Little Known Facts about 1 Timothy 2:9-10

[MyChainsAreGone]

There's really no other passage in the Bible that is used to teach that "Women must dress modestly"

But most people don't know some very interesting and important facts about the words used in the Greek for this passage... so here's some things that might surprise you!

POST #1​

Here's the text in KJV:

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.​

Here's the text in NASB:

Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.​

Here it is in Greek:

Ὡσαύτως γυναῖκας ἐν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης κοσμεῖν ἑαυτάς, μὴ ἐν πλέγμασιν καὶ χρυσίῳ ἢ μαργαρίταις ἢ ἱματισμῷ πολυτελεῖ, ἀλλ’ ὃ πρέπει γυναιξὶν ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέβειαν, δι’ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν.​

Notice anything interesting?

• Both KJV and NASB use a form of the word "Modest," but they literally translate different Greek words!

So... lots of smart people did these translations... why don't they agree on which word really means modest?

Which one of those words κοσμίῳ (kosmio) or αἰδοῦς (aidous) means "modest"? Which one speaks to how much of a woman's skin can be exposed? Do either of them carry that meaning?

What does this discrepancy between these two translations mean? I'm not sure, but surely it's worth thinking about!

​

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

POST #2​

Here's the text in KJV:

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.​

Here's the text in NASB:

Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.​

Here it is in Greek:

Ὡσαύτως γυναῖκας ἐν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης κοσμεῖν ἑαυτάς, μὴ ἐν πλέγμασιν καὶ χρυσίῳ ἢ μαργαρίταις ἢ ἱματισμῷ πολυτελεῖ, ἀλλ’ ὃ πρέπει γυναιξὶν ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέβειαν, δι’ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν.​

Notice anything interesting?

• These two words in the Greek, κοσμίῳ (kosmio) and κοσμεῖν (kosmein) are derived from the exact same Greek word: κόσμος (kosmos), which means "order" and is often used to reference the world/universe (think "cosmic").

Both translations agree on the word "adorn" in English, but differ on how to translate κοσμίῳ (kosmio). Which should it be... "modest" or "proper"?

If the root word means "order" or "World" (cosmic order), how does that relate to the ideas of "adorn" and "modest" or "proper"?

Are we sure that the Greek word translated "modest" means in Greek what we usually think of when we hear the word "modest" in English?

Is it possible that we are infusing the biblical term with modern notions about "modesty" that were not in the mind of Paul when he wrote this letter to Timothy?

 

[com7fy8]

First, when I read this about not putting on fancy stuff, I think of how Peter likewise says not to put on fancy stuff > 1 Peter 3:1-3.

And then Peter says >

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

So, the thing about not putting on a show is connected with the purpose that we become gentle and quiet like Jesus so we are pleasing God and not only using fancy stuff to please people.

About your offer that the word for modesty has the root meaning of order of this universe or something like this >

This can mean modesty has something to do with being orderly > not directing attention to clothes and other superficial stuff. But there needs to be order of our attention, calling attention to Jesus and how He is and being personally guided by Him, with each other staying prayerfully attentive all the time to Jesus ruling us in us.

 

[sandman]

Something to keep in mind with the Authorized Version

One of the goals the KJ translators had when bringing it into English was to use various different (hopefully related) words in translation ….It was done with the intent as a teaching tool. Because the Bible was one of the most read book including in classrooms. …... I guess the intent was well meaning and most of the time the words used coincide with the Greek, but not always. My slight objection to that is …. it should have been translated with the intent of making the Word live… rather than as a teaching tool…………… I am sure they tried to do both.


Here is what I have on those two verses regarding the wives of the Men of God.
I vaguely remember working on this about 20 years ago and have not revised it at all. It may or may mot be helpful.



adorn themselves (Gr) kosmeo it is the word transliterated over into our English as cosmos” It means orderly universe. To polish, or to beautifully cut out to carve in all perfection. Orderly like the stars that are set in their coarse, and like the paths of the seas, no collision. Its like all of God’s creation; that’s this word “adorn.”

in modest apparel (Gr) kosmias the same root word as adorn.
Women are to adorn themselves adorningly, meaning well polished beautifully groomed, is the essence of what God is saying. It sets the woman with the man of God in all of its beauty and all of its greatness.

 

[Derf]

POST #2​

Here's the text in KJV:

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.​

Here's the text in NASB:

Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.​

Here it is in Greek:

Ὡσαύτως γυναῖκας ἐν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης κοσμεῖν ἑαυτάς, μὴ ἐν πλέγμασιν καὶ χρυσίῳ ἢ μαργαρίταις ἢ ἱματισμῷ πολυτελεῖ, ἀλλ’ ὃ πρέπει γυναιξὶν ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέβειαν, δι’ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν.​

Notice anything interesting?

• These two words in the Greek, κοσμίῳ (kosmio) and κοσμεῖν (kosmein) are derived from the exact same Greek word: κόσμος (kosmos), which means "order" and is often used to reference the world/universe (think "cosmic").

Both translations agree on the word "adorn" in English, but differ on how to translate κοσμίῳ (kosmio). Which should it be... "modest" or "proper"?

If the root word means "order" or "World" (cosmic order), how does that relate to the ideas of "adorn" and "modest" or "proper"?

Are we sure that the Greek word translated "modest" means in Greek what we usually think of when we hear the word "modest" in English?

Is it possible that we are infusing the biblical term with modern notions about "modesty" that were not in the mind of Paul when he wrote this letter to Timothy?

Probably the root is same as we get cosmetics from.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

POST #3​

Here's the text in KJV:

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.​

Here's the text in NASB:

Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.​

Here it is in Greek:

Ὡσαύτως γυναῖκας ἐν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης κοσμεῖν ἑαυτάς, μὴ ἐν πλέγμασιν καὶ χρυσίῳ ἢ μαργαρίταις ἢ ἱματισμῷ πολυτελεῖ, ἀλλ’ ὃ πρέπει γυναιξὶν ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέβειαν, δι’ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν.​

Two words that are translated as some sort of clothing. Is that what they really mean?

• The first word, καταστολῇ (katastole) is never used for a garment in the NT scriptures, nor is it used that way in other ancient Greek writings. Furthermore, this is the only verse the entire Bible that uses this word! The other word, ἱματισμῷ (himatismo) is the word used for clothing throughout the New Testament.

There's no question that the second word refers to clothing. But if that's what Paul meant for the first word, why didn't he use a word that obviously referred to a garment?

Let's look closer at the word καταστολῇ (katastole). This is where it gets interesting!

How do we know what katastole means when it's not a common word in the bible nor other ancient Greek documents? Does it really refer to a garment at all? Are there any related words to which we can compare and find some insight?

Well, it turns out that katastole is the noun form of the word καταστέλλω (katastello). And as it happens, this word is found twice in the NT... and in the same passage. Acts 19:35-36. The worshipers of Artemis were in total riot mode until the Town Clerk stepped in to restore order...

After quieting (katastello) the crowd, the town clerk *said, “Men of Ephesus... So, since these are undeniable facts, you ought to keep calm (katastello) and to do nothing rash.”​

Do you see this? Katastello means "quieting" (the crowd) and "keep calm."

So, how can katastole refer to a garment when katastello is actually about calming down???

Is it possible that kosmios katastole isn't about "modest clothing" at all? Could it instead be about intentional (kosmios=orderly) self-restraint (katastole=calm down)?

Seriously... how can these two versions of the same word be so different in meaning?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

First, when I read this about not putting on fancy stuff, I think of how Peter likewise says not to put on fancy stuff > 1 Peter 3:1-3.

And then Peter says >

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

Yes, we do need to look closely at what both Paul and Peter say about women and their attire.

I have a really interesting observation about the 1 Peter 3 passage, too... I'll get to it shortly.

 

[Stephen3141]

There's really no other passage in the Bible that is used to teach that "Women must dress modestly"

But most people don't know some very interesting and important facts about the words used in the Greek for this passage... so here's some things that might surprise you!

POST #1​

Here's the text in KJV:

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.​

Here's the text in NASB:

Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.​

Here it is in Greek:

Ὡσαύτως γυναῖκας ἐν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης κοσμεῖν ἑαυτάς, μὴ ἐν πλέγμασιν καὶ χρυσίῳ ἢ μαργαρίταις ἢ ἱματισμῷ πολυτελεῖ, ἀλλ’ ὃ πρέπει γυναιξὶν ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέβειαν, δι’ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν.​

Notice anything interesting?

• Both KJV and NASB use a form of the word "Modest," but they literally translate different Greek words!

So... lots of smart people did these translations... why don't they agree on which word really means modest?

Which one of those words κοσμίῳ (kosmio) or αἰδοῦς (aidous) means "modest"? Which one speaks to how much of a woman's skin can be exposed? Do either of them carry that meaning?

What does this discrepancy between these two translations mean? I'm not sure, but surely it's worth thinking about!

​

There is no "problem" here. The Greek word is aidws...

"1 modesty (of women). [1 Timothy 2.9 is given as an example]
2 reverence, respect [Hebrews 12.28 is given as an example]". (BDAG 25-26)

8 It is my wish, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands, without anger or argument. 9 Similarly, [too,] women should adorn themselves with proper conduct, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hairstyles and gold ornaments, or pearls, or expensive clothes, 10 but rather, as befits women who profess reverence for God, with good deeds. 11 A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. 15 But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), 1 Ti 2:8–15.

28 Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, 29 for our God is a consuming fire.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Heb 12:28–29.

There is no reason why the meaning of a Greek word in the New Testament,
must correlate with one English word.

Although the style of dress, or makeup is specifically mentioned in
1 Timothy 2.9, the core word deals with the entire behavior of godly
people. There are many other verses in the New Testament that give
us guidance about what the behavior of a godly woman, should be.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

There is no "problem" here. The Greek word is aidws...

"1 modesty (of women). [1 Timothy 2.9 is given as an example]
2 reverence, respect [Hebrews 12.28 is given as an example]". (BDAG 25-26)

The point I was bringing up is that the the KJV and NASB use two different Greek words to translate into the English word "modesty/modestly."
And secondly, the fact that as you noted, no one English word is a good translation for either of the Greek words.

So, it begs the question... do either of these Greek words mean what we mean when we Christians use the word "Modest"... i.e. making sure certain body parts are covered from view.

8 It is my wish, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands, without anger or argument. 9 Similarly, [too,] women should adorn themselves with proper conduct, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hairstyles and gold ornaments, or pearls, or expensive clothes, 10 but rather, as befits women who profess reverence for God, with good deeds. 11 A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. 15 But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), 1 Ti 2:8–15.

28 Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, 29 for our God is a consuming fire.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Heb 12:28–29.

There is no reason why the meaning of a Greek word in the New Testament,
must correlate with one English word.

Although the style of dress, or makeup is specifically mentioned in
1 Timothy 2.9, the core word deals with the entire behavior of godly
people. There are many other verses in the New Testament that give
us guidance about what the behavior of a godly woman, should be.

THANK YOU for fully quoting the passages you're referencing! It's a pet peeve of mine when someone tries to make a biblical argument and only provides scripture references!

You are correct here... Paul's concern is NOT skin being uncovered, but the ostentatiousness of highly ornate attire. The entire attitude and behavior is the target, not any particular amount of skin covering.

But as you know, that's not how most Christians understand and apply this passage!

 

[Derf]

The point I was bringing up is that the the KJV and NASB use two different Greek words to translate into the English word "modesty/modestly."
And secondly, the fact that as you noted, no one English word is a good translation for either of the Greek words.

So, it begs the question... do either of these Greek words mean what we mean when we Christians use the word "Modest"... i.e. making sure certain body parts are covered from view.

THANK YOU for fully quoting the passages you're referencing! It's a pet peeve of mine when someone tries to make a biblical argument and only provides scripture references!

You are correct here... Paul's concern is NOT skin being uncovered, but the ostentatiousness of highly ornate attire. The entire attitude and behavior is the target, not any particular amount of skin covering.

But as you know, that's not how most Christians understand and apply this passage!

But you wouldn't say all skin could be uncovered and fit with the purpose of the verse, would you?

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

But you wouldn't say all skin could be uncovered and fit with the purpose of the verse, would you?

I would say that we should never add moral requirements that God does not give us.

So, really, the questions should be, "On what basis can we claim that God requires any skin to be covered? Where is that articulated in the Bible? Which body parts are specified?"

If we cannot answer any of those questions affirmatively, then we should not invent rules for righteousness that God did not give us.

And it's worth acknowledging that 1 Timothy 2:9-10 do not offer any answers to any of those questions... yet it is the only passage in all the bible that is consistently put forth as any sort of command that women cover their bodies.

That's a problem. It amounts to raising cultural expectations and perceptions to Biblical Mandate status... and that's always a mistake.

The way you've asked the question hints at an assumption that we can or should judge a Biblical interpretation according to how well it fits with cultural mores... and I doubt that's what you really believe.

 

[Derf]

I would say that we should never add moral requirements that God does not give us.

So, really, the questions should be, "On what basis can we claim that God requires any skin to be covered? Where is that articulated in the Bible? Which body parts are specified?"

If we cannot answer any of those questions affirmatively, then we should not invent rules for righteousness that God did not give us.

And it's worth acknowledging that 1 Timothy 2:9-10 do not offer any answers to any of those questions... yet it is the only passage in all the bible that is consistently put forth as any sort of command that women cover their bodies.

That's a problem. It amounts to raising cultural expectations and perceptions to Biblical Mandate status... and that's always a mistake.

The way you've asked the question hints at an assumption that we can or should judge a Biblical interpretation according to how well it fits with cultural mores... and I doubt that's what you really believe.

Doesn't this go back to the first couple?
[Gen 2:25 KJV] And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
[Gen 3:7 KJV] And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
[Gen 3:21 KJV] Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

[Gen 9:23 KJV] And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid [it] upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces [were] backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

[Exo 20:26 KJV] Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.
[Exo 28:42 KJV] And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
[Exo 32:25 KJV] And when Moses saw that the people [were] naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto [their] shame among their enemies
[Lev 18:6 KJV] None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover [their] nakedness: I [am] the LORD.
[Lev 18:7 KJV] The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she [is] thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

[Isa 20:4 KJV] So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with [their] buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.
[Isa 47:3 KJV] Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet [thee as] a man.
[Lam 1:8 KJV] Jerusalem hath grievously sinned; therefore she is removed: all that honoured her despise her, because they have seen her nakedness: yea, she sigheth, and turneth backward.

[Mat 25:36 KJV] Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
[Mat 25:38 KJV] When saw we thee a stranger, and took [thee] in? or naked, and clothed [thee]?
[Mat 25:43 KJV] I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
[Mat 25:44 KJV] Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

[Jas 2:15 KJV] If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
[Jas 2:16 KJV] And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit?

The bible is full of words against nakedness.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

The bible is full of words against nakedness.

That's quite a list that you have compiled.

But it's a list that has traditionally been put forth as speaking against nakedness, and when examined carefully and honestly, every single one of them fails to support the idea that God opposes simple nakedness.

Not just one or two of them, but all of them.

It would take a long time to go through each one and explain how they cannot mean what you have presented them to support.

But let me give just a few quick summarized examples...

Gen. 3:21... God made garments, but did not give any sort of command, nor did he explain why he clothed them. The problem is that if we read a command into the text, then it means that husband and wives must remain clothed even when it's just the two of them... for that's all the people there were in existence at the time.

Gen. 9, in the account of Noah, is a narrative account, but God offers absolutely no commentary or imperative within the text. Dare we add it in?

Lev. 18 defines and prohibits incest... And specifically limits the prohibition to "close relatives."

Isa. 20 speaks of judgment involving nakedness, but God actually commanded Isaiah to go completely naked himself for 3 years while preaching that message... Hardly a thing that would happen if God is morally opposed to simple nudity.

Each of these probably deserve more details than I've summarized here, but hopefully you get the idea that they're not as ironclad against nudity as you've heard or thought before.

And as I said... ALL of the listed passages fail to support any biblical taboo regarding nudity, and I can show you how and why for all of them.

So I'll be happy to revisit any one of them in greater detail if you want me to.

I suggest that you tell me which 2 or 3 of these passages you see as making the strongest case for the idea that God opposes nudity and I'll address them first.

This is a study that I personally pursued some years ago, and trust me, I was as surprised by the conclusions I was compelled to reach as you are right now.

 

[Derf]

That's quite a list that you have compiled.

But it's a list that has traditionally been put forth as speaking against nakedness, and when examined carefully and honestly, every single one of them fails to support the idea that God opposes simple nakedness.

Not just one or two of them, but all of them.

It would take a long time to go through each one and explain how they cannot mean what you have presented them to support.

But let me give just a few quick summarized examples...

Gen. 3:21... God made garments, but did not give any sort of command, nor did he explain why he clothed them. The problem is that if we read a command into the text, then it means that husband and wives must remain clothed even when it's just the two of them... for that's all the people there were in existence at the time.

Gen. 9, in the account of Noah, is a narrative account, but God offers absolutely no commentary or imperative within the text. Dare we add it in?

Lev. 18 defines and prohibits incest... And specifically limits the prohibition to "close relatives."

Isa. 20 speaks of judgment involving nakedness, but God actually commanded Isaiah to go completely naked himself for 3 years while preaching that message... Hardly a thing that would happen if God is morally opposed to simple nudity.

Each of these probably deserve more details than I've summarized here, but hopefully you get the idea that they're not as ironclad against nudity as you've heard or thought before.

And as I said... ALL of the listed passages fail to support any biblical taboo regarding nudity, and I can show you how and why for all of them.

So I'll be happy to revisit any one of them in greater detail if you want me to.

I suggest that you tell me which 2 or 3 of these passages you see as making the strongest case for the idea that God opposes nudity and I'll address them first.

This is a study that I personally pursued some years ago, and trust me, I was as surprised by the conclusions I was compelled to reach as you are right now.

I didn't say it was commanded never to be naked, but clothes were provided to keep us from being shamed. All of those verses I gave reflect that. And if God gave clothing to keep us from being shamed, then we shouldn't go around shaming ourselves or others, but help those who are shaming themselves, as God did, to cover up.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I didn't say it was commanded never to be naked, but clothes were provided to keep us from being shamed. All of those verses I gave reflect that. And if God gave clothing to keep us from being shamed, then we shouldn't go around shaming ourselves or others, but help those who are shaming themselves, as God did, to cover up.

How do you reach that conclusion that he gave us clothes to keep us from being shamed?

I don't see that stated in Genesis 3 or in any other place in the entire Bible. That's a pretty significant conclusion to reach without a clear statement.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

How do you reach that conclusion that he gave us clothes to keep us from being shamed?

I don't see that stated in Genesis 3 or in any other place in the entire Bible. That's a pretty significant conclusion to reach without a clear statement.

In the context, God was casting them out of the Garden.

He had just cursed the ground such that it would produce thorns. They could no longer live in the idyllic environment of the Garden, so the possibility of needing clothing for warmth was a significant reality.

In the absence of any direct statement of why God clothed Adam and Eve, doesn't the context better support the idea that he did it as a gracious act to protect their bodies from thorns and to keep them warm?

Adam himself never claimed to be ashamed. He only said that he was afraid. The only place we see shame mentioned is in the end of chapter 2 where we are told that they were unashamed.

I think we need to be careful to read into the text things that are not actually there.

When I first pursued my study on the topic of nakedness, I very intentionally purposed to put everything I had formerly believed on the table, and to only pick it back up if the text compelled me to do so. The last thing I wanted to do was to hold on to man-made assumptions and presumptions rather than found my beliefs to squarely on the text of scripture alone.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

I didn't say it was commanded never to be naked, but clothes were provided to keep us from being shamed. All of those verses I gave reflect that. And if God gave clothing to keep us from being shamed, then we shouldn't go around shaming ourselves or others, but help those who are shaming themselves, as God did, to cover up.

One more point.

God does not consider the naked state to be a shameful state. Genesis 2:25 makes this clear.

God made a special point to note both the nudity and the shamelessness of that state.

God does not change, so we are hard pressed to assert that somehow the naked state became shameful in God's eyes when He cannot change.

You can certainly make a case that somehow the naked state was perceived as shameful by Adam and Eve, but they were in a sinful state of mind, so we certainly cannot presume that their own perception of their nakedness as shameful reflects God's perception.

And even if we were to conclude that God gave them clothing to assuage their own misguided sense of shame for their nudity, that does not mean that therefore, any other nudity should also be considered shameful.

If a person is not ashamed of their own nudity, they're actually reaffirming God's original design... they are not "shaming themselves."

Given the direct declaration of Genesis 2:25, how can we ever suggest or assert that God considers nudity to be shameful at all? Absent any direct refutation or reversal of that declaration, we simply can't presume a different mindset about nudity than what is stated there.

Do you see what I'm saying? When we honestly investigate passages such as this one, we find that the effort to make a case against the simple nudity from the scriptures simply doesn't hold up.

Furthermore, there are a large number of references to nudity in the Bible that carry no shame at all. More than that, we find that when nudity and shame are in the same passage, we are also told exactly what the actual shameful acts are. In other words, nudity and shame never show up in the Bible without there also being some other genuine cause for the shame.

 

[Derf]

How do you reach that conclusion that he gave us clothes to keep us from being shamed?

I don't see that stated in Genesis 3 or in any other place in the entire Bible. That's a pretty significant conclusion to reach without a clear statement.

There are a number of passages that equate nakedness and shame, but here's a particularly good one:
Revelation 3:18 KJV — I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

There are a number of passages that equate nakedness and shame, but here's a particularly good one:
Revelation 3:18 KJV — I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

Very good, Derf.

In my estimation, that is THE most compelling passage that would seem to teach that nakedness is shameful.

I myself had to consider this for a while before realizing that it too fails the test. Here's why...

• First of all, we have to ask, What is this passage here to teach?

This is an important first question because if a passage is not in the bible specifically to teach a specific doctrine (such as "nakedness is shameful") then we need to be reticent to use the passage as a proof-text for such a claim. Maybe it still teaches that, but let's make sure with some honest scrutiny.

So for this first question, I think it's pretty clear that Jesus is rebuking the church of Laodicea... that is the primary point of the passage. The passage is not primarily here in Revelation to teach us God's moral position regarding nakedness. Maybe it does give us some insight, but more investigation is needed to determine that. So let's continue.

• Secondly, Understand the primary teaching of the passage.

Here's the entire passage:

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.​

​

17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.​

​

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.​

The main point is that the people of Loadicea were proud. They were confident. They were wealthy. And these things made them unaware of how deeply in need they actually were.

So Jesus rebukes them and describes them quite differently than they perceived themselves.

• You are wretched... even though they had no physical needs ("we have need of nothing").
• You are miserable... even though they had lots of possessions ("We are increased with goods").
• You are poor.... even though they were quite wealthy ("We are rich").
• You are blind... even though they actually had physical sight.
• You are naked... even though they had plenty of clothing.

The primary meaning of this passage is right here: Jesus' rebuke of this church.

But why did Jesus make all these assertions? Because he was talking about their spiritual condition... not their physical condition!

So the first conclusion we can draw from this analysis is that Jesus is NOT talking about physical nakedness.

Again, this is a strike against the notion that this passage is intended to teach us God's perspective on simple nudity. But let's continue the analysis.

Jesus is talking about:

• Spiritual poverty
• Spiritual blindness
• Spiritual nakedness.

Three recognizable physical realities projected into the spiritual realm as metaphors for their spiritual condition.

But are these things shameful? I think that we can agree that, YES, These three things are absolutely shameful! (not just the nakedness!). Jesus counsels them to address all of these conditions equally.

Finally, let's take the next step and ask the next a final big question...

• Does this passage mean that the physical conditions are also shameful? Was Jesus intending to teach us that:
  • Physical poverty is shameful?
  • Physical blindness is shameful?
  • Physical nakedness is shameful?

In all three cases, the answer has to be the same... If Jesus is teaching that physical nakedness is shameful because spiritual nakedness is shameful, then we must also conclude that physical blindness is shameful because spiritual blindness is shameful. But if we are not prepared to assert that physical blindness is shameful, then neither can we use this passage to conclude that physical nakedness is shameful.

Do you see what I'm saying? This passage is potent because it actually uses the phrase "Your shameful nakedness." But honest appraisal has to conclude that this passage is not declaring that physical nakedness is any more shameful than physical blindness.

Even this passage fails to uphold a doctrine that physical nakedness is shameful in God's eyes.

 

[MyChainsAreGone]

POST #4​

Here's the text in KJV:
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

Here's the text in NASB:
Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

Here it is in Greek:
Ὡσαύτως γυναῖκας ἐν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης κοσμεῖν ἑαυτάς, μὴ ἐν πλέγμασιν καὶ χρυσίῳ ἢ μαργαρίταις ἢ ἱματισμῷ πολυτελεῖ, ἀλλ’ ὃ πρέπει γυναιξὶν ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέβειαν, δι’ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν.

The word highlighted above is used by Paul in the very next chapter... 1 Timothy 3:2

Here's the second text in KJV:
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;.

Here's the second text in NASB:
An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

Do you see it? Where is the word "modest" or "proper" found in this verse?

How can κοσμίῳ (kosmio) mean "modest" as we think of it in English (keep the body covered) if the same Greek word used by the same author in the next chapter isn't even translated the same way?

Well, the word you're looking for is translated "of good behavior" in the KJV and "respectable" in the NASB. These words are quite different in meaning from how we normally define "modest."

So... does κοσμίῳ (kosmio) mean "keep your body covered"?

Does 1 Timothy 2:9 teach what we've been told that it teaches?