Squeamish Translating – Part 4 – Unclothed Servants

In this series of posts, I have been trying to document how modern translations seem to be shy away from references to nakedness unless it is a negative context and/or we associate that nakedness with sin or improper behavior.

Sometimes it is not the Greek word gymnos (“naked” G1131) itself that is mistranslated, but a different word or phrase describes a context where nudity might have been present. In such cases, once again, I find that words or phrases have been chosen to mask or hide that possibility. Rather than translate the text as it appears in the Greek, we are given a modified translation that leads us to a mental image that does not include nudity.

If it were just a matter of my lack of knowledge of the Greek language, then this could be dismissed as only an unlearned man (me) spouting his linguistic ignorance. But the fact is that the KJV is not squeamish about the text and translates the Greek exactly as it is in the original text. If I am mistaken, then the KJV translators must be mistaken also.

Servants Coming In from the Field.

Jesus is giving a variety of instructions for life in Luke 17. I want to draw our attention to Luke 17:7-8 where Jesus is teaching about faithful service to our Master. Verse 7 sets up the scenario, but it is verse 8 that I want to focus upon. Rather than quote verse 7 four times, I’m going to quote it once from the KJV, then examine the different renderings in the other translations in verse 8 only.

But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, “Go and sit down to meat?”  - Luke 17:7 (KJV)

This rhetorical question is clearly meant to indicate that none would say this to their servant. Jesus’ next words describe how his listeners—in the role of the master—would respond instead:

Greek	ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ ἐρεῖ αὐτῷ Ἑτοίμασον τί δειπνήσω καὶ περιζωσάμενος διακόνει μοι ἕως φάγω καὶ πίω καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα φάγεσαι καὶ πίεσαι σύ
KJV	And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?;
NASB	“But will he not say to him, ‘Prepare something for me to eat, and [properly] clothe yourself and serve me while I eat and drink; and afterward you may eat and drink’?”
NIV	“Won’t he rather say, ‘Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink’?”

Comments

As you can see from the Greek text above, Luke used the word perizōnnymi for the command a Master would give to his servant. As we saw in Part 2 of this series, this word is best translated “gird” in English; zōnnymi indicates dressing oneself, and peri- means “around.”

• KJV — The KJV translates the word correctly. But consider the mental picture created by this rendering…
  • If the master needed to tell his servant to gird himself, it implies that a servant has been plowing or tending animals unclothed.
  • When his duties now required handling the master’s food, he was expected—and ordered—to get dressed.
• NASB — The NASB almost translates the word adequately, but they actually added a word to change the meaning.
  • The word “properly” does not appear in the Greek text. To their credit, the translators acknowledge that fact by rendering that word in italics in printed or online versions of the text (I’ve placed it in brackets for the same reason).
  • If the word “properly” were removed from this translation, then the implication would be essentially the same as found in the KJV, that is, that the servants were not clothed out in the field.
  • The addition of the word “properly” specifically denies that implication and leads us to a mental image that matches our own cultural experience… we have one set of clothes for working with dirt and animals, and a different set of clothes for serving meals. 
• NIV — The NIV doesn’t even come close to an accurate rendering of the passage.
  • The Greek word perizōnnymi is a word about getting dressed. This is indisputable. Yet the translators instead rendered the word in a very general sense of “getting ready.”
  • This leaves us with absolutely no mental image that the servant might have been unclothed and leads us to think of all sorts of other ways we might “get ready” for the task of serving a meal.
  • I’m not saying that other preparations would not have been required in this scenario; I’m just saying that this is not a faithful rendering of the original text! Isn’t that the first priority of translators?

The KJV translators exhibit no squeamishness at all. The other two, however, seem to very intentionally render the passage so that we can imagine the scene as we would experience it today… with no nudity.

Did Servants in the Field Really Work Naked?

Clearly, the Greek text itself—and the KJV’s rendering—imply (or at least allow) that the workers were unclothed while working in the field. But is that culturally accurate? Does the Bible ever imply that any other time?

• Cultural Practice of Working Nude
  • Proving a cultural practice is pretty difficult, especially when the practice is so common and unremarkable that it never bears mentioning in historical accounts written at that time. I believe that is the case here, but I cannot prove it.
  • Some ancient art displays workers in the nude, but not much art focused on the common people. Such evidence is weak, however, and only shows that it is possible or likely.
  • Those that deny that workers worked nude have only historical silence to build their case upon, which is weaker yet.
  • Consequently, I will not try to “make the case” here.
• Scriptural Evidence of Working Nude
  • I can point to three or four passages in the New Testament that reflect the likelihood that workers with dirt and animals worked in the nude. The most logical reason for doing so would have been to keep the few garments they had from becoming soiled and smelly.
    1. As I already addressed in Part 1 of this series, John 21:7 strongly suggests that fishermen worked nude. Surely Peter was not the only naked fisherman in the boat.
    2. “And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment.” Mark 13:16 (KJV) confirms that, in an emergency, one of the things a person working in the field would wish to return to the house for would be a garment (the Greek is himation which could refer to a garment {KJV} or the coat {NASB}).
    3. “Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed [is] he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.” Rev 16:15 (KJV). This passage is about Jesus’ return and our need to be ready for it.
       • This instruction to be watchful and “keep our garments” makes no sense if people were never anywhere without their garments. The implication is that there are tasks performed naked, with no clothing nearby.
       • This is not a command to stay clothed while working, it is a warning to keep clothes close at hand rather than leaving them back at the house (this is in agreement with the implication of Mark 13:16 made in the point above).
       • Notably, none of the three English translations I’m reviewing were “squeamish” about translating gymnos as “naked” in this passage. I submit to you that this is because the nakedness seems to be associated with shame (I believe it this not the shame of nakedness, but of un-readiness… demonstrating that needs to be the topic of another article altogether).
    4. “Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?’ Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, ‘Sir, if you have carried Him away…’” John 20:15 (NASB) is a resurrection appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene. It is a mystery why she mistook Jesus for a gardener. However, the most reasonable explanation is that Jesus was “dressed” like a gardener at the moment.
       • Unless God supernaturally created garments for Jesus at His resurrection, He came out of the tomb naked.
         • We know that Jesus’ garments were taken from Him at the cross (John 19:23-24).
         • We know that Jesus left all of the grave clothes in the tomb (John 20:6-7).  
       • If Jesus had been given supernatural clothing by God at His resurrection, they most assuredly would not have looked like “gardener’s” clothing… worn and soiled. Instead, they would have been fresh and clean!
       • This surprising event—if we really think it through—leads us to conclusion that gardeners actually did work naked. This is the only explanation which makes any sense of Mary’s failure to identify Jesus.

While not conclusive, there certainly is both cultural and biblical evidence that support the idea that servants worked in the fields without clothing. This means that the rendering of Scripture texts in ways that obscure that fact—or indicate that it was not the case—is inaccurate.

(The picture above-right was painted by Agnolo Bronzino in 1561. While it does not portray Christ as completely naked, it’s clear that the artist knew that He had left His grave clothes behind in the tomb. Click the picture to see it full size.)

Squeamish Translating?

Why would the NASB and NIV translators be reticent to render Luke 17:8 as the KJV translators did? Could it be that they were uneasy with the mental image suggested by the Greek text?

I fear that it is.

There are a variety of passages where non-sexual, practical, or incidental nudity are evident (or possible) in the inspired Greek text. Yet, in each case, they are rendered to hide the idea of any nudity that is not shameful, unwarranted, or condemned.

Once again, no one passage is evidence enough of a bias against nakedness on the part of the translators, but there is a pattern here. Collectively, they betray that the bias exists.

— Matthew Neal

==============

Squeamish Translating

Prologue
Introduction
Part 1 – Naked Disciples
Part 2 – An Unclothed Savior
Part 3 – Writing Scripture Naked
Part 4 – Unclothed Servants
Part 5 – Speaking of Genitals
Summary

Squeamish Translating (PDF of the entire series)

Squeamish Translating – Part 5 – Speaking of Genitals

In this series of posts, I have been trying to document how modern translations seem to be shy away from references to nakedness unless it is a negative context and/or we associate that nakedness with sin or improper behavior.

The next example doesn’t mention nakedness at all, but it does reference the genitals. Here, the words selected to translate the KJV seem to be very accurate to the original Greek text. However, the newer translations render the text differently, using words that—in my opinion—betray a bias against the genitals being seen. I see no evidence of that sort of squeamishness in the Greek, nor in the KJV.

“Uncomely” Body Parts…

The text is 1 Cor. 12:23-24a and the context is Paul’s instructions to the Corinthian believers about diversity in the “body” of Christ, the church. His illustration using the physical human body declares that there are different roles performed by different body parts, yet all are important and all are needed. In the same way, every believer is a part of the body of Christ, and every one is important and needed.

Here is the text as it appears in the Scriptures… the orange word is the Greek word, aschēmōn (G809). The red words are both derivatives of euschēmōn (G2158).

Greek	23 καὶ ἃ δοκοῦμεν ἀτιμότερα εἶναι τοῦ σώματος τούτοις τιμὴν περισσοτέραν περιτίθεμεν καὶ τὰ ἀσχήμονα ἡμῶν εὐσχημοσύνην περισσοτέραν ἔχει 24 τὰ δὲ εὐσχήμονα ἡμῶν οὐ χρείαν ἔχει ἀλλ᾽ …
KJV	23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. 24 For our comely parts have no need…
NASB	23 and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, 24 whereas our more presentable members have no need of it…
NIV	23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment.

Comments

• This passage is not primarily about human body parts…

To start with, it’s important to note that Paul’s discussion of the body parts is really for the purpose drawing a parallel to the Body of Christ, the church; our view of and response to different body parts and their functions correspond to how we view and respond to different people and their roles in the church. This is an important point to make because it means that however we interpret the physical body parts, we must be able to apply it to people within the body of Christ, or else our interpretation of the physical references will be suspect.

In other words, if we misunderstand Paul’s statements about the human body, we will not correctly understand Paul’s teaching about the church. And if we cannot discern an application that makes sense in the Body of Christ, then it should alert us that our perception of Paul’s words about the physical body is askew.

• Paul is talking about the genitals…

Paul does not actually name the “less honorable” or “uncomely” body parts. However, my take from digging in to the Greek and reading the KJV is that Paul is referencing the genitals. Also, as I read the NASB and NIV, I surmise that they both have reached the same conclusion. Consequently, I’m going to take this for granted for the sake of this article, even though some people may suggest alternative meanings.

• The Greek words used…

We need to examine the Greek words here to start with. I see no dispute over the words in verse 23a translated “honorable,” as all the versions agree. But in verses 23b-24a, there are two other words of interest.

• aschēmōn.  (a – schemon) G809
• euschēmōn. (eu – schemon) G2158 
• The words are the same except for the prefix.
  • “schemon” (G4976) has to do with form, structure, or design; we get the English words “scheme,” “schema,” and “schematic” from it.
  • “a-” is a negative prefix
  • “eu-” is a prefix that means “good.”
• Because of the prefixes used, these two words have essentially opposite meanings:
  • aschēmōn is “bad form.”
  • euschēmōn is “good form.”
  • Within this specific context, it seems that the KJV’s rendering of “uncomely” and “comely” is very appropriate, since it is only by the external visual appraisal of human body parts by which we might assess some to be of “good” design and others of a negative or “bad” design.
  • The other two translations usage of “presentable” seems also to confirm a consensus that Paul is really talking about the external visible form of the body parts.
    
• What Paul means…

Now, if I consider the passage in the attempt to understand Paul’s references to these body parts, here’s what I believe it means:

• (vs. 23a) Body parts that we might be tempted to look down upon (dishonor), we instead give great honor to because of their role in our lives.
  • Our sexual virility is housed in our genitals, therefore, they are very important to us. Consider how we view them today:
    • Think how protective men are of “the family jewels.”
    • We even refer to a man’s genitals as his “manhood.”
• (vs 23b-24a) There are body parts that are not that “lovely,” yet because of the role they play, we pay special attention to them.
  • Human genitals are not very pretty… male or female, but this is not the reality that determines their value to us.
  • My wife’s vulva is not visually “attractive” in reference to objective beauty. Yet, because if its role in our sexual relationship, I am very attracted to it and I am delighted to see it (it has more abundant “comeliness”).
  • My penis is nothing special to look at. Penises are not pretty. But to my wife, it’s another matter altogether. She’s attracted to it for reasons completely other than how it looks.
  • This exactly matches Paul’s teaching about certain body parts and how we respond to them.
• To apply this understanding to the Body of Christ, Paul is saying that there are people in the church that do not necessarily attract the attention and praise of the rest of the church for their obvious gifting and outward ministry involvement, but who perform functions and serve in ways that are indispensible to the health of the body. Consequently, they are honored and appreciated for very different reasons. This is (or should be!) true in the church.
  
• Are Genitals really “unpresentable”?

When we look at the rendering of aschēmōn in the NASB or the NIV, we read the words “less presentable” or “unpresentable.” But is this a good rendering?

The KJV renders it “uncomely” which implies (in English) that the passage only speaks of how visually appealing the body parts are. However, the English word “unpresentable” adds the idea that this part is something that should be hidden. “Presentable” things we readily put on display; un-presentable things we hide away so no one sees them… we don’t even publicly acknowledge their presence.

I submit to you that this is not implicit in the Greek word aschēmōn.

In other words, I sense that the words “presentable” or “unpresentable” represent—in some measure—a hostility towards nakedness in general, and the genitals in particular. These words introduce a concept of response to the genitals that is not conveyed by the Greek text itself.

• What Paul doesn’t mean…

Some may disagree with my assertion that “presentable” and “unpresentable” are not the meaning in the Greek, and not intended by Paul. The real test, however, is in determining if the NASB or NIV’s renderings actually fit with what Paul was trying to communicate about the Body of Christ.

If Paul were trying to say that there are body parts that are rightly hidden and unfit to be seen, can we also conclude that there are people in the church that are rightly hidden from view? Can it be that their presence in the body should be concealed and their function within the church never publicly acknowledged?

That would be ludicrous to suggest. But is there any palatable way to apply the notion of “unpresentable” members of Christ’s church?

I don’t think there is.

Correctly understood, Paul is actually saying something very positive about the genitals… and—by application—the people in the church whose role and function do not naturally attract attention. Paul would rather that we publicly acknowledge and thank those in the body of Christ who serve in important yet un-celebrated roles. He absolutely is not telling us to hide them.

• Is ugly “unpresentable”?

Some might suggest that the difference between “uncomely” and “unpresentable” is not important… that both indicate that there is a need to keep that body part covered.

But if a body part is ugly—that is, if it is “uncomely”—does that really mean it should be considered “unpresentable”? Should unattractive physical attributes by hidden from view?

What if a child is born with a cleft palate? Or a man has a birthmark on his face? What about the sags, wrinkles, veins, and moles on the faces, arms, and hands of the aged?

The Academic Dean of the Bible College that I attended had a deep red birthmark that covered the left side of his face (middle right). Such a mark is certainly not pretty… but would anyone suggest that he should have worn a mask to hide the deformity as the “phantom” did in Phantom of the Opera (lower right)?

The Academic Dean was a great man and he was highly honored by the school. He never made any effort to cover the birthmarks on his face. We all accepted and honored him exactly as he looked. His value as a man and as a leader had nothing at all to do with the fact that he had an ugly mark on his face.

Ugly Does Not Equal “Unpresentable.”

The Apostle Paul does acknowledge that some body parts are not as pretty as others. But the notion that some body parts must be hidden because they are “unpresentable” is foreign to Paul’s teaching. That is not what he meant and therefore it cannot be how we should understand it.

Without question, this passage should not have been translated that way by the NASB and NIV translators. The use of the words “presentable” and “unpresentable” is in direct conflict with Paul’s teaching about the Body of Christ in 1 Cor. 12.

Squeamishness… (and Subtle Hostility)

By translating aschēmōn as “less/un- presentable” and euschēmōn as “presentable” (or “with special modesty”??), I believe that the NASB and the NIV betray two elements of bias against the human body:

• There is an assumption that certain body parts must be covered at all times. There is a squeamishness over simply talking about the human form unless there is an implication that it really should not be seen fully naked.
• There is a bias particularly against the genitals (What other body parts might be considered “unpresentable”? What part of the human anatomy must be hidden?).

Does the Greek text really justify even a small measure of hostility towards any body part?

Does Paul’s teaching here justify denigrating any member of the Body of Christ?

No body part is “unpresentable,” and neither is any Christian.

The Price of Protecting the Bias…

One of the tragic consequences of the NASB and NIV rendering of this passage is the implication that there are some people in the church that are best hidden. The squeamishness about the human body has resulted in a translation that introduces a foreign concept into the Scriptures, leading to a false application of that Scripture.

In truth, I have never heard anyone expound the application that I suggested above… that some people should be “hidden” in the church. But how else can we make application of this passage to the Body of Christ when we say that certain physical body parts are “unpresentable” and must be hidden?

It is as if they sacrificed the meaning that Paul intended in order to insert an antagonism towards human genitals… making the passage teach something that is actually foreign to Greek text.

As I said at the beginning of this post, Paul’s intent is not to teach about the human body or genitals; he’s teaching about the church. This body-part analogy is core to what Paul is trying to teach… we can’t just ignore the implications of our understanding of the physical when applying the truth to the ecclesiastical. If our understanding of first element of the analogy is incorrect, it will lead to a false application to the second element. The “squeamish” rendering leads to that false application… therefore, it must be incorrect.

Thankfully (once again), the KJV demonstrates both an accurate rendering of the Greek, and a willingness for us to read it in English precisely (or as precisely as possible…) as it was given by God in the Greek.

— Matthew Neal

==============

Squeamish Translating

Prologue
Introduction
Part 1 – Naked Disciples
Part 2 – An Unclothed Savior
Part 3 – Writing Scripture Naked
Part 4 – Unclothed Servants
Part 5 – Speaking of Genitals
Summary

Squeamish Translating (PDF of the entire series)

Squeamish Translating – Summary

Do You See What I See?

So… have the translators of the NASB and the NIV been squeamish when it comes to the word “naked”… or the concept of nakedness?

As I’ve said along the way, no one passage can “prove” that such a bias really was affecting the translating work. However, The cumulative impact of multiple passages betrays its presence.

Some may well discount every example that I’ve given, finding reasonable justification for the translations as rendered in each case. To be sure, none of the examples that I’ve given are completely and utterly unreasonable.

For the one who believes that nakedness really is morally offensive to God, there would be little or no motivation to find fault with the passages as they are translated by the NASB and NIV.

By the same token, however, those of us who believe that nakedness is not morally offensive to God will be motivated to look more critically at the texts to see if there really might be a bias at play.

But regardless of which side of the issue we each start on, our deepest concern should be that our English translation accurately renders the meaning found in the original text. I hope that all of my readers (on either side) will place that priority above their current or preferred perspective.

A Review of the Evidence

In the table that follows, I give a summary of each of the five passages I’ve presented as evidence of squeamishness about nudity in the new translations. For each passage, I’ve given the translations one of four “grades” reflecting their fidelity to the original Greek text. Here’s what I mean by the four words I used:

• Transparent – There is no evidence of any squeamishness towards nudity; the Greek text is translated very directly with no attempt to hide the possibility that literal nakedness was possible.
• Unclear – The translation is reasonable and may not indicate any squeamishness, but the English words chosen are not generally associated with nudity and the plain reading would not produce a mental picture that includes nudity for most people today.
• Obscured – The English translation is such that would definitely preclude the formation of a mental picture that included nudity.  Squeamishness is strongly suspected.
• Misleading – Words and/or ideas not found at all in the original Greek text have been added to the English translation, resulting in a meaning that is actually in conflict with what the author wrote. In these cases, the squeamishness about human nudity led to an intentional alteration of the inspired text.

	Passage	Synopsis	KJV	NASB	NIV
1	John 21:7b	Peter fishing naked	Transparent	Unclear	Obscured
2	John 13:4-5	Jesus washing feet	Unclear	Unclear	Misleading
3	1 Cor. 4:11	Writing Scripture naked	Transparent	Obscured	Misleading
4	Luke 17:7-8	Servants coming in from the field	Transparent	Misleading	Obscured
5	1 Cor. 12:23-24a	Referring to the Genitals	Transparent	Misleading	Misleading

Some may disagree with the severity of the squeamishness that I have assessed on the NASB and the NIV in these passages. But there is no denying the trend that is in evidence here.

Additional Evidence

In addition to the data above, a simple search for the word “naked” or “nakedness” in the English translations also gives evidence that the “N-word” is taboo to some extent in the NASB and NIV.

Instances of “naked” or “nakedness in the English New Testament:

• KJV – 18 times.
• NASB – 13 times.
• NIV – 9 times.

The trend is obvious. A closer examination of the specific passages will reveal that where the nakedness was “bad,” the NASB and NIV did not hesitate to translate the Greek word gymnos by its English equivalent, “naked.” But if the incidence of nakedness was not associated with a negative context, different English words were used, several of which I have highlighted in these articles.

Many who read the NT in new translations claim that the Bible always speaks of nakedness in a negative way. However, the NIV used the N-words only half as many times as the KJV. If my analysis is correct, that means that for all the times that gymnos or a related word appears in the Greek but not in the NIV, the NIV translators did not consider the context negative enough to use the English word, “naked”!

Negative Nakedness

To demonstrate how the NIV does not shrink away from the “N-word” when the context is negative, let me quote from Rev. 3:17-18…

“You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.” (NIV)

A passage like this gives apparent credence to the belief that nakedness is offensive to God… that nakedness is always shameful and sinful. But how can we know that is really true if non-shameful and righteous instances of nakedness which appear in the original language Scripture text have been consistently excised from the English translations of the Bible?

The very same Greek word, gymnos, which appears here in Rev. 3:17-18 is used to describe the fishing disciple Peter in John 21:7b. It is the root word for the term that Paul uses to describe himself while writing to the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 4:11. Was Peter or Paul “shameful”?

From the perspective of the inspired text, shamefulness cannot be the inescapable result of nakedness. Sadly, however, a survey of the English Bible in NASB or NIV would not correct that mistaken notion, for only the negative citations of nakedness are found there.

The error is then compounded because too many people have failed to show the same diligence of examination and study on the issue of nakedness that they typically do studying any other topic in the Bible (see The Unchallenged Belief).

This is Not Just an Oversight

The evidence that I have presented here is not simply a matter of translators making little mistakes in the translation or their inability to determine the most accurate words to use. The trend is too consistent to be an accident or oversight.

Nakedness is taboo in our culture today. It is thought to be wrong in all cases except for marriage or medical necessity. That taboo is not found in the Scriptures as they were originally inspired. Despite that fact, the taboo is apparent in the NASB and (even more so) the NIV.

The only possible source for the taboo found in the modern English translations is the bias of the translators themselves!

I Wasn’t Looking For It…

I didn’t just invent the bias I’ve called “squeamish translating” out of the blue. I didn’t start studying God’s word intent on snooping around to see if I could find a reason to discount the Bible’s real teaching on nakedness. All I did was study the Bible diligently… reviewing every passage where nakedness is mentioned or implied. I didn’t study from just one English translation… or even three; I also looked at the original language words in the Greek (and Hebrew) texts.

I was amazed to see that not just once or twice, but every time the Bible mentioned nudity in a neutral or positive way, the nudity was difficult or impossible to discern in English… unless I was reading the KJV.

In other words, I wasn’t looking for it; I simply discerned it in the course of my investigation. I read the KJV and I read the other translations. They were different. I had to ask, “Why?” The answer I found was that the KJV was more faithful to the Greek than the NASB or NIV. Hence, the evidence of squeamishness.

Final Words

The NASB is still my favorite translation. I read it daily and it’s my preferred version for memorization. I recognize and respect the place of the NIV in Christendom today, but I have always depended more on other translations… more so now than before. While I’ve always been a little irritated by the archaic “King James” English, my appreciation and respect for the KJV have grown as a result of this study.

Like each of us, the translators are human. They—and we—live in a culture quite foreign to the one from which sprang the inspired biblical texts. It should come as no surprise that some measure of cultural bias would creep undetected into their translation work… nor is it any condemnation upon them that it should. They meant no deception and I hold no animosity toward them for having that bias (the fact is that we all have biases… most of which we are utterly oblivious to). I genuinely Praise the Lord for their work. Where would we be without it?

Whether you see what I see or not, I hope that I have caused you to rethink the Scriptural basis for your understanding of the biblical position on nudity. I hope that you will be willing to reexamine your own perspective… to ensure that you are fighting against any bias that will discolor your perception of God’s Word. To that best of my ability, that is my own aim as well.

— Matthew Neal

==============

Squeamish Translating

Prologue
Introduction
Part 1 – Naked Disciples
Part 2 – An Unclothed Savior
Part 3 – Writing Scripture Naked
Part 4 – Unclothed Servants
Part 5 – Speaking of Genitals
Summary

Squeamish Translating (PDF of the entire series)

Have You No Shame??

When was the last time you heard that question?

For me, I think it was when I was a very small kid… and I had wandered out into the living room without a stitch… and there were guests in the house. Actually, I don’t remember any specific incident, but that scenario sounds about right.

I might have heard a version of the question more recently (“Have they no shame??”) spoken in judgment upon some people were were “immodestly” dressed.

Either way, I think it was from my mom or some respected older woman in my extended family.

Are We Supposed to Feel Shame?

The underlying assumption to that question is this… we’re supposed to feel shame about our bodies. But is that true? Does the Bible teach us that?

More recently, I hear people attempt to walk this line: they’ll say that we’re not supposed to be ashamed of our bodies, but at the same time, it is shameful to be seen naked by anyone other than our own spouse… or doctor… or some other guardian/care-giver (see When is Nudity OK for a Christian?).

Let me restate that… we are told that our bodies are not shameful, unless they are seen unclothed by others. Does that really make any sense?

No, it doesn’t make sense. But that’s the dichotomy of belief vs. practice that we have been taught within traditional Christian contexts (churches & homes). Your body is not really shameful, but you should act as if it is. Don’t question that, just do it.

Is Nudity Really Shameful?

But is it really shameful to be seen naked? Am I—are we all—supposed to feel shame if our bodies are exposed to the sight of others? If so, we should see that taught in the Bible.

And, in all fairness, many claim that the idea IS in the Bible. They note the numerous times that shame and nakedness are found in the same passages, and they conclude that the shame is the result of the nakedness. They quote these verses that seem to support their pre-determined conclusion and they feel no need to dig any deeper into the text to discern whether it is being correctly interpreted or not. This is called “proof-texting” and it insulates us from having to do any real, honest study, or to allow our preconceptions to be challenged.

Within the posts on this blog, I have already addressed most of the passages that are generally put forward as proof that nakedness is shameful. I’m not going to do it again in this post. However, let me summarize them this way:

Wherever there is shame and nudity in the same passage, there is always shameful behavior described in the text as well. Nakedness is never described as shameful all by itself. Furthermore, nakedness does appear in the Scriptures without shame being associated with it… and in every such case, there is never any shameful behavior occurring.

In other words, the source of shame is always sin… it is never nudity by itself! A truly honest evaluation of the Scriptures will show this to be true.

Have You No shame?

It turns out that this actually is a significant question to ask… not to ensure that you do have shame, but to affirm that—in Christ—you do NOT!

When I read the Bible, I see that Jesus dealt with everything in my life for which I could or should feel shame. My sin has been taken away (1 Peter 2:24). My guilt has been atoned for (1 John 2:2). I now stand before God in the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Himself (2 Cor. 5:21). What’s more, I read that my body bears the Divine image(Genesis 1:26-27); it is fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14), and I have been called to glorify God specifically with my body (1 Corinthians 6:20).

So, do I have shame? No, I do not! To answer any other way would be an insult to my Savior.

How about you? What is your answer?

Typically, the question is used to proudly condemn others. Instead, it should be used to humbly proclaim the fullness of our Salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ! Praise God! We have no shame!!!

Think long and hard before you profess to have shame as if it were a virtue. Shame is not godly by any stretch of the imagination.

Shame of any kind has no place in the life of those who follow the Lord Jesus Christ and walk in the Spirit (Galatians 5:16).

— Matthew Neal

=============

See also:

The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 1 – Shame and Fear??

Redemption, a Work Accomplished by Christ’s Body

Who Hates Nudity… God or Satan?

Naturist by Biblical Conviction??? — Part 1

The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Introduction

“God clothed Adam and Eve! That’s good enough for me!!”

I’ve had Bible teachers say essentially that (See this email debate).

(actual quote: “Whatever the reason God clothed Adam and Eve, He clothed them, and nowhere instructed them to remove the clothing. Without any biblical instruction whatever on the value of nudity, I am going to follow God’s example with Adam and Eve and clothe myself.”)

The assumption is, of course, that God clothed Adam and Eve because (obviously!) He wanted our bodies to be hidden from view. We can no longer look upon nakedness in purity—it is assumed—so now we have to keep our bodies covered unless we are with our own spouse.

But… is that really why God gave Adam and Eve clothing? Was God’s purpose for clothing at that moment in time to provide a future means by which sexual purity would upheld?

There is no such declaration in the text that that is the case, nor is there any command associated with the clothing of Adam and Eve in Gen. 3:21 (Read the entire context). Of course, that fact by itself does not prove the idea wrong, but it certainly should give us pause, and call us to reevaluate the assumptions.

This introductory article is actually the first in a series that will survey the biblical purpose for clothing. I want to see if there is any merit to the assumed purpose stated above, and if not, what other valid biblical purpose would offer a credible explanation of why God clothed Adam and Eve.

My initial assumption is this: God’s purpose for clothing Adam and Eve must be a Biblically valid purpose. For example, If the purpose above is a valid purpose, then we should see the principle of covering nakedness to promote sexual purity as a Scripturally demonstrable purpose for clothing. If not, we should look for a different purpose altogether.

Starting at the Beginning.

To set a baseline for this survey regarding clothing, we need to start at the very beginning.

In Genesis 1-2, we find that the nudity of the first couple was evidently God’s original intent. There were no such thing as “clothes” nor any need for them at all. It was such a good and right thing that God made a special point of mentioning their nudity as part of the Creation account (Gen. 2:25). We also have to conclude that their nudity was literally part of the Creation which God declared to be “very good” in Gen. 1:31.

This leads us to our first and foundational observation that we can make about clothing. It is this:

Baseline Observation
There was nothing about life in the Garden of Eden that required clothing.

That’s an important observation because wherever we find a purpose for clothing in the Scriptures, we should be able to point out how the context was different than the Garden context.

This observation works for both sides of this particular discussion, since one of the main points of those who believe in the purpose stated above is that we could only handle nakedness before sin. They believe that the introduction of sin into the human equation is the wild card that changed the context so significantly that clothing is now required to serve as an inhibiter to sin.

But it also means that there may be other “before/after” differences that could adequately explain the purpose of God’s clothing Adam and Eve. It would be a mistake to lock onto that one notion and reject all other possibilities without examination.

Before and After the Fall.

So if clothing was not needed before the Fall, but clothing was useful or needed after the Fall (we can assume that God had a good reason for clothing Adam and Eve), what changes took place for which clothing is an appropriate and effective solution? This is a question that we will keep in mind for the duration of this survey.

As I stated above, it is further assumed that whatever purpose God had for the clothing after the Fall, we should be able to find confirming evidence for the same purpose elsewhere in the Scriptures. Once identified, we will examine each biblically discernable purpose for clothing to see if it might offer a reasonable explanation of God’s purpose for clothing Adam and Eve.

— Matthew Neal

This article Series:

The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Introduction
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 1 – Shame and Fear??
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 2 – Clothing as Currency
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 3 – Sign of Position
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 4 – Communicate About the Person
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 5 – Gender Distinction?
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 6 – Warmth and Protection
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 7 – Controlling Lust??
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Conclusion
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Epilogue

The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 1 - Shame and Fear??

In the Introduction of this series, I looked at Gen. 1-2 and observed that while living in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had no need at all for clothing. However, after the Fall and banishment from Eden, God clothed Adam and Eve with no fanfare and no explanation or mandate.

Despite the fact that God did not tell us why He clothed our first parents, many are confident that God’s purpose for clothing them was to prevent or minimize lust since—it is assumed—humans can no longer experience nudity in purity after the Fall.

The very first effort at clothing is found in the account of the Fall. Adam and Eve crafted their own clothing.

Leafy Loin Coverings…

It is only a few verses after “naked and unashamed” was declared (Gen. 2:25) that we read the story of how “unashamed” was lost and problem of nakedness was “fixed” (Gen. 3:1-14).

It’s pretty clear that Adam and Eve’s purpose for clothing at that moment was to address two problems: Shame, and Fear. In point of fact, “shame” is never actually mentioned in the text except when the pair were described as UN-ashamed. However, I count that sufficient to conclude that shame was evidently part of their experience.

It is also worth noting that Adam and Eve were not satisfied with the leafy loin coverings that hid their genitals… for they also ran and literally hid themselves entirely from God. When God called to Adam, “Where are you?” (Gen. 3:9), Adam’s answer was that “I was afraid because I was naked…”

We might at this point be tempted to conclude that the first biblical purpose for clothing is to address our sense of shame and fear… as that surely was the reason that Adam gave for clothing himself and hiding. However, that would be stopping our analysis too soon, for we also must take into account that God had something to say about Adam’s actions… “Who told you that you were naked?”

Is that an affirmation… or is it a rebuke?

Personally, I hear God saying to Adam, “What makes you think that the way I made you is the problem at all?” This understanding is further supported by the fact that God didn’t wait for an answer, but immediately got to the real problem by asking “Have you eaten from the tree…?” (Gen. 3:11)

No, God’s response was not affirmation. Consequently, we can reach this conclusion:

Observation #1
Addressing shame and fear is not a Scripturally valid purpose for clothing.

If God did not approve of clothing to address shame and fear in Adam and Eve (after the fall), He does not approve of those reasons for clothing for us today. The correct response to Shame and Fear is to run  to the God of Mercy and Love… just as we are. That’s true today; it was true after the first sin.

If anyone disagrees with my conclusion that fear and/or shame are not valid purposes for clothing, I’ve addressed further implications of the idea in my Epilogue to this series.

Divinely Designed Duds…

The next incidence of clothing is in Gen. 3:21 when God Himself makes coats of skin for Adam and Eve. Oddly enough, the text does not tell us what prompted God to do so. As already noted, many assume that it is because of the need for clothing to promote sexual purity. But since that is not found in the text, we should leave that idea on the table until we find some sort of affirmation in the rest of the Scriptures that this actually is a Scripturally sound purpose for clothing.

However, before we leave this story, it should be noted that whatever God’s purpose was in clothing Adam and Eve, it cannot have been because He was contradicting His rebuke in Gen. 3:11. In other words, God’s purpose for clothing them was not to address their fear or shame.

— Matthew Neal

This article Series:

The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Introduction
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 1 – Shame and Fear??
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 2 – Clothing as Currency
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 3 – Sign of Position
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 4 – Communicate About the Person
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 5 – Gender Distinction?
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 6 – Warmth and Protection
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 7 – Controlling Lust??
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Conclusion
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Epilogue

The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 2 - Clothing as Currency

In the Introduction of this series, I looked at Gen. 1-2 and observed that while living in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had no need at all for clothing. However, after the Fall and banishment from Eden, God clothed Adam and Eve with no fanfare, explanation or mandate.

God did not tell us why He clothed our first parents, so we’re surveying the Bible to see if we can find a purpose for clothing that fits the account in Gen. 1-3.

Clothing as Currency?

Here’s an unexpected purpose for Clothing that seems to have biblical sanction… it is permitted to leave your only garment with someone as collateral for a financial loan (Exo. 22:25-26)!

I’m not sure this helps the discussion about the purpose of clothing much, but at very least it makes it pretty clear that, relative to today, clothing was much more valuable in Bible times than it is today. It was evidently common enough that someone would have one and only one multi-purpose garment… worn during the day and used as a blanket at night. And when they needed a loan, they were permitted to strip it off and give it to the “loan officer” during the day… until they needed it to stay warm at night.

Another passage in the Scriptures that uses clothing as currency is the story of Samson and his 30 Philistine companions at his wedding (Judges 14:12-18). They agreed to a bet—in the form of a riddle—and the loser had to provide clothing to the other party in payment of clothing for the lost bet. Oddly enough, the Philistines were so hard pressed to pay the change of clothes (one change of clothes each) that they threatened murder and arson if Samson’s Philistine wife didn’t tell them the answer.

Well, she must have known that they meant it, since she found out the answer and told them. So, Samson lost the bet. To pay the 30 changes of clothing, Samson had to go out and kill 30 other Philistines, strip them their clothing, and bring them to the 30 men with whom he had the bet.

Not only were the men willing to accept clothing as payment for a gambling debt, they were willing to take second-hand clothing, that was undoubtedly well-worn, sweaty, and dirty (Would Samson have washed them first?).

This story demonstrates pretty clearly how valuable clothing was in Bible times and illustrates how different a role clothing played in ancient cultures as compared to today’s norms.

Observation #2
In the Bible, clothing was so valuable that it could be (and was) used as currency!

This observation also helps us understand why God’s people were told repeatedly that should clothe the naked. The command is repeated so frequently that we have to conclude that it was a reality of life that one would encounter naked people that needed clothing. Why were some people in bible times naked? Most likely because they were very poor; if they owned a garment but had no food, they could literally use “the shirt of their backs” to pay for a meal.

Does it Fit “Before and After” the Fall?

Well, there certainly wasn’t any need for currency in the Garden, but neither was there immediate need for currency after the Fall! So, this Biblically discernable purpose for clothing does not help us understand God’s purpose for clothing Adam and Eve.

— Matthew Neal

This article Series:

The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Introduction
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 1 – Shame and Fear??
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 2 – Clothing as Currency
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 3 – Sign of Position
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 4 – Communicate About the Person
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 5 – Gender Distinction?
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 6 – Warmth and Protection
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 7 – Controlling Lust??
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Conclusion
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Epilogue