Wednesday, July 09, 2014

"It is the Lord!"


7 That disciple whom Jesus loved therefore said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he was stripped for work, and threw himself into the sea (Jn 21:7).
Jn 21 is one of the major accounts of the post-Resurrection appearances of Christ. Liberals typically discount the historicity of John because it's too theological. Mind you, that's difficult to finesse even on their own terms inasmuch as John's Gospel often includes many historical details lacking in the Synoptic Gospels. 
One critical test of authenticity is the criterion of embarrassment. And v7 fits the criterion. Indeed, commentators seem a bit embarrassed discussing the verse.
Commentators typically contend that the Peter wasn't totally nude. Rather, he was wearing a loincloth or short tunic. They say this in part on the assumption that Jewish scruples about public nudity would inhibit Peter from fishing in the buff.
However, one problem with that explanation is that, if Peter was already wearing just enough to avoid "indecent exposure," it's less understandable why he'd then don his outer garment. Was he that self-conscious about appearing bare-chested in the presence of Christ? Was that considered unseemly in the hot Palestinian climate? Was that not something Jewish men did? Seems unlikely. 
Richard Bauckham takes issue with the conventional wisdom:
Richard Bauckham However, as you say, everyone went to the [Roman] baths. Even the rabbis went to the baths. I think even Jews, who were more sensitive about nudity than most people, just thought it was natural to be naked around and in water. Fishermen worked naked, even on shore. The Victorians were the first to invent bathing trunks. 
http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/paul-and-gentile-circumcision/#comment-10709
Assuming that's correct, it would better explain the account. It's just a bunch of guys here. Like a locker room. And it was so much simpler, when working in water, checking their nets, not to be bogged down by wet clothing. 
There's a certain theological irony about his feeling the need to clothe himself in the presence of his Creator (cf. Jn 1:3). it's not as if God doesn't know what we look like underneath. But people can be (and often are) illogical in that respect. Consider how many Christians still think you ought to dress up for church. Wear your "Sunday best." So it's psychologically realistic. 
Commentators sometimes puzzle over donning an outer garment just before diving into the water. Surely the less you're wearing, the easier it is to swim. Mind you, that objection applies regardless of whether we think Peter was wearing nothing all, or wearing a loincloth or short tunic–before he donned his outer garment and dove in. 
Again, though, that objection misses the point. People will often sacrifice practicality for decorum. Yes, his sense of modesty interferes with swimming, but modesty has nothing to do with efficiency.
So you have this somewhat comical, down-to-earth detail in the midst of an account about the Risen Lord. One of those parenthetical details that lends credence to the account. Not something you'd expect the narrator to invent. 

13 comments:

  1. So you have this somewhat comical, down-to-earth detail in the midst of an account about the Risen Lord. One of those parenthetical details that lends credence to the account. Not something you'd expect the narrator to invent.

    I agree with everything Steve wrote. Here's some additional considerations.

    Verse 4 says it was around the time the sun was rising when Jesus appeared. It would take hours for the sun to warm up the shore where the wind would naturally be blowing during sun rise or sun down. As an experienced fisherman, Peter knew that once he got on shore he'd be cold from 1. having been exposed to the relatively cold water and 2. knowing that he'd naturally cool off after having stopped his fishing. Moderate continuous movement as in walking, or fishing as Peter did, can be the difference between feeling comfortable or being cold while sitting down on a log. That's another reason why Peter took his outer garment with him.

    The fire Jesus started may have been to keep warm and not just to cook the fish. Peter didn't know what Jesus would want to do after he arrived. By wearing his outer garment to swim to Christ he'd be ready to go wherever Jesus may have wanted him to go. For example, more public areas where greater modesty would be naturally expected. Peter didn't want to wait for the boat to arrive on shore to get his dry outer garment. He was too excited to see Jesus. He'd rather be with Jesus sooner with wet clothes, than (in his mind) force Jesus to wait for the boat to arrive till they both could walk to wherever Jesus wanted. And it turns out later that they did go for a walk after breakfast as verse 20 shows.

    As I understand it, in such societies it was alright for people of the same sex to see each other naked (e.g. in public baths). It was exposure to the opposite sex or to children that would have been frowned upon and been embarrassing to the viewed or viewer or both.

    Commentators typically contend that the Peter wasn't totally nude. Rather, he was wearing a loincloth or short tunic.

    But they were fishing in the darkness of night for hours, away from the shore or from public areas. People on shore wouldn't have been able to see much even at noonday light. Much less the light of a near full moon soon after the Passover (which always fell on a full moon). They were far enough from the shore that the apostles didn't recognize it was Jesus until after He told them to try fishing on the right side of the boat and then performing the miracle. It was far enough from shore that not even His voice gave His identity away. I think commentators who find the text troublesome have created an artificial problem. Also, I suspect Jesus probably had been with Peter as he fished plenty of times while Peter, Andrew, James and John were naked and/or near naked both before and after He called them to be His disciples (since Jesus may have known them before His own baptism and calling into the ministry).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, for hundreds of years the early church required catechumen to be naked for baptism. This practice may have went back to the Apostles. I don't know. The point is that we mustn't anachronistically superimpose our modern sense/definition/criteria of modesty to Biblical times or post Apostolic times. A similar topic would be women breastfeeding children in public. That's common in other cultures while it's frowned upon (to put it mildly) in Western cultures.

      Delete
  2. “Consider how many Christians still think you ought to dress up for church.”

    What’s wrong with thinking you ought to dress up for church?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's nice and appropriate to do so if one can, but it's not absolutely necessary as James 2:1-5ff. says.


      1 My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in,3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "You sit here in a good place," while you say to the poor man, "You stand over there," or, "Sit down at my feet,"4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?

      In fact, Paul taught against dressing up too much for church in 1 Tim. 2:9. Though, I don't think Paul's 1st century prohibition of braided hair, use of gold, or pearls necessarily apply today. The point is that it shouldn't be "costly array" as the verse goes on to say. One shouldn't dress to impress other people or make poor people feel embarrassed of their poverty.

      Delete
    2. allo

      "What’s wrong with thinking you ought to dress up for church?"

      But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart” (1 Sam 16:7).

      Delete
    3. Thought this article made some reasonable arguments:

      Christianity Today

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. allo, the article admits, "We constantly make judgments about one another on the basis of clothing." Unchecked, that can lead to prejudicial behavior toward others as James 2:1-5ff. condemns.

      The article admits, "We have all experienced the uncomfortable effects of feeling under-dressed in a particular social setting." That's precisely why requiring a dress code will discourage non-Christians from entering a church. Why even some Christians don't go to church because they can't afford a suit or a nice dress. Feeling they have to wear a different suit and dress every week. Something which they can't afford. It would be embarrassing for them to wear the same suit or dress week after week for years.
      Ironically, while James says that the Kingdom of God is especially for the poor, requiring people (either by explicit rule or by psychological expecation) that people dress up for church actually makes church less accessible to the poor and more accessible to the rich(!).

      Much of the social meaning of our clothing is contextual.
      ↑↑↑↑↑ Exactly, This can give the wrong impression that it's an integral part of Christianity to wear or behave like people who dress a certain way (e.g. with suits). Which can lead to a form of legalism. As well as sending an erroneous message about the real essentials of Christianity. It can also neutralize the Biblical truth that God came to save all kinds of human beings. Not just the rich, or educated, or stylish, or sophisticated, or beautiful/handsome, or those who "got it together" [implying a form of works salvation]. It can lead to us forgetting that on our own we come to God with spiritual filthy rags (Isa. 64:6).

      The point here, rather, is our willingness to expend ourselves sacrificially for the Lord's sake.
      ↑↑↑↑↑ I agree, that's why I wrote above "It's nice and appropriate to do so if one can, but it's not absolutely necessary..."

      Dressing up also has it's pitfalls too. It can lead to an unconscious sense of self-righteousness. Or prevent people from really seeing their own sinfulness. As well as a way to hide one's own sinfulness before others.
      As the article states, "Elaborate, showy attire may reflect a prideful, elitist, egocentric display of wealth, status, and power (Mark 12:38; Luke 16:19; James 2:3). Or it may serve as a mask, a facade behind which lurks a very different reality (Matt. 23:27)." That's not to say I never wear a suit to church.

      Delete
    6. I suspect that in many churches some people wouldn't like to allow, or even refuse to allow entrance to a homeless person in "THEIR" church because they aren't dressed right. It would reflect poorly on them (pun intended) in their estimation before the world. And yet, by so doing, they may have missed an opportunity to have "entertained angels unawares" (as the KJV puts Heb. 13:2).

      Delete
    7. Not only does it take extra money to buy a suit (or dress), but one would feel pressured to have to buy a few of them so that he can rotate his wearing of them often enough so it doesn't look awkward. Moreover, suits (and some dresses) require dry cleaning which itself takes extra money, extra time and extra gas which poorer people don't have to spare.

      Also, larger families tend to be poorer than smaller families (as BOTH cause and effect). Poorer married couples have less money to spend on entertainment. And so the only "entertainment" they can presently enjoy often leads to a larger family 9 months later. And naturally, larger families are also poorer because there are more mouths to feed and there's lesser food/money to go around to everyone. The Matthew Effect results in the poor getting poorer.

      As I said above, "Ironically, while James says that the Kingdom of God is especially for the poor, requiring people (either by explicit rule or by psychological expectation) that people dress up for church actually makes church less accessible to the poor and more accessible to the rich(!)."

      It places an unnecessary burden on the poor. As if you almost have to pay your way into God's presence. For the poor, it ought to be literally true, "Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to Thy Cross I cling." A mandatory dress code implicitly denies the simplicity and gratuity/freeness of the Gospel offer.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that village atheist humor?

      Delete
    2. That does sound like atheist humor. But if it isn't and Joey & Christy is serious, then John 21:7 would suggest otherwise. The last part of verse 7 says that Peter:

      "threw himself into the sea." - ESV
      "threw himself into the sea."- NASB
      "plunged into the sea."- NKJV
      "plunged into the sea."- NET
      "cast himself into the sea."- ASV

      Delete