, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or as a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and didn't help you?'" mat 25:44

notice all these verses use hunger and nakedness in a negative light , as in somethign that should not be, but of course its not a sin to be hungry or naked .

these verses use hunger and nakedness as a punishment of God , so also negaitve connations , but not sins.
"therefore you shall serve your enemies whom the LORD will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in the lack of all things; and He will put an iron yoke on your neck until He has destroyed you." Deu 28:48
another verse listing naked in a lsit of things symbolizing destitution
"You say, "I am rich. I have become wealthy. I don't need anything." Yet you don't realize that you are miserable, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked." so is being blind a sin ? or being poor ? or being mieserable or pitiful ? not these are not sins. they are shameful situations and signs of need but not sins

 

[thefightinglamb]

Dane, you wrote, this to me?

No I am not blaming it on a translation. The word "naked" is correctly rendered because there are different usages of the word "naked" according to the ancient Israel society, of which you are completely ignorant of. The same is true with the word "Heaven." In today's society, we have only one definition to the word "heaven", which is the eternal abode of God. However, in Hebrew understanding, the word "heaven" carries 3 separate meanings, including 1) the sky; 2) the universe; and 3) the abode of God. It is not a translation issue...it is an issue of ignorance on your part, and a failure to understand the context of the Scriptures. You're mind is defiled and your thoughts are clouded if you truly believe that it is holy to prophecy or preach the gospel being completely nude.

I don't know that I said preaching naked was good? I would have never said that, just when God told Jeremiah to walk about naked for six years? before the people to show them how they would be stripped by their conquerors/oppressors I thought he did it--I have never left out the option I could be wrong and I don't know what to get from the scriptures both Jeremiah and this Samuel verse. I don't think it particularly good to preach naked and that is why it seems kind of odd that God would ask Jeremiah to do that...

But also look at this verse in Samuel, it seems as if the prophets 'lost their clothes' (for lack of a better phrase) when the Lord fell on them...and then when the Spirit of the Lord fell on Saul he too stripped and prophesied then laid down before Samuel...if the prophets were armed? Then perhaps the translation seems to follow as you said, but I kind of doubt that prophets prophesying would be armed?...I also believe nothing unholy or wrong happened after the Lord fell on Saul, so I am unsure why you would consider be defiled???

Lastly, it would be a bad translation...If I translated from one language to another, the most important fact would be to translate what was actually written. If he stripped his clothes as the verse said then it should read "he stripped his outer garments and robe" if that was what it was...and then also when it says he was naked, the translators should have considered what any person living now in English thinks that means, that he was naked--without clothes...when you are in your underwear, you are in your underwear, but when you are naked, you are naked...

Consider also the word "stripped off his clothes, I don't know the Greek for this phrase, but it would have to be a poor translation on the ESV as well as many other versions to be rendered thus when it was just war clothes and his robe...

I personally don't think its a sin to be naked...perhaps to be seen by a clothes relative naked yes, but in general, unless one is perverted or focused on the one things...I am not sure it is quite wrong...

Is skinny dipping wrong? How about if you are the only one there and no one is around, so that you are not exposed to anyone?
I think people used to swim naked all the time, just not with the opposite gender...but I could be wrong...

I have taken a shower in a gym locker room...is that wrong? I am pretty sure there are group showers in most military institutions and prisons....is this wrong? I am not sure, but I have felt no reproach when I have taken a shower in a gym...

SO is being naked a sin? IS I guess where this thread has gone? I know that at one time?--the middle ages maybe?--Christians avoided taken showers but like once a month because they did not want their bodies exposed, ever...

I am just wondering, and no I am not defiled...I don't know if I see anything wrong with them being naked, besides the obvious fact it is kind of awkward and strange...

God bless you, may the Lord fill you with light, love and joy...peace to you
tony the lesser

 

[Piano_hero]

The Bible never says that being naked is a sin. that should be the first and only necessary clue that is isnt . Also, "ancient israel" didnt think it was a sin either. they saw nakedness all the time due to different reasons . When peopel were checked for "isralite" status, guess what had to be checked ? the poor were naked many times aswell , and when poeple were lamenting somethign or repentant, they would strip their clothes off to symbolize their "spiritual" destitution, for the same reason they would starve themselves by will (fasting) . Many other activites called for nudity . Its actually the modern christians that think showing calf muscle or stomach is being naked , but 98 percent of what modern christians believe has nothing to do with the Bible (ie immortal human soul , eternal life in hell , building altars in every church building, rules against owning televisions, rules against "dating" , etc) . The main argument for "dont watch nudity" isnt that its sinful, but has to do with the "dont lust " rule . and since poepel teach that its difficult for a man to see a naked girl and not lust, they teach that looking at naked women is a sin. but teh sin is lust, not teh nakedness and in fact, if someone lusts at a fully clothed married women , and another person sees a naked woman but doesnt covet her, guess which of the 2 broke teh rule ? the "dont lust" rule has nothign to do with naked or not naed, and in fact it has nothign to do with a "sexaul lust" . the word used simply means "covet" as in "dont covet your neighbors wife, or your neighbors house or donkey" . has nothing to do with sexual desire or nakedness. sexual desire is jsut one form of many forms of coveting. its a sin to covet a married woman , not so sure its a sin to covet a single woman

 

[thefightinglamb]

,

I personally don't think its a sin to be naked...perhaps to be seen by a clothes relative naked yes, but in general, unless one is perverted or focused on the one things...I am not sure it is quite wrong...

Is skinny dipping wrong? How about if you are the only one there and no one is around, so that you are not exposed to anyone?
I think people used to swim naked all the time, just not with the opposite gender...but I could be wrong...

SO is being naked a sin? IS I guess where this thread has gone? I know that at one time?--the middle ages maybe?--Christians avoided taken showers but like once a month because they did not want their bodies exposed, ever...

I am just wondering, and no I am not defiled...I don't know if I see anything wrong with them being naked, besides the obvious fact it is kind of awkward and strange...

God bless you, may the Lord fill you with light, love and joy...peace to you
tony the lesser

T
So, I meant to say "close relative" and not "clothes relative," and "wrong things" not "one things"....And my heart does kind of warn me about saying "when no one is around" as if I were condoning sin when no one is around and someone might get that from what I said...but its not what I meant and yes, God is always watching...But with nakedness it kind of just seems wrong when people see you?, and not that nakedness in itself is a sin...I am not sure I feel sinful when I take a shower...just saying, and no don't sin when your naked whatever you do...

And I personally don't support skinny dipping with others or perhaps just the opposite gender and gay people...

I think skinny dipping with the opposite gender could and probably would lead to wrong behavior in me and I wouldn't think to do it with gay people, but am truly unsure if me swimming naked is wrong when no one but the Lord is there...I am pretty sure this is how poeple used to bathe themselves in ancient times, in rivers...

Its just questions and sorry for accidently using the wrong words, sorry...

God bless
tony

ps...I am not suggesting to anyone to skinny dip or walk around naked or anything...so I'll warn you, in general I think it suggests the end of Psalm 12: "The wicked freely strut about, when what is vile is honored among men." So, I don't want any sins commited from what I have wrote, and I caution you that, YES nakedness could be a sin...I personally am not sure and am trying to discern this...

 

[dane_g87]

Fightinglamb, I was talking to Piano. As for the prophets, they had stripped off their outer garments. The usage of the word "naked" in this sense can either refer to stripping one's armor, or stripping ones outer garments. In the prophets' case, it would be their outer garments; in Saul's case, it would be either his armor, his outer garments, or both.

Piano, the Bible clearly treats nakedness as being forbidden. You still have yet to answer my question. Why was Ham cursed for looking upon his father Noah's nakedness? Why were Noah's other sons so reverent when they walked backwards, careful not to look upon their father's nakedness, to cover him with a garment? The Scriptures contradict your alarming and rather fierce allegiance to nudity. As for showing the calf muscle as being naked, this did not originate with modern Christianity. Read your Bible again, buddy. The nakedness of the legs was acknowledged and forbidden by God in the Old Testament. In order to keep the people from looking upon the nakedness of the priest's legs, He forbade them to build an altar upon steps:

(Exodus 20:26) Nor shall you go up by steps to My altar, that your nakedness may not be exposed on it.

As Christians, we are commanded to be holy (1 Peter 1:15-16) and pure (1 Timothy 5:22), and to dress modestly (1 Timothy 2:9). We are not to expose our bodies like you are teaching. God clothed Adam and Eve for a reason, and this reason extends all the way to the spiritual level. To be naked is to be shamed and disgraced, and exposed to sin. To be covered and clothed with the righteousness of Christ is to be forgiven and glorified. What you are desiring is sinful, unbiblical, and ungodly.

 

[thefightinglamb]

I wanted to add one more question to this topic of nakedness and the Bible...an old topic...

Is Michelangelo just profane? Because I always think of God forming the human body when I look at his nude sculptures...I mean I could be deceived, but it seems I feel God somehow around him sculpting say David.

So the Old Topic, not just is nakedness evil? But also, is the human body's form evil to paint or sculpt?

God bless
tony

ps...I was going to ask this a long time ago as a different thread but was lazy.