• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!

Jesus was crucified...naked?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stinker

Senior Veteran
Sep 23, 2004
3,556
174
Overland Park, KS.
✟4,880.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I just came from a Bible lecture in which the speaker presented evidence that Jesus did not have any clothing on when He was on the cross. Not even the traditional pictured Christ with at least a loin cloth on. The speaker presented evidence that that art of crucifiction was practiced hundreds of years before Christ, and victims were crucified on trees, poles, and stake-beam or 'crosses' . They were crucified in a position in which their knees were bent and it appeared as if they were crouching or (like a person sitting on their heels). Their knees were at a right or left angle to their body (depending on how their feet were staked).

The pictures of those crucified like this were very, very, demeaning. Crucifiction, the lecturer said, was so demeaning that the Romans did not mention the word in their laws regarding punishment. He also said that it was not mentioned among slaves (it was a slaves punishment by the way) because the very mention of it was so costly to that person.
 

Ron_the_Nazarene

Active Member
Jul 19, 2005
153
15
65
Bremerton, WA ... for now
✟373.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is entirely possible. Crucifixion was a punishment reserved for the lowest dregs of society. ((Yet another reason why the crucifixion story wasn't 'created' --- those hoping to 'create a legend' would have chosen a more regal way for their King to die)).

We have many preconceived notions regarding Jesus' life and death that are not founded in fact at all. Could you imagine a naked Jesus on every crucifix wore by every old woman and nun in the world? Thank God my Jesus isn't on a cross .....
 
Upvote 0

johnd

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2003
7,257
394
God bless.
Visit site
✟9,564.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
crucifixion.gif


Yes, this is the typical form of crucifixion.

nailinfoot.jpg

 
  • Like
Reactions: tqpix
Upvote 0

Edial

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 3, 2004
31,716
1,425
United States
✟85,657.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Stinker said:
I just came from a Bible lecture in which the speaker presented evidence that Jesus did not have any clothing on when He was on the cross. Not even the traditional pictured Christ with at least a loin cloth on. The speaker presented evidence that that art of crucifiction was practiced hundreds of years before Christ, and victims were crucified on trees, poles, and stake-beam or 'crosses' . They were crucified in a position in which their knees were bent and it appeared as if they were crouching or (like a person sitting on their heels). Their knees were at a right or left angle to their body (depending on how their feet were staked).

The pictures of those crucified like this were very, very, demeaning. Crucifiction, the lecturer said, was so demeaning that the Romans did not mention the word in their laws regarding punishment. He also said that it was not mentioned among slaves (it was a slaves punishment by the way) because the very mention of it was so costly to that person.
This is a qood question.
And the instructor was correct to point out that most of the ones crucified had no "loin cloth".

However, we can discuss this not from the historical perspective since it can no longer be proven, but from a Christological one.


We know that Christ did not sin.
If you recall, God even stopped them from breaking his legs, since he promised that "not one bone will be broken" since he is sinless.

Question is - is it a sin to be seen in such nakedness?

I did a quick search on "nakedness" - very light, no Greek nor Hebrew.

The answer appears to be, (surprisingly) - Yes, it is a sin.


1. Here nakedness is symbolic of a sinful shame. But Christ never sinned.

REV 3:18 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.

2. Here nakedness is defined as something that will bring sin upon other. But Christ never tempted anyone.

GE 9:20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.

3. Here nakedness is defined as shameful when one is approaching altar. (They had no "underware", so going up the stairs was a problem).

EX 20:24 " `Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, your sheep and goats and your cattle. Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless you. 25 If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it. 26 And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it.'

4. Here nakedness is a judgement of the Lord against rebellion. Not applied to Christ.

NA 3:5 "I am against you," declares the LORD Almighty."I will lift your skirts over your face. I will show the nations your nakedness and the kingdoms your shame.


Conclusion:
It is my personal conclusion is that if God protected the one he loves from having his bones broken, it is highly unlikely that he allowed him to be naked in the light of these verses.

Thanks,
Ed
 
Upvote 0

Galadriel

Lady of Light
Jun 24, 2003
1,895
84
41
USA
✟19,854.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Edial said:
This is a qood question.
And the instructor was correct to point out that most of the ones crucified had no "loin cloth".

However, we can discuss this not from the historical perspective since it can no longer be proven, but from a Christological one.


We know that Christ did not sin.
If you recall, God even stopped them from breaking his legs, since he promised that "not one bone will be broken" since he is sinless.

Question is - is it a sin to be seen in such nakedness?

I did a quick search on "nakedness" - very light, no Greek nor Hebrew.

The answer appears to be, (surprisingly) - Yes, it is a sin.


1. Here nakedness is symbolic of a sinful shame. But Christ never sinned.

REV 3:18 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.

2. Here nakedness is defined as something that will bring sin upon other. But Christ never tempted anyone.

GE 9:20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.

3. Here nakedness is defined as shameful when one is approaching altar. (They had no "underware", so going up the stairs was a problem).

EX 20:24 " `Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, your sheep and goats and your cattle. Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless you. 25 If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it. 26 And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it.'

4. Here nakedness is a judgement of the Lord against rebellion. Not applied to Christ.

NA 3:5 "I am against you," declares the LORD Almighty."I will lift your skirts over your face. I will show the nations your nakedness and the kingdoms your shame.


Conclusion:
It is my personal conclusion is that if God protected the one he loves from having his bones broken, it is highly unlikely that he allowed him to be naked in the light of these verses.

Thanks,
Ed

Nakedness in itself is not a sin.
If you are on a desert island by yourself with no clothes on are you sinning?
Lust and sexual desire causes temptations that are sinful.

Even if it was a sin to be naked, Jesus didn't choose it, it was forced upon him. Thats like saying a woman who was raped sinned because she had sex with someone other than her husband. She didn't sin because it wasn't her desire or want to have that forced upon her, so she remains innocent.
 
Upvote 0

johnd

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2003
7,257
394
God bless.
Visit site
✟9,564.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Remember there are varying degrees of nakedness.

In most societies we are so accustomed to nudity that only stark naked is nakedness in our minds. Exodus 20:26 and Isaiah 47:1-3 for an examples where ankles or calves / thighs are considered nakedness. So Jesus could well have been crucified with his under garment on and still be considered naked.
 
Upvote 0

dcyates

Senior Member
May 28, 2005
1,513
88
59
Calgary, AB.
✟2,162.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
While it's very true that within the culture of the ancient near east to be wearing only one's undergarment would be regarded as being naked, the whole point of executing anyone by crucifixion was to subject them to a thoroughly shameful death, to completely and absolutely divest them of any and all honour that might possibly be ascribed to them. Normally, especially with regard to alleged messianic movements, the crucifixion of its claimant would have spelled the end of it; there was not supposed to be any dead messiahs, much less one so dishonoured and so discredited. But then, Jesus Christ didn't stay dead, did he?
 
Upvote 0

johnd

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2003
7,257
394
God bless.
Visit site
✟9,564.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
"Vestment is the term for special clothing worn by the people who conduct a worship service. Vestments have their origin in the ordinary street clothes of the first century, but have more or less remained the same as clothing fashions have changed.



Today, vestments are designed to be worn over street clothes and serve a number of practical purposes: they conceal the distractions of fashionable street clothing, they remove any consideration of what constitutes appropriate attire, and they remind the congregation that the ministers are not acting on their own, but performing in their official capacities. Vestments are in almost universal use, although in some churches only the choir wears vestments.


alb-small.jpg
Alb
An alb, called a sticharion in Orthodox churches, is a plain, lightweight, ankle-length tunic with long sleeves. It is generally worn with a rope cincture around the waist. The word alb is short for the the Latin phrase tunica alba, which means white tunic; accordingly, albs are usually made of white or undyed fabric. In the first century, the tunic was the first article of clothing that you put on in the morning. Working-class people wore knee-length tunics, while older people and people with less active occupations wore ankle-length tunics. It was possible to wear more than one tunic at a time for warmth, but it was considered gauche to wear a tunic without a cincture.

The tunic was originally sleeveless. Greeks and Romans thought sleeves were barbaric because barbarians wore them. (The barbarians lived in colder climates.) Tunics did not acquire sleeves until the third century, when a Roman Emperor came back from a military campaign wearing a tunic with sleeves—much to the horror of the fashion mavens of the day. A modern alb has sleeves because we need to cover street clothing that has sleeves.

In the first century, most people wore a himation over their tunics. The himation was a rectangular garment that was wrapped around the body. The designs on the himation, as well as its color and quality, varied depending on the wearer’s sex, occupation, and social status. Because of the relatively precarious way it was worn and the way it hindered movement, people had to remove it when they were engaged in certain physical activities. For example, when blind Bartimaeus ran to Jesus in Mark 10:46-52, he threw off his himation. Matthew 9:20-22 tells about a woman who was healed when she touched the hem of His himation. In Revelation 3:5, 3:18, and 4:4 people are given white himatia. Perhaps the writer of Revelation wanted us to think of people who had received a white tunic at their baptism now receiving an elegant and triumphant white himation to wear over it. (Note that most Bible translations are not consistent with the names of articles of clothing.) The himation never became a church vestment, probably because as servants, the clergy would have to remove it anyway.

Scripture tells us that Jesus wore a himation over a tunic (χιτων in Greek) to the crucifixion. The soldiers tore the himation in four pieces, but because the tunic was woven in one piece, they cast lots for it. Jesus’ tunic would have been sleeveless and ankle-length. Ancient writings from that period refer to seamless tunics, but the technology for weaving them that way was lost in the fall of the Roman Empire, so we don’t know how they did it." Quoted from http://www.kencollins.com/glossary/vestments.htm

Under the tunic which was not removed was the loin cloth. No mention of Jesus' loin cloth being divided, gambled away, or taken from him is mentioned in scripture.

To be crucified in one's loin cloth was quite humiliating to a rabbi in that day.

Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
 
Upvote 0

Edial

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 3, 2004
31,716
1,425
United States
✟85,657.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Galadriel said:
Nakedness in itself is not a sin.
If you are on a desert island by yourself with no clothes on are you sinning?
Lust and sexual desire causes temptations that are sinful.

Even if it was a sin to be naked, Jesus didn't choose it, it was forced upon him. Thats like saying a woman who was raped sinned because she had sex with someone other than her husband. She didn't sin because it wasn't her desire or want to have that forced upon her, so she remains innocent.
Let me ask you a question.
What do you think is the point of the post and verses that I posted?
Thanks,
Ed
 
Upvote 0

DIANAC

Senior Veteran
Jan 10, 2005
5,026
759
New York
✟8,511.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
What does this question suppose achieve?
Does the positive answer to this question make Jesus' suffering/humiliation more severe?
Does it change the outcome of the event on the cross? No!
I will never understand in it's fullness what Jesus did on the cross. I only know that it was done for me and for my neighbor for whose salvation I am praying. It was done for him who keeps rejecting the cross, while ill and old awaiting with trepidations his final day on earth.
Diana
 
Upvote 0

graysparrow

My life is for the kids who have it rough
Feb 6, 2005
3,853
262
54
Canary Islands
✟20,269.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Edial said:
Conclusion:
It is my personal conclusion is that if God protected the one he loves from having his bones broken, it is highly unlikely that he allowed him to be naked in the light of these verses.

Thanks,
Ed

Dear Edial

When you are forced to do something you are not responsible of that.
 
Upvote 0

Edial

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 3, 2004
31,716
1,425
United States
✟85,657.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
graysparrow said:
Dear Edial

When you are forced to do something you are not responsible of that.
That is not the point that I am making.
God was careful to make certain that his death will not be interpreted as sin or promote sin in others.
The verses that I presented were defining "nakedness" from various angles.
It either was sinful or was promoting sin.
Thenpoint was not whether Christ was not responsible for it or not.

The point is that since the nakedness is defined in so many negative spiritual terms, God will not "allow" him to be naked.
And since there are no prophecies of him being naked actually "nude", which is a different Hebrew word indicating shame, there is no reason for me to thing that he was. :)
(Examine the verses that I presented).

Another example -

REV 16:15 "Behold, I come like a thief! Blessed is he who stays awake and keeps his clothes with him, so that he may not go naked and be shamefully exposed."

This definitely is "one of those topics". :)
No interpretation can be attached.

That is why I stated that it is "my personal conclusion".

Thanks,
Ed


 
Upvote 0

graysparrow

My life is for the kids who have it rough
Feb 6, 2005
3,853
262
54
Canary Islands
✟20,269.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Edial said:
That is not the point that I am making.
God was careful to make certain that his death will not be interpreted as sin or promote sin in others.
The verses that I presented were defining "nakedness" from various angles.
It either was sinful or was promoting sin.
Thenpoint was not whether Christ was not responsible for it or not.

The point is that since the nakedness is defined in so many negative spiritual terms, God will not "allow" him to be naked.
And since there are no prophecies of him being naked actually "nude", which is a different Hebrew word indicating shame, there is no reason for me to thing that he was. :)
(Examine the verses that I presented).
Thanks,
Ed



Being nude, biblically speaking is not always a curse. Adam and Eve were not 'oficially' nude till they sinned.

But diying in the Cross the way Jesus died was a curse, something fit for criminals, not for the Messiah. Being naked just pale in comparation.

Thirdly there is no evidence in the Bible to support Jesus was fully nude but certainly there is no evidence to support the contrary.

This is one of these issues in which to reply "I don't know" is the wisest answer.
 
Upvote 0

Edial

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 3, 2004
31,716
1,425
United States
✟85,657.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
graysparrow said:
Being nude, biblically speaking is not always a curse.
I did not say it is always a curse. I said it is associated with personal sin or sin upon others or judgement or curse or other improper things.
I did present verses.
graysparrow said:
Adam and Eve were not 'oficially' nude till they sinned.
Interesting you mentioed.
In the case of Adam and Eve there are 2 Hebrew words that described their lack of clothing.
One was arom. It means naked (not shameful type).
GE 2:25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

And the other is erom. It means nude (shameful type).
GE 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

graysparrow said:
But diying in the Cross the way Jesus died was a curse, something fit for criminals, not for the Messiah. Being naked just pale in comparation.
I understand what you are saying -
GAL 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

However, the fulfillment of the shame of Jesus Christ is carefully detailed in the prophecies. Very carefully.
The nudity however, is portrayed as a judgement of God due to personal disobedience and arrogance.
Although Christ paid for our sins on the cross he personally was obedient and meek.
There is no apparent need to shame him more than the prophecies predict.

graysparrow said:
Thirdly there is no evidence in the Bible to support Jesus was fully nude but certainly there is no evidence to support the contrary.
That is why they need to prove that he was.
From the Christological perspective I presented that it indicates that he was not.

graysparrow said:
This is one of these issues in which to reply "I don't know" is the wisest answer.
Sometimes such an answer might give an appearance of wisdom.

However, when a study is conducted and a pattern is developed it is not in vain nor is it fruitless. (It can be sometimes).
I mentioned above that it is a "gray" area.
I also mentioned that it is my "personal conclusion".
I cannot say "I do not know", since I have not ONE Christological reason that he was and I have many reasons that he was not.

Thanks,
Ed
 
Upvote 0

Edial

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 3, 2004
31,716
1,425
United States
✟85,657.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
godsprincess77 said:
What evidence did the lecturer provide that Jesus may have been naked?
He could not have.
Lecturers often present a "usual" way of crucifixion.

(It could also have been that he was crucified as another poster presented and attached a drawing).

There was nothing usual in crucifying the Christ.
1. His legs were not broken, as was the custom.
2. He died after ONLY 3 hours, while they usually hang there for days.
3. There was a dramatic earthquake at his death.

Another mistake that I noticed that the followers of "if it is usually done, it means it is always done" hold on to is that the Christ was nailed through his wrists and not hands.
But the Bible plainly says "hand".
I spoke to a doctor in my church concerning the definition of a hand. It is above the wrist.
The reason the "usually done - always done" theology states "through the wrist" because hands cannot support the weight of the body. The flesh will tear through.

But, if one ties the wrists to the beam, the body is supported.

If the holders of the "usually done - always done" theology cannot trust even the plain Scripture (hand vs. wrist), what would make them believe a pattern of the Scripture (my posts above) that presents that he was not exposed?

Thanks,
Ed
 
Upvote 0

graysparrow

My life is for the kids who have it rough
Feb 6, 2005
3,853
262
54
Canary Islands
✟20,269.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I really think you are extrapolating too much in the Bible.

First, as we have seen being nude is not always sin. Let's take for example:

Job 1:21
John 21:7
Mathew 25:43

Was he, was he not? Idle question we cannot answer for sure. I think I have spent too much time... if not were because searching the Bible is always great fun :)
 
Upvote 0

DIANAC

Senior Veteran
Jan 10, 2005
5,026
759
New York
✟8,511.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
graysparrow said:
I really think you are extrapolating too much in the Bible.

First, as we have seen being nude is not always sin. Let's take for example:

Job 1:21
John 21:7
Mathew 25:43

Was he, was he not? Idle question we cannot answer for sure. I think I have spent too much time... if not were because searching the Bible is always great fun :)
Dear graysparrow,
Job 1:21 uses word arowm (not shameful kind)
John 21:7 and Mathew 25:43 uses gumnos various meaning of it are unclad, without clothing, ill clad, clad in undergarments only, of the soul, whose garment is the body, stripped of the body, without a body. From here it is, again hard to come to a conclusion that Jesus was stark naked. Again, as you said and as I am reiterating, this is an idle question. Ed did states numerously, that this is his personal opinion.
But, on another note, I have read your blog. I know something about the street children in Bucharest and homeless dogs and gypsies. I hear that gypsies are now turning to Christ. Is that true? Are there adoption/home placement efforts for those children?
Thank you
Diana
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.