The Biblical Naturist

Squeamish Translating – Prologue

2012-01-14T23:11:00.003-08:00

My Reticence to Write This

Christianity and Naturism are seen by most Christians today as morally incompatible. Yet, I have proclaimed myself to be a Naturist by Biblical Conviction. In other words, not only do I see them as morally compatible, I have found that my commitment to Biblical truth forces me to counter the lies of our culture (including Christian culture) by literally embracing naturism.

For many Christians today, that fact alone puts a bull's-eye on my forehead. Being a “target” for attack and condemnation is certainly not something I need to make worse.

But… suggesting—as I will in this series of articles—that the Bible has been translated into modern English in a way that communicates a bias against nudity might be like begging people to take more pot-shots at me. They might feel justified in claiming that I don’t respect the Scriptures and that I’m just trying to “explain away” any negative reference to nudity; as if I were saying, “I don’t like that passage… I’ll just claim that it’s a bad translation.”

I recognize that some might assume that… or want to make it appear that that’s the case, but it is not.

My View of Scripture

I have the utmost respect for the Scriptures. They are inspired by God and without error in the original documents. They are true and authoritative.

And it is precisely this commitment to the inspired text that drives me to write these articles.

The English translations are not “inspired” (none of them!). Only the original language text is inspired by God. Therefore, every translation must be assessed according to its accuracy to the true meaning of the original language text. Thorough study of the Bible must include an examination of the original language words used to ensure that the process of translating the text into English neither obscures nor adds to the meaning intended by the original author communicating with his original audience.

How I Discovered This Bias

When I first began to study the Bible’s perspective on nudity, I searched the Scriptures for every place where nudity is mentioned or implied. My search was conducted primarily by finding the original Greek or Hebrew terms that reference nakedness, then examining every passage that uses those terms in multiple English translations.

To my surprise, it seemed that every time there was a passage that spoke of nakedness in a positive or neutral way, the modern translations rendered the passage in a way that would allow the reader to avoid imagining or thinking about nakedness. Conversely, whenever a passage criticized or condemned a negative expression of nakedness, the modern translations did not shrink at all from using the word “naked.”

The pattern was consistent enough that I began to suspect a bias.

Hats Off to the KJV!

I am not suggesting that all English translations are biased against nakedness. Where the NASB and the NIV were evidently squeamish about the N-words, the KJV was bold and accurate.

The real question is this: if the KJV translators were willing to use the word “naked” wherever the original authors of the Scriptures did, why weren’t the NASB and NIV translators willing to do the same? If the KJV narratives describe contexts where nudity was possible (according to the original language text), what compelled the NASB and NIV translators to modify the meaning or add words that preclude that understanding?

I Have to Write This

My commitment to Biblical accuracy compels me expose the evidence for this bias.

Some may dismiss the evidence as inconclusive or meaningless. Some will dismiss anything I say because I have dared to criticize the highly trained and skilled people who gave us God’s Word in English. Some will declare that it is I who am unwilling to hear what the Scriptures are saying and that I am only attempting to explain away that which I don’t like.

But, others will look honestly enough at the evidence to question their previous assumptions. They may find that things they’ve always thought the Bible taught aren’t actually there after all. They may see—as I do—a squeamishness on the part of the translators that prevented them from translating the inspired text as accurately as they should have.

Either way, I write to promote the truth. If I take some shots in the process, so be it.

— 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 - Introduction

2012-01-14T23:11:00.001-08:00

My Choice in Scripture Translations

I was raised on the King James Version. Growing up, my father always preached from the KJV. As a child, it was the KJV that we memorized in Sunday School class.

I was never taught that the KJV was the only valid translation; my father correctly believed and taught that Scriptural authority is to be found in the original language texts rather than a translation into a modern language by fallible men. Consequently, he regular read and considered the renderings of other translations as they became available.

I myself have embraced the New American Standard Bible (NASB) as my translation of choice. Like the KJV, it is intentionally translated to maintain a word-for-word alignment with the original Greek or Hebrew texts. This means that for most words I read in the English text, I can trace them back to the specific Greek or Hebrew word from which it was translated. This ability is very important to me in my effort to be a student of the Scriptures.

My Approach to Biblical Study

I use the close connection to the Greek or Hebrew text as a springboard from which to dive into the original language words used for any passage that I’m studying. Using the amazing electronic tools available to us today, I can find the Greek/Hebrew word wherever it is used in the entire bible and use that to discern what the original term means (blueletterbible.org is a great online resource).

Often enough, the meaning of an original language term is slightly different than how we understand the English word used to translate it. When that is the case, we must lay aside any implications derived from the English which are not found in the Greek or Hebrew. Furthermore, we must expand our understanding to include any implications found in the original languages which did not survive the translation into English.

If you are brutally honest about doing this, it can be very disruptive to your current understanding of the Scriptures. You might find that things you’ve always believed aren’t really scriptural at all. Or things you never would have found in the English are implied in the original texts… and that also will have a profound impact on how you understand God’s Word.

Of course, this reality is unavoidable; it is simply the result of having to translate God’s Word into the languages that people speak. We have to recognize it, study through it to the best of our ability (not actually knowing the original language), and allow what we learn to inform our Scriptural interpretations and beliefs.

The Challenge of Translating

I so appreciate the herculean efforts of those who have studied for years to gain the knowledge it took to translate the Bible into modern languages! Where would we all be if they had not done so?

An Authoritative
Statement on Translating

The Forum for Bible Agencies International has produced a document stating their Basic Principles and Procedures for Bible Translation (available here).

All of the principles they present are excellent, but some of the principles that are especially worth noting for the purposes of this series of articles (emphasis mine):

1. To translate the Scriptures accurately, without loss, change, distortion or embellishment of the meaning of the original text. Accuracy in Bible translation is the faithful communication, as exactly as possible, of that meaning, determined according to sound principles of exegesis.
…
4. To represent faithfully the original historical and cultural context. Historical facts and events should be expressed without distortion. Due to differences of situation and culture, in some passages the receptor audience may need access to additional background information in order to adequately understand the message that the original author was seeking to communicate to the original audience.

5. To make every effort to ensure that no political, ideological, social, cultural, or theological agenda is allowed to distort the translation

“Squeamish Translating,” as I have defined it in this Introduction, is a violation of these principles, particularly those specific statements that I have underlined above.

But translating is never an exact science. The effort has surely been made to translate the original text as accurately as possible, but it is literally impossible to completely rid oneself of every pre-understanding or cultural perspective in order to get it right. The translators are human after all.

Consequently, we should not be surprised if—from time to time—we can discern a bias in the English translation that inadvertently hides a meaning that should be there in the English text or introduces a meaning that was not there in the source text. To acknowledge this possibility is not to disrespect the translators. To suggest that it has happened is not to discount all the high-quality work that has been done elsewhere in the text.

Squeamish Translating

I already mentioned that I left the KJV behind when I transitioned to the NASB as my study version of preference. However, I still compare multiple versions—including the KJV—when I’m digging into something.

Rather unexpectedly, I found my appreciation for the KJV deepened when I began studying the issue of nakedness in the Bible. The reason for this is that by comparing the KJV, NASB, NIV and other translations to the original language texts, I found that the KJV was the most likely to “tell it like it is” whenever nakedness was mentioned or implied. In the KJV, if the word was “naked,” in the Greek, it was “naked” in English. By contrast, the NASB and NIV seemed to shy away from using the “N-word.”

This tendency is one I call “Squeamish Translating”… and no, I’ve never heard anyone else describe it that way. Let me define it this way:

Squeamish Translating of the Scriptures is the phenomenon where Scripture passages which mention or imply nudity are:
- reworded to soften the words describing the nudity
- given additional words that slightly change the meaning which obscures the idea that nakedness may be possible or implied.
- translated word for word, but only when the nakedness is cast in a negative light.

I do not doubt the purity of motives of those who translated the Scriptures in a squeamish manner, but I am suggesting that there exists in our culture today a bias against nudity. It is perceived as wrong and sinful in any but a marital or medical context. I believe that bias has made its way into the modern translations.

The KJV translators, however, did not display that sort of squeamishness! For this reason, my appreciation of their work has grown.

I Will Show You What I Mean…

In the posts that follow, I will show you where I have found evidence of this squeamishness in the NASB and the NIV. At the same time, I’ll show you how the KJV translates the Greek text more literally. In all cases, the comparison will be made to the words in the source text, for every translation stands or falls based on its fidelity to the original language meaning. For the sake of keeping the series of articles manageable in quantity, I have limited my examples to New Testament passages.

None of the passages I review here will, by themselves, prove that there is any sort of bias against nudity. In each case, the translations provided are not without justification. But collectively, they betray a subtle prejudice against any nudity that is not presented in a negative way. In each case, the translation is such that we may not have to create any sort of mental image that someone may literally be naked… and we don’t have to read the N-word, even if that’s the word used in the Greek or Hebrew.

I will first present the Scripture text in Greek, KJV, NASB, and NIV, then offer some observations or comments. The texts will not be altered in any way except to highlight the words of interest in a contrasting color. There will be no dispute about the textual data. My comments, on the other hand, will likely meet with some objection. I ask my readers to hear me out… and see if you discern a bias as well. And bear in mind… the bias you discern may be your own.

— 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 1 – Naked Disciple(s)

2012-01-14T23:10:00.005-08:00

In this series of posts, I intend to demonstrate how modern translations seem to be squeamish about how nudity, particularly when that nudity was a natural part of normal life.

Peter was Naked…

The first example might be a familiar one… it comes from John 21:7b. Here are the texts… the word in red is the Greek word gymnos (G1131) which means “naked.”

Greek	οὖν Πέτρος ἀκούσας ὅτι ὁ κύριός ἐστιν τὸν ἐπενδύτην διεζώσατο ἦν γὰρ γυμνός καὶ ἔβαλεν ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν
KJV	*Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt [his] fisher's coat [unto him], (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.*
NASB	*So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea.*
NIV	*As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water.*

Comments

There are several important things to note in this passage, but let’s start with that which is easiest to see.

The simple reading of the various versions demonstrates quite clearly that the KJV uses the English word “naked” because that’s the word found in the Greek text. However, in both the NASB and the NIV, different words are used. They do not require the reader to face the word “naked.” Instead, the wording is such that common usage might employ either phrase to describe someone who was not, in fact, completely naked.

Was Peter fully naked? Well, that’s the word used in the Greek. Perhaps the word gymnos could describe someone who was not completely naked, but there’s no other word in Greek to describe anyone who is any more naked than gymnos.

In any case, the Greek word used by the author is not in question. It would seem that the best approach to translating it would be to use the English word that most closely matches the root Greek word that God chose to use. That way, the reader can take in the words as God inspired them, studying the passage more closely if needed to discern its true meaning.

Yet, for some reason, the modern translations do not allow us to see it that way. I suggest that this is an example of squeamish translating.

Allow me to discuss a few additional thoughts in support of this claim.

Was Peter Alone?

First of all, the fact that Peter was uncritically described in the text as gymnos means that we have no basis in this passage to criticize him ourselves. If we ask why he was gymnos, the text itself provides the answer; he was naked to do his work… he was fishing.

But Peter was not fishing alone. There were six other disciples that went with him and the text tells us the names of all but two of them (the “sons of Zebedee” were James and John). Could Peter have been the only one who was gymnos? I find that highly unlikely. If Peter was naked because he was fishing, surely those who shared his task also matched his “attire.”

Peter, James and John had all been professional fishermen before they met Christ. This fishing trip was not a casual outing with a can of worms and a hook on a string to pass the time; it was a return to their previous profession, complete with a fishing boat and nets. They worked all night long, intending to catch a boatload of fish to sell, earning some money.

Fishing with nets on a boat is a dirty, wet, and smelly activity. Clothing was valuable and had to be hand washed every time the laundry needed to be done. Taking off clothes to avoid soiling them was a very sensible strategy to keep clothing in wearable condition. Going naked on a boat, particularly while fishing, was most likely the standard practice at the time (see the ancient stone relief image below… the men in the boat are all naked).

I found the picture above in a Bible-History book in my church library. It is a 2nd or 3rd century stone relief showing three boats and their sailors battling a rough sea. Note that all of the sailors are completely nude. Click the picture to see it full size.

I don’t believe that Peter was naked alone. I suspect that the only reason we were told that he was naked was because he took the time to grab his garment before jumping in the water to swim ashore. The narrative focuses on Peter and he was the only who acted, so he’s the only one whose attire—or lack thereof—was mentioned.

A Boat Full of Naked Disciples?

The logical path I have just trod is not difficult to traverse, nor is the conclusion at all unlikely. But if I am correct in that conclusion, it means that there were seven naked guys in the boat… and all disciples of Jesus at that!

That’s not a mental movie clip that plays well in the modern Christian mind. Most people—including, perhaps, the translators—would simply say, “well, surely they weren’t all naked….” The next thought, of course… Peter probably wasn’t really naked either…

As it turns out, the translators had the opportunity to soften the blow—to “protect” us from having to think about a boat full of naked fishermen. So… Peter was “stripped for work” (NASB). Or even more palatable, Peter was just putting on the “outer garment” that he had “taken… off” (NIV). Now we don’t even have to visualize Peter naked, either.

Is that squeamish translating? Maybe… it sure smells fishy to me (pardon the pun). But for sure, the words the NASB and NIV translators used are different than the natural meaning of the Greek word. I would prefer that they gave us the real word, then trusted us to seek God’s enlightenment as to its true meaning.

But There’s More…

My study of this passage has revealed a couple of other oddities that bear examination. The first has to do with the garment that Peter grabbed before he jumped into the water.

The Greek word is ἐπενδύτην (ependytēs - G1903).

This is the only place this word is used in the Bible.
It is not the same word used in the NT to describe the tunic or robe typically worn in that day.
The KJV translators acknowledged this by calling it a “fisher’s coat,” but evidently this was something of a guess, since other translations do not render it that way.
The precise type of garment Peter had is not known for sure. Extrabiblical sources mention the garment, but generally as something of an ornamental garment worn over other clothes (and it has no specific relation to fishing).
Consequently, while it is probably accurate to call it an “outer garment” of some sort, it would be a mistake to conclude from that translation that it was just a robe.

These observations have more significance when we also look at the verb used to describe how Peter put on the garment.

The Greek word is διαζώννυμι (diazōnnymi- G1241).

This is one of the only two places this word is used in the Bible, the other being when Jesus washed the disciples’ feet. It is not the same word typically used for “girding” oneself, which is περιζώννυμι (perizōnnymi – G4024).

I will address this word more fully in Part 2, but for now, suffice it to observe that not only was the garment Peter put on an unusual garment, the word used to describe how he put it on is unusual. This means that the precise definitions of diazōnnymi is impossible to determine from its contextual usage alone.

Summary

My points here are these:

The original text describes Peter as gymnos, “naked.”
Simple reason concludes that he was probably not the only one.
There is no compelling textual or historical reason to avoid the the word “naked” in the modern translations.
Our knowledge of the garment Peter had and how he put it on is very minimal, so even this provides no justification for altering the English rendering of the Greek word, gymnos.

This may be evidence of an intentional avoidance of the word “naked” in a Scripture text where the nakedness was normal, natural, and not condemned.

— 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 2 – An Unclothed Savior

2012-01-14T23:10:00.003-08:00

Squeamish About Nudity…

In this series of posts, I intend to demonstrate how modern translations seem to be squeamish about nudity, at least when that nudity was a natural part of normal life.

If you have not yet read the Introduction and Part 1, please do so before reading this segment.

In Part 1, I noted the apparent reticence of modern translations to note that Peter was actually naked in John 21:7b. Instead, they use language which allow us to imagine the scene without any nudity.

In this next passage, we turn our attention to Jesus and His washing of His disciples’ feet.

Jesus Took His Clothes Off

This is a familiar story; Jesus washes His disciples’ feet. It comes from John 13:4-5. Here is exactly what the texts say. The word in green is the Greek word, himatia (G2440) which refers to Jesus’ garments. The words in red are two forms of the same Greek verb, diazōnnymi (G1241), which tells us how Jesus “put on” the towel which He used to dry the disciples’ feet.

Greek	[Ἰησοῦς]… ἐγείρεται ἐκ τοῦ δείπνου καὶ τίθησιν τὰ ἱμάτια καὶ λαβὼν λέντιον διέζωσεν ἑαυτόν. εἶτα βάλλει ὕδωρ εἰς τὸν νιπτῆρα καὶ ἤρξατο νίπτειν τοὺς πόδας τῶν μαθητῶν καὶ ἐκμάσσειν τῷ λεντίῳ ᾧ ἦν διεζωσμένος
KJV	He [Jesus] riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.
NASB	[Jesus]… got up from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself. Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded.
NIV	…so he [Jesus] got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.

Comments

The questions that I would like to raise with this passage are these:

How much clothing did Jesus take off?
How did Jesus wear the towel?

Interestingly, if we look at the NIV, we get a very different answer than the other two English translations. The NIV tells us that Jesus only took off His outer clothing, and the towel was worn specifically “around His waist.”

The other two translations are in agreement that it was His “garments” and that He used the towel to “gird” Himself. Without much question the KJV and NASB are more faithful to the Greek, but even there, I believe there are important things to look at as we consider our understanding of the passage.

Was It All His Clothes, or Just His Outer Garments?

The Greek word used for “garments” is actually the plural form of the word used for the outer garment common at the time. I assume that this is the reason that the NIV translators rendered it “outer” clothing. However, a wider review of the scriptural usage of that term in plural shows conclusively that the term when used in plural can (and may always) refer to the outer garment as well as the tunic worn beneath it.

A comparison of the four gospels’ description of Jesus at the cross shows that one of the writers (John, 19:23) tells us that the soldiers stripped Jesus of both His outer garment and His tunic (chiton G5509). But in all four gospels (Matthew 27:25, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34, John 19:24 ), we are told that that they took His himatia – the same word used to describe what Jesus took off to wash the disciples’ feet.
Since we know from history that the Romans crucified criminals naked (How Did Jesus Die?), it can be understood that the use of the “outer garment” in plural can refer to all the clothing being worn.

This does not prove that Jesus stripped naked when He washed the disciples’ feet, but it certainly shows that it is a possibility, given the Greek word used. The English rendering by both the KJV and NASB correctly allows this understanding while the NIV clearly leads us away from it. This may be evidence of some squeamishness on the part of the NIV translators.

Was the towel around Jesus’ waist?

This question requires a more detailed analysis to answer.

The English word, “gird”—used by both the KJV and the NASB—leaves us with the impression that Jesus wrapped the towel around His waist. However, upon further examination of the Greek word used in this passage, there is evidence that calls that understanding into question.

I’d like to call your attention to three different Greek terms which refer to putting on clothing.

ζώννυμι (zōnnymi – G2224)
περιζώννυμι (perizōnnymi – G4024)
διαζώννυμι (diazōnnymi- G1241)

All three terms are related… The first term, zōnnymi, is the root word upon which the other two words are based, each including a prefix.

When they appear in the NT text, all three words are translated the same way (“gird”) by both the KJV and the NASB. But if all three words really mean the same thing, we have to wonder why they are different in the Greek. We should instead expect that the root word means one thing, and the added prefix modifies the root meaning in some way.

Let’s look at the words one at a time.

#1 - Zōnnymi is only found in one verse in the NT, John 21:18, where Jesus tells Peter that a time is coming when others will “dress” (NIV) or “gird” (NASB/KJV) him. From Jesus’ words to Peter, there’s nothing to indicate in what manner the “girding” or “dressing” would be done. Notably, the NIV does not use the same word as the other translations, but rather selects a neutral word that simply denotes the act of putting on clothes.

Because it is a root word and…
There is no indication in its NT usage as to how one is dressing…
I suggest that zōnnymi does not communicate any specific manner of dress. This means that the English word “gird”—which denotes the wrapping of clothing around a person—may actually communicate more than the Greek word actually means.

#2 – Of the three words, Perizōnnymi is the most commonly found in the Greek NT. Of the 7 times the word appears, three times the specific location of the clothing is mentioned. Two mention the loins (Luke 12:35 & Eph. 6:4) while one indicates that the wrapping happens around the chest (Rev. 1:13 - NIV and NASB). More precisely, however, the sash is around the “paps” (KJV) which actually refers to the nipples, albeit those of a man.

The prefix is peri-, and it is a prefix which we are familiar with in English. It means “around” and we see it with that meaning in the word “perimeter.”
The contextual usage of the word in the Scriptures point to a meaning that indicates the wrapping of a garment around a person’s body.
I suggest that of the three terms, perizōnnymi has the best evidence that it really means “gird” as we think about it in English.

#3 – Finally, διαζώννυμι appears in only two verses in the NT. One instance (John 21:7)—already noted in Part 1 of this series—describes the manner in which Peter put on the his ependytēs. The other instance is the one we are looking at above.

The prefix is dia-, and it is also a prefix which we are familiar with in English. It means “through” and we see it with that meaning in the word “diameter.”
Both verses in which this word appears in the NT offer little or no indication as to how a garment is put on since both verses describe the wearing of an uncommon garment.
Because the prefix dia- means something very different than the prefix peri- we should expect that diazōnnymi describes a different manner of dressing oneself as compared to perizōnnymi.
Based on the meaning of the prefix, I suggest that the we should consider this Greek word as describing the act of putting on clothing by passing a body part through an opening in the garment, much like we put on a sweater or T-shirt today.

But Does it Fit?

If the etymology of the word diazōnnymi leads us to consider a different manner of dressing oneself than “wrapping” with a garment, can we find that it makes sense with the context?

Looking first at Peters dressing himself with the ependytēs, we can’t really tell if he passed his head “through” the garment simply because we don’t know much about that type of garment. Still, it is certainly possible that it is a garment with a hole for the head; therefore, we cannot rule out this understanding of diazōnnymi idea based on its usage in John 21:7.

Looking at Jesus and his towel, let’s start with this question: how is a towel generally worn? Well, many times we take a towel and wrap it “around” us. But if that’s what Christ did, why didn’t the author of the text use perizōnnymi (peri- = “around”) instead of diazōnnymi? Couldn’t it be that Jesus didn’t actually wrap the towel “around” Himself?

Wrapping a towel around the body is not the only way that a towel may be worn; it also may be draped across the shoulder, or behind the neck and across both shoulders. We’ve all done this ourselves… if you grab a towel by its ends to flip it over your head, you would literally be creating a loop of the towel through (dia-) which you would pass your head. If this is what Jesus did, it would explain why diazōnnymi is used instead of perizōnnymi.

In other words, judging from the Greek text, it is conceivable—even probable—that Jesus did not wear the towel around his waist, but rather draped on His neck/shoulders.

Where Would You Keep a Towel for Drying Feet?

Thinking about it further, if you intend to wash someone’s feet and you want to keep a towel handy for the purpose of drying those feet, you would not wrap that towel around your waist… rather, you would drape it over your neck so that it is literally hanging inches from the feet you were washing.

I remember having a Sunday School teacher tell this story when I was a kid. She suggested that it “must have been a very long towel.” Why? Well, because a short towel would not have been long enough to keep Jesus “girded” when He used it to dry His disciples’ feet. But that’s just an assumption about the story that is simply not found in the text.

The Towel Wasn’t Around His Waist.

The Greek term used to describe how Jesus wore the towel was not the Greek word that describes “wrapping” or “girding.” The word used in this passage, diazōnnymi, actually supports the idea that the towel was worn across the shoulders instead of around the waist. Simple reason and practicality says that the best place to “wear” that towel is across the shoulders.

I don’t believe Jesus wore the towel around His waist at all.

In Review…

I’ve examined two questions in reference to John 13:4-5.

Did Jesus take off all of His clothes to wash the disciples’ feet?
Did Jesus wear the towel around His waist?

Neither of these questions can be conclusively answered from the Greek text. However, the textual evidence actually points to a “yes” for question #1, and a “no” for question #2.

However, if we answer the questions that way, it leaves the story wide open for us to imagine the scene with Jesus completely naked, save a towel across His shoulders… and the thought of a voluntarily naked Savior is not one that we are very willing to entertain today.

What do we find in the English translations, though? NASB and KJV both do well with Question #1, but with the use of the word “gird,” they tend to lead us away from the answer “no” on Question #2.

The NIV is another story altogether. On both questions, we are clearly led away from the answers that I have suggested are the most accurate.

Was Jesus Actually Naked While Washing the Disciples’ Feet?

There is evidence that in ancient times, those who did manual labor as slaves/servants often performed their work unclothed. If that is true, then being unclothed was literally one of the signs of servant status. Within such a cultural context, Jesus’ act of stripping naked would have very poignantly communicated His intent to take the role of a servant before His disciples.

While the Scriptural text does not lead us to a firm conclusion that Jesus was naked, it absolutely does not contradict the idea. Instead, it actually leans towards it.

Squeamish Translating?

What we find in the English translations definitely leads us away from the understanding that Jesus may have been naked before His disciples. This is most clearly in evidence in the NIV’s rendering. There simply is no textual reason to slant the English rendering that way.

Is it a reflection of our cultural squeamishness about nakedness?

Perhaps it is. One passage cannot make that case by itself. However, as we continue to examine other examples, the combined weight of evidence from several different passages may make the case more compelling than one passage can.

— 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 3 – Writing Scripture Naked

2012-01-14T23:10:00.001-08:00

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 Bible does mention nakedness at times when it is not condemned or criticized. In such passages, I have observed that we are typically shielded from the real meaning of the original text in modern translations. This allows us (or even leads us) to form conclusions that are in direct opposition to the meaning of the inspired text.

Such is the case in this next passage that I want to highlight.

The Apostle Paul was Naked While Writing to the Church at Corinth.

The passage in 1 Cor. 4:11 is not one that we hear about much. Paul writes these words to the Corinthians almost in passing as he details to his audience the hardships that he and his companions have suffered in their service to Christ.

Here is exactly what the texts say. The word in red is the Greek word, gymnēteuō (G1130) which is based on the Greek word, gymnos (“naked” G1131).

Greek	ἄχρι τῆς ἄρτι ὥρας καὶ πεινῶμεν καὶ διψῶμεν καὶ γυμνητεύομεν, καὶ κολαφιζόμεθα καὶ ἀστατοῦμεν
KJV	*Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;*
NASB	*To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless;.*
NIV	*To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless.*

Comments

The disparity between the various translations is easy to see. The Greek word is a derivative of the word gymnos which we have already noted means “naked.”

The KJV faithfully and accurately translates it according to the real meaning of the Greek word.

However, I have a very hard time finding any justification for the other two translations. The meaning of the English translation is actually the opposite of the Greek word’s meaning:

In the Greek, Paul said, “we are naked.”
NASB says, “we are … clothed”
NIV says, “we are in rags.”

In both translations, a very different mental picture is painted than Paul (and God!) intended for us to have!

Even If They Weren’t Naked…

Were Paul and his companion(s) literally naked as he penned these words? Perhaps not. But even if they were not, do we really need the translators to insulate us from hyperbole for fear that we just might take Paul’s words at face value? Evidently, the translators of the KJV felt no such need to modify Paul’s writing. If they were willing to translate Paul’s words exactly as they were written, why are the NASB and NIV translators evidently unwilling to do so?

Maybe Paul was not actually naked as he wrote, but at the same time, it’s entirely possible that he really was naked! Either way, that IS what Paul really said. So, that’s what the English rendering should say!

Could they have literally been naked? Yes. There is no reason in the inspired text to assume otherwise.

Consider the situation they were in: they were being persecuted! Their persecutors were not concerned at all for their “dignity” nor did they care for their welfare. Paul and the others were being mistreated and clothing was an item of value that could have been—and evidently was—taken from them. The idea that they may have been genuinely naked certainly is not contrary to the context or the plain meaning of Paul’s words.

We Don’t Need a Censor.

Even if Paul was not completely naked, he chose a word to describe himself that way on purpose. It is not the place of translators to “filter” the text to make it more palatable to the contemporary mind.

We are followers of Christ. We are students of the Bible. Let us read the Word as God inspired it!

To me, this is one of the clearest examples of squeamish translating that I have run across. It is made all the more evident by the fact that the KJV translators did not shrink from translating Paul’s words directly and accurately. However, for some reason the NASB and NIV translators intentionally avoided the word “naked” and translated it in a way is actually contradicts the inspired text.

— 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 4 – Unclothed Servants

2012-01-14T23:09:00.003-08:00

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

2012-01-14T23:09:00.001-08:00

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

2012-01-14T23:08:00.001-08:00

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??

2011-11-22T00:34:00.001-08:00

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

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

The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Introduction

2011-11-13T15:30:00.001-08:00

“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 – Part 1 - Shame and Fear??

2011-11-13T15:03:00.001-08:00

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 – Part 2 - Clothing as Currency

2011-11-13T15:02:00.001-08:00

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 – Part 3 - Sign of Position

2011-11-13T15:01:00.001-08:00

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 to Denote Position

Genesis 41:39-42 – “So Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘Since God has informed you of all this, there is no one so discerning and wise as you are. You shall be over my house, and according to your command all my people shall do homage; only in the throne I will be greater than you.’ Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.’ Then Pharaoh took off his signet ring from his hand and put it on Joseph’s hand, and clothed him in garments of fine linen and put the gold necklace around his neck.” (NASB)

When Pharaoh put Joseph in charge of the entire land of Egypt, He gave him a fine linen garment and some impressive jewelry… all to signify his important position in the land of Egypt.

Exodus 28:2-3 – “Make sacred garments for your brother Aaron to give him dignity and honor. … 4 These are the garments they are to make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a woven tunic, a turban and a sash. They are to make these sacred garments for your brother Aaron and his sons, so they may serve me as priests.” (NIV)

When God established the nation of Israel, it was established as a Theocracy. This means that God was their “King” and the “Government Officials” were the priests. God never established any particular requirements of the Israelites in reference to clothing, but for the Priests—or more specifically, the sons of Aaron—God prescribed in great detail the “uniform” (down to their underwear!) they were to wear during their service in the temple before the altar. Exodus 28 gives all the details, but the purpose of the clothing was stated very clearly in Exodus 28:2-5…

The garments were specifically for the position of the Aaronic Priestly line. They were designed specifically to give the priests “dignity and honor” in their role as priests. They were to be the mark of their peculiar ordination as priests (verse 41) and were required to be worn whenever the priests entered the tent of meeting or approached the altar… on pain of death (verse 43)!

Another evidence of clothing denoting an exalted position can be found in Isaiah 6. The Prophet was in the temple when he saw a vision of the Lord on His throne. The Lord is described in this vision as having a robe with a train. The train, Isaiah tells us, is “filling the temple.” (Isa 6:1)

Isaiah 6:1 “In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple.” (NASB)

This raises some interesting questions… like why was the Lord “wearing” anything at all? Does God need clothing? And what is the purpose of the “train” of a robe?

Like a wedding dress that may have a train, the purpose of a robe with a train is to bring honor to its wearer. The train itself can serve no other function. Consequently, the purpose of God’s “robe” and its train in Isaiah 6 is to denote or portray the “lofty and exalted” position of its wearer.

Observation #3
Clothing is used in the Bible to signify the exalted position of its wearer.

So, clothing can serve as an outward indication of the wearer’s positional stature. Not only did God prescribe it for the Aaronic priests, He allowed Isaiah to see Himself in a robe with a train to emphasize His own greatness as King.

Does it Fit “Before and After” the Fall?

So, if the exaltation of a person’s position is a biblically valid purpose for clothing, could this be why God provided clothing for Adam and Eve in Gen. 3:21?

Clearly, it was not. Adam and Eve were not being exalted by the animal skin coats that God made for them. These were not clothes that would indicate to everyone who saw them of the great honor and positional status that they held. The truth is that they had suffered a pretty significant demotion rather than any sort of elevation of position.

— Matthew Neal

This article Series:

The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 4 - Communicate About the Person

2011-11-13T15:00:00.001-08:00

In the Introduction to 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, no explanation, and no 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.

In Review…

Up to this point, we have observed that:

While Adam and Eve wore “clothes” to address fear and shame, God did not approve of that purpose for clothing, so it cannot be why He clothed them.
Clothing can be used as collateral or currency, but this cannot be why they were clothed.
Clothing was sometimes used to denote a person’s exalted position, but again, this does not explain why God clothed Adam and Eve.

So, we continue our survey of the Bible to see if any other valid reason for clothing matches the context of the Fall and would give us a clue as to why God gave Adam and Eve their coats of skin.

Clothing to Communicate Something about a Person

A survey of the Scriptures also shows that there are times that clothing was used to communicate something about its wearer. This is related to the purpose described in Part 3 (a sign of position), but it allows for other—perhaps more mundane—messages. Let me highlight some and briefly comment on each one.

Clothing to show that the wearer is in mourning.

Genesis 37:34 - “So Jacob tore his clothes, and put sackcloth on his loins and mourned for his son many days.” (NASB)

The wearing of sackcloth is recorded some 44 times in the Old and New Testaments. 42 of those 44 times, the wearing of sackcloth is associated with mourning as it is in the passage above. Interestingly, the rending of clothing often precedes the donning of sackcloth and is part of the expression of mourning.

Clothing to show that the wearer is rich.

Luke 16:19 - “Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. (NASB)

James 2:2-3 – “For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, 3 and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,…” (NASB)

We can see from these passages that God is not impressed with fine clothing—nor should we give special treatment to those with such clothes—but we can also see here that clothing and jewelry have the power to tell us that their wearer is wealthy.

Clothing to show that the wearer is a harlot.

Proverbs 7:10 - ”And behold, a woman comes to meet him, Dressed as a harlot and cunning of heart” (NASB)

In this case, the woman is dressed in such a way as to alert others that she was sexually available. Of course, the Scriptures would not condone such activity nor the message, but we do see that the clothing communicates something very specific to the observer about the person wearing the clothes.

Clothing to show that the wearer is a favored.

Genesis 37:3 - ”Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was the son of his old age; and he made him a varicolored tunic.” (NASB)

I don’t think the Bible condones our having “favorites” among our children, but Joseph’s father Israel did show such favoritism. The way he expressed it was by giving Joseph a unique tunic that was very different from all his brothers’ clothing. Every time his brothers saw it, they would be reminded of the favored status that Joseph held in their father’s heart. This special and unique garment communicated the favored status of the one wearing it.

Clothing to show that the wearer is holy.

Revelation 19:7 – “It was given to her [the bride of Christ] to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.” (NASB)

Revelation 19:14 – “And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses.” (NASB)

The clothing worn by the bride of Christ and the armies which return with Christ at His second coming may not be literal clothing, since they are actually defined here as “righteous acts.” However, we can still see that the purpose of the white garments— as described in John’s vision—was to reflect the righteousness of the wearers.

A Point of Note…

It is important to note here that the precise message of that which is worn is not absolute, but rather, it is culturally determined. In the examples I have given, we are told the meaning of the garment without being told much (if anything) about the garment itself.

Today, no one girds their loins with sackcloth to show that they are in mourning. This was only a convention in ancient times.
The exact style or nature of the ornate clothing of the rich is not recorded and is different for every culture.
There is nothing recorded about exactly what the harlot wore. Every culture has harlots, and within every culture, it is defined how they dress to communicate it, but no two cultures are the same.
In John’s vision, God inspired him to actually record the precise meaning of the white linen garments, lest the reader define a meaning according to his or her own cultural understanding.

Observation #4
Clothing is used in the Bible to communicate something about the person wearing the garment.

Biblically speaking, we can see that clothing is sometimes used to communicate something about the wearer of the clothes. Notably, the specific content of the message is dependent on the cultural norms in which it is used. Furthermore, the morality of what is worn will depend upon what is intended to be communicated. Even God utilized this method of communication about a person, therefore, it must be considered Scripturally valid.

Does it Fit “Before and After” the Fall?

What about the clothing of Adam and Eve? Was there something that God was intending to communicate about them that He used the leather garments to say?

At first consideration, this is plausible. Could it be that their new clothes were to signify that they were now sinners? Was their clothing intended to be a constant reminder of their sin?

While this idea does seem like it could have some merit, there is no corroboration for it anywhere in the Bible. We do not find that message assigned to the garments in the immediate context, nor is there any other time where clothing is ever used for that particular message. Furthermore, that meaning is never mentioned regarding Adam and Eve anywhere in the Bible.

Consequently, I conclude that this purpose for the clothing of Adam and Eve—while plausible—is not satisfactory. We simply have to read too much meaning into the text to have any confidence that we are understanding the correct “meaning” that their clothes were intended to communicate.

For those who may disagree with my conclusion on this possible purpose for God clothing Adam and Eve, I’ve addressed further implications of the idea in my Epilogue to this series.

— Matthew Neal

This article Series:

The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 5 – Gender Distinction?

2011-11-13T14:59:00.001-08:00

God created Adam and Eve with natural, physical gender distinctions. Later, after they sinned, He clothed them. At least in some measure, their gender-specific attributes would now be covered. Could it be that the clothing was intended to show gender distinction?.

Men’s Clothing vs. Women’s Clothing

I can only think if one verse that addresses gender-specific clothing. It’s found in Deut. 22:5.

Deut. 22:5 – “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God. ” (NASB)

At first reading, it does seem that clothing can be used for gender distinction. However, this is worth a closer look. Let me make some observations:

The Bible never ever defines what “man’s clothing” is so as to distinguish it from “women’s clothing.”
- Such stylistic ideas are culturally invented.
- At the time this was written, the typical clothing for men AND women was essentially the same! They wore a simple tunic, and perhaps an outer garment like a robe. Headwear was the same and so was footwear.
- Pants/shirts/dresses/etc. were not in the picture at all, and so they cannot be what the passage is talking about.
This passage must be interpreted in light of the clear Scriptural truth that while “man looks on the outward appearance, God looks upon the heart.” (1 Sam. 16:7)
- If such a thing is truly an “abomination” to the Lord, then it must be that there is something about this law that reveals the heart.
- If we stop at the surface understanding that God is saying that people must conform to cultural norms for gender-distinct clothing, we are elevating cultural conventions to moral absolute. This simply cannot be the force of this passage.

These observations by themselves should give us pause before we conclude that clothing is to be a means of gender distinction. But if we look closer at the meaning of the Hebrew terms behind the English text, that interpretation becomes even more unlikely.

Is it Really Clothing God is Talking About?

Let’s look more closely at the words God used here:

“A woman shall not wear man’s clothing…”

The word translated “clothing” here is the Hebrew word, kelē. A review of how this word is used reveals that even though it is found in the OT over 300 times, it is never translated “clothing” except here! The most common word used is “vessel” (122 times). Also used are these words: “instrument” (39), “weapon” (21), & “jewel” (21).

So is it really clothing? Or could the passage actually be intended to forbid a woman from taking up the role of a man, along with the items a man uses to fulfill that role?

Perhaps the King James Version is actually more accurate here: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man….” It’s not just about wearing men’s styles in clothing, it’s about assuming the place of a man.

This understanding finds corroboration in the New Testament in Paul’s words to Timothy:

1 Tim. 2:12 – “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (NASB)

But what about the next part of the verse?

“…nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing…”

The word translated “clothing” here does refer to a garment of some sort. But again, can we conclude from this phrase that some kinds (or styles) of garments are truly gender-aligned?

Is there any sort of garment described in the Bible as a “woman’s” garment? I don’t think there is. If God never defines what a “woman’s garment” is, how can we possibly know how to follow this command? Once again, we dare not elevate cultural norms to the level of moral absolute.

May I suggest that there is one type of garment that would be identifiable as “woman’s clothing”? It is the one which she uses to catch the flow of blood during her menstrual cycle. There are no other laws in the Bible about any gender-identified clothing, but there are plenty that regulate the response to a women’s period. Lev. 15:19-24 make it clear that she is to be considered ritually “unclean” during her flow. Furthermore, her bed and anything she sits on are likewise unclean. Finally, anyone else who touches anything that she has made unclean is also considered unclean.

In other words, it is possible that the “woman’s clothing” that Deut. 22:5 refers to is actually her menstrual cloth. This would be identifiable in any culture or time, and it is consistent with the fact that there are other laws which govern a woman’s menstrual cycle.

What the Passage May Really Mean…

If we take the passage to mean what it sounds like on the surface, we are faced with a HUGE gap in our knowledge of exactly what God is referring to… what kind of clothes are to be identified as gender-specific? We simply don’t know.

Based on my discussion of the Hebrew words above, let me offer an alternative interpretation of this the verse in Deut. 22:5…

God wants women to respect the role of men… including the implements men use to fulfill that role. God wants men to respect the role of women… including the garments that she must use specifically as a woman.

But there could be a simpler meaning…

God wants both genders to accept themselves as God made them. If a woman rejects her own gender and longs to be a man, or if a man rejects his own gender and longs to be a woman… she, and he, are literally rejecting God’s will for their lives. That rejection would indeed be an insult—an “abomination”— to God.

One way or the other, there is simply not enough information to conclude that clothing is intended to be a means by which we identify gender.

Observation #5
Clothing for gender distinction is not clearly confirmed in the Bible.

There is only one verse that would come close to validating this purpose for clothing, but there is no way to know from the Bible how it should be followed if we were to interpret it that way. Close examination of that one verse makes it yet more doubtful that such and interpretation is sure.

But let’s go one more step and see if it could fit the context of Gen. 1-3.

Does it Fit “Before and After” the Fall?

There was no need for any external gender-identification for Adam and Eve before the fall. Did anything change at the Fall that now required clothing to identify gender?

Obviously not. The physical distinctions of male and female were the same after the fall as before.

Furthermore, for all we are told in Gen. 3:21, God made the coats of skin the same for Adam as for Eve. They wore clothes of the exact same “material” and in the same “style.”

Finally, if they were clearly and naturally gender identifiable while naked, there would simply be no reason at all to give them ambiguous and unnatural external garments to “distinguish” their gender.

Even if we were to conclude that clothing does have some purpose for gender-distinction, it does not in any way offer an explanation for why God' clothed Adam and Eve in Gen. 3:21.

— Matthew Neal

This article Series:

The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 6 - Warmth and Protection

2011-11-13T14:57:00.001-08:00

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. But why?

We continue our survey of biblically valid purposes for clothing.

Clothing to Keep the Body Warm

A very clear purpose for clothing in the Bible is for warmth and protection. Here are some examples in the Scriptures where it can be found.

1 Kings 1:1 – “Now King David was old, advanced in age; and they covered him with clothes, but he could not keep warm” (NASB)

The clothing which they gave the aging king was for the purpose of keeping him warm.

Job: 31:19-20 “If I have seen anyone perish for lack of clothing, Or that the needy had no covering, If his loins have not thanked me, And if he has not been warmed with the fleece of my sheep…” (NASB)

Job claimed innocence from any sin that he could think of, including the sin of failing to provide clothing for the needy… that is, neglecting to provide them a way to keep warm.

Exodus 22:25-27 - “If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, you are not to act as a creditor to him; you shall not charge him interest. If you ever take your neighbor’s cloak as a pledge, you are to return it to him before the sun sets, for that is his only covering; it is his cloak for his body. What else shall he sleep in?” (NASB)

Deuteronomy 24:12-13 – “If he is a poor man, you shall not sleep with his pledge. When the sun goes down you shall surely return the pledge to him, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you;” (NASB)

We looked at this one before, noting that clothing could be used as collateral and/or currency. But we can also see from these passages that if we held someone’s cloak as a “pledge,” we were not to keep it overnight. He would need it to “sleep in”… protecting him from the cool of the night.

It should be noted that this law only applied if you held the cloak of a man who was actually poor. This underscores the fact the poor often had only one garment (if that much). Those who were wealthy evidently had other means to keep warm at night.

James 2:15-16 “If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?” (NASB)

This is perhaps the clearest passage that shows that a central purpose for clothing is to provide warmth for the body. It would be wrong to say to someone “be warmed” without providing clothing, just as it would be wrong to say “be filled” without providing food. Clothing is used to keep the body warm.

Whenever in the Scriptures we are told to clothe the naked, this passage confirms to us that the core purpose for that provision is to allow them to keep their bodies warm.

Clothing for Protection

Eph. 6:11 – “Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.” (NASB)

References to armor abound in the Scriptures, but only in Eph. 6:10-17 do we ever see a clear description of the various pieces of armor. We know that Paul attached spiritual meaning to each piece in this passage, but without much doubt, he used his knowledge of a Roman soldier’s real armor to guide his writing. In fact, it’s probable that he could actually see a Roman soldier as he penned the words, since it is generally believed that he was in a Roman prison when he wrote the book of Ephesians.

Each piece of the armor was designed and worn to protect the body from physical harm.

Observation #6
Clothing is used in the Bible to protect the body from cold or harm.

Biblically speaking, we can see that one very important purpose for clothing is to protect the body from cold or some other form of physical harm, therefore, it must be considered Scripturally valid usage for clothing.

Does it Fit “Before and After” the Fall?

Did Adam and Eve have a need for warmth or protection? Did anything change from before the Fall that would introduce the need for physical protection of the body from cold or harm after the Fall?

I submit that there is! Let’s look at Genesis 3:

Gen. 3:17-18 “…Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field;” (NASB)

Gen. 3:24 “So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.” (NASB)

When Adam and Eve sinned, they were subsequently cursed by God. As a part of that curse, the ground would now yield thorns and thistles which would impede the man’s efforts to work the ground to produce food. Thorns, of course, represent a real danger to a person’s physical body.
Before the Fall, Adam and Eve lived in the perfect environment of the Garden of Eden. It had been custom designed for the human couple to live in without any need for clothing. The temperature must have been such that day or night, they were comfortable.

However, once they were cast out of the Garden, they had to find their way in other places. These places could have easily been more hostile to them with a wider range of temperatures throughout the day and night. We are not told the environment outside of the Garden, of course, but this is definitely a plausible reality.

The Real Reason God Clothed Adam and Eve.

The Scripture text does not tell us directly why God clothed Adam and Eve. However, we can certainly assume that He did so for a distinct purpose. We can also assume that God’s purpose was good. As stated at the outset of this study, any purpose that we suggest must be in keeping with Scripturally valid purpose for clothing, and it must also fit the “Before/After” context of the Fall. We could legitimately add one more condition for God’s purpose: it must also be in keeping with the character of God Himself.

With the suggestion that God’s purpose for clothing Adam and Eve was to provide warmth and protection to their bodies, we see that all three of those requirements are met:

Life outside of the Garden of Eden would include thorns—and likely a less hospitable climate.
Warmth and protection are biblically valid purposes for clothing.
God is a God of mercy and grace. While cursing the serpent, He promised a Savior; when expelling Adam and Eve from Eden, He provided physical protection in the form of warm and durable clothing.

None of the other biblical purposes for clothing fit the context as well is this one. I find that this purpose for the clothing of Adam and Eve is both compelling and satisfying since the reasons for which warmth and protection might be needed are found in the immediate context.

— Matthew Neal

This article Series:

The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 7 – Controlling Lust??

2011-11-13T14:53:00.001-08:00

Up to this point, I have outlined a number of different purposes for clothing that are biblically valid, based upon evidence of their usage in the Scriptures where God commands it, acknowledges it, or simply reports is without any reprimand or condemnation.

Notably, there was one usage of clothing that was rebuked by God, and that was the effort by Adam and Eve to address their own shame and fear by clothing themselves. For this reason, I have concluded that the use of clothing to address fear and shame is not Scripturally condoned.

The Culturally Assumed Purpose

There is a purpose for clothing that is assumed so universally in our world today that most people likely consider it the most important of all the purposes for clothing… and it is certainly the most inviolate. All other purposes for clothing may be applicable at some times but not others—except this one. The adherence to this one “purpose” is the only one that is considered impossible and immoral to lay aside…

I speak of the idea that clothing is for controlling lust.

Everyone “knows” that when the unclothed form (or even “too much” skin) is seen by the opposite sex, it will “automatically” incite sexual desires and lust. So, according to that assumption, the obvious way to minimize a lustful response is to make sure we keep clothed. And this—it is assumed—is why God clothed Adam and Eve.

Is the Purpose of “Controlling Lust” Found in the Bible?

In a word… No.

It’s easy to demonstrate that something is in the Bible… you just find it and quote it. But showing that something is not in the Bible is nearly impossible… there’s nothing to quote!

However, let me take a look at a couple of passages that some may believe teach this purpose for clothing. I will examine them to discern if they really do teach it. In each case, I find that the interpretations that reach that conclusion are actually in error, for they are not consistent with the careful reading and understanding of the texts.

Do not “uncover the nakedness of…”

In Leviticus 18, the command “Do not uncover the nakedness of…” is repeated time and again. It is also clear that the passage is talking about sexual conduct. But does this mean that nakedness must be “covered” in order to control our sexual lusts?

Lev. 18:6-7 – “None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness.” (NASB)

I have dealt with this extended passage at length in my article, The Meaning of Nakedness, which looks at the usage of the Hebrew word here translated “nakedness” in order to discern its true meaning as it is actually used in the Bible. Let me summarize some of the key points that help us understand this passage.

First of all, I think we can all agree that the word “nakedness” here is not talking about simply being unclothed. The word as used in this context connotes sexual activity and “uncover the nakedness of…” is clearly a euphemism for sexual intercourse. This conclusion is not in debate at all, and modern translations such as the NIV simply translate the phrase as “have sexual relations with….”

However, these Scriptural prohibitions are not simply about avoiding sexual relations. As you can see in the passage above, they apply specifically and only to “blood relatives.” In other words, this passage is about defining and prohibiting incest in all it’s variations. The text itself invokes that limit on its application four times (verses 6, 12, 13, & 17), and every relationship for which “uncovering nakedness” is forbidden is a close family member.

The fact that this passage speaks so specifically to various family relationships shows that it is not intended to prohibit the uncovering of nakedness between any man or woman, but only in relationships that are incestuous—that is, between blood relatives. In other words, non-family men and women are permitted to marry and have sexual relations. This understanding is further in evidence two chapters later:

Lev. 20:17 “If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister [‘uncovered his sister’s nakedness’ – NASB] and will be held responsible.” (NIV)

Sexual intercourse with one’s sister is incestuous, even if a man attempts to formally marry her. Sexual union (uncovering nakedness) between a man and his wife otherwise is expected and blessed.

This passage again underscores the fact that the phrase “uncover the nakedness of…” is a biblical euphemism for incest. It is not a general command to keep clothed in order to control lust. If it were, then there would be no limitation of its application to “blood relatives.”

Leviticus 18 defines and prohibits incest. It does not define a purpose of clothing to control lust.

Priestly Garments and Altars with Steps

In Exodus 20:26 and 28:42

Exodus 20:25-26 - “If you make an altar of stone for Me, you shall not build it of cut stones, for if you wield your tool on it, you will profane it. And you shall not go up by steps to My altar, so that your nakedness will not be exposed on it.” (NASB)

Exodus 28:42-43 – “You shall make for them linen breeches to cover their bare flesh [nakedness]; they shall reach from the loins even to the thighs. They shall be on Aaron and on his sons when they enter the tent of meeting, or when they approach the altar to minister in the holy place, so that they do not incur guilt and die. It shall be a statute forever to him and to his descendants after him.” (NASB)

In both of these passages, we see that God expressly forbids the exposure of the genitals (the word is ervah/“nakedness” and the context makes it clear that it’s talking about the genitals) at the altar. Notably, God never forbids that exposure anywhere else… only at the altar.

In the first passage above, we see that steps leading up to an altar with is forbidden… but, notably, not all steps. Hebrew homes very typically used their rooftops for usable living space. They built steps on the outside of their homes to provide that access. Such steps were not forbidden… only those going up to an altar. Clearly, it is the context of an altar that made the exposure a problem, not just any exposure any time.

In the second passage above, the special linen breeches were prescribed for the Aaronic priestly line for when they entered the “Tent of Meeting” (the tabernacle where the altar was). It was not required for the other priests; it was not a command for the the general populace, and it was not even a requirement for the Aaronic priests when they were not serving in the Tent of Meeting. Again, this passage is very limited in its application and is not a general “rule” or “law” for all people everywhere.

Since both of these passages have to do with exposure of the genitals at the altar, it does beg the question, “Why?” What is it about exposure in that specific context was offensive to God? Why were God’s commands to keep their genitals covered limited to only those special places of worship?

While we cannot know the reason for sure, we can at least say with confidence that if God intended this for all times for all people, He would not have given the commands for such a limited and specific context. Furthermore, the idea that God’s intent was to avoid exposure so as to minimize lust is completely foreign to both passages. The presence of absence of other people who may “see” the exposure is completely missing, and therefore irrelevant to both commands.

In my article, The Meaning of Nakedness, I have offered what I consider to be a reasonable explanation of why God included these laws in the Bible. There is insufficient space here in this article to summarize or defend them, so I recommend that you read that article where I cover it in detail. Suffice it here to say that the very limited scope where these laws apply indicates that they are not about covering the body to prevent lust in others.

What about “Modest Attire”?

Many people would likely point to 1 Timothy 2:9 as a clear command that women “dress modestly” since Paul said it so plainly there. So, let’s look at the passage to see if it supports the assertion that women should keep dressed to prevent lust in men.

1 Timothy 2:9-10 “I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. ” (NIV)

Let me say up front that I do not believe this is a very accurate translation of the passage. A full review of the reasons why can be found in the online article Rightly Dividing 1 Timothy 2:9.

But let’s assume for the sake of this survey that this is an accurate translation. Even as it is stated here in the NIV, can we reach the conclusion that clothes are needed to prevent lust? I don’t believe so.

Paul’s command is that a woman should not attract attention to herself by things that she wears. Paul lists hairstyles, jewelry, and expensive clothing as things to avoid, but nothing is said about skimpy clothing or covering certain body parts.
- If I live in a “modest” house and drive a “modest” car, it means that I’m not putting on airs or trying to impress people with my house or car. It has nothing to do with how sexually alluring they are… that’s a completely different meaning for the English word, “modest.”
- Paul’s meaning is that women are to avoid ostentation to impress people with their wealth. He was not telling them to make sure “this and that” are adequately covered.
Paul tells the women not to adorn themselves with those things, but instead… to adorn themselves with “good deeds.” This is, quite literally, a de-emphasis on clothing, not an emphasis upon it.
- 1 Peter 3:3-4 affirms the same de-emphasis on clothing: “Your adornment must not be [merely] external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but [let it be] the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit…” (NASB) [Note: the words in brackets are not in the original Greek text]
- Neither Paul nor Peter require clothing; in both cases, they only warn against the misuse of clothing. If clothing were required for the prevention of lust, then both would have made note of that need.

1 Timothy 2:9 is the only passage in all the Bible that speaks to dressing “modestly.” But upon close examination, it cannot by itself prove that clothing must be worn to inhibit lust in others. Lust is not even mentioned by Paul.

If preventing lust really were a valid biblical purpose for clothing, surely we would find that purpose stated somewhere in the Scriptures and there would be a clear description of which parts of the body need to be covered to accomplish that purpose. Such a passage is utterly missing in all the Bible.

Do some people today use clothing to attract attention to themselves? Absolutely. It happens with some when they wear skimpy clothing. It also happens with others who are covered neck to toe. Both are forbidden by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:9-10, but any requirement to wear clothes to prevent lust is completely missing… both in this text and the rest of God’s word.

Who is Really Responsible for Lust Anyway?

Could it be that the real responsibility for avoiding lust rests with the observer and not the observed? If we place that responsibility on a woman and how she dresses, are we not—at least in some measure—absolving the man who sees her of that responsibility? Isn’t lust always a choice? Is a man any less responsible for his own lust, even if a woman is literally trying to seduce him?

I’m not condoning a woman’s use of clothing to incite lust, but if a woman does that, her real problem is with her heart, not her clothing. nevertheless, no matter what her motives or actions are, the man is still fully responsible for his own choice to lust or not.

Imagine for a moment how Jesus (as a man) would respond to a woman attempting to seduce Him to lust after her. Would He do so? No, He would not. Men, we are called to be like Christ; His response to such a woman must be ours as well. We can never blame the woman—or her choice of attire—for our own sin.

Observation #7
The use of clothes to prevent or inhibit lust is NOT a biblically valid purpose for clothing.

Biblically speaking, there is no evidence that God intended clothing to inhibit lust. The fact that we have a culture full of men that lust when they see skin and do not lust when they don’t only reveals the fact that we have set up a cultural expectation that assumes—and therefore condones—lust in the hearts of men.

Does it Fit “Before and After” the Fall?

What about “Before and After”? To be fair, those who promote this purpose for clothing correctly observe that after the Fall, men and women now possessed a sin nature, and were no longer “naked and unashamed.” They would claim that before the Fall, men and women were able to see the nude form of the opposite sex without sin, but thereafter, they were no longer able to see nakedness without lust.

Indeed, this appears to be plausible. Without a doubt, most Christians in the world believe this is absolute truth.

The problem is, however, that there’s not a shred of evidence in all the Bible that this claim is true. We have, quite literally, taken a cultural experience and elevated it to being equal to the Word of God.

But let’s ask the question anyway… if “controlling lust” were a valid purpose for clothing, would it fit the context of the life before and after the Fall?

A simple reading of the text in Genesis 1-3 shows that when Adam and Eve sinned, there were no other people in the world; there simply was no need to “control lust” at that moment (Did God intend to limit Adams’s sexual desire for Eve?). We cannot conclude that God’s purpose for clothing Adam and Eve was a purpose that did not even apply at that moment. In other words, it also fails the before/after test.

If we want to be Biblical Christians, we must be honest enough to recognize when our interpretations of God’s Word are being influenced by subjective experience. We must be ready to reexamine them and—if necessary—lay them aside.

The belief that God intends for clothing to be used to control lust is a belief that must be laid aside.

— Matthew Neal

This article Series:

The Biblical Purpose of Clothing – Conclusion

2011-11-13T14:50:00.003-08:00

So, what is the conclusion of this study? What are the biblically valid purposes for clothing, and which of those purposes best explains why God clothed Adam and Eve in Gen. 3:21?

Let me review.

Fear and Shame? No.

At the outset, we observed that Adam and Eve’s purpose for clothing themselves—to address the fear and shame—met with God’s reprimand rather than His approval. This established a baseline understanding that such a purpose for clothing was not biblically valid, and therefore, could not have been God’s purpose for clothing them 10 verses later. [For further discussion of this point, see the Epilogue]

Clothing as Currency? Yes, but No.

We next observed that clothing was actually used as currency in the Bible. But this would not explain God’s clothing of Adam and Eve.

Sign of Position? Yes, but No.

Clothing in the Bible sometimes was worn to signify that the wearer held a position of great honor. Once again, this does not fit God’s clothing Adam and Eve at all.

Communicate About a Person? Yes, but Not Likely.

Sometimes clothing was used to communicate the role, mental state, or status of a person. Could this explain why God clothed the first couple… to declare them to be sinners in need of covering? That might make some sense, but there is no corroboration in the text for that idea, nor is it stated anywhere else in the Bible. Consequently, it is highly suspect and uncertain. [For further discussion of this point, see the Epilogue]

Gender Distinction? I Doubt it, but No.

The biblical support for the notion that clothing is for gender distinction is very weak, However, even if it is a valid purpose for clothing, it does not explain why God would clothe Adam and Eve.

Warmth and Protection? Yes, and Very Fitting!

It is very easy to discern in the Bible that warmth and protection are fundamental purposes for clothing. Also, upon examination of the account of the Fall and the Curse, we can discern from the immediate context offers evidence that warmth and protection would likely be needed for life outside of the Garden of Eden.

Controlling Lust? No.

Despite the fact that this purpose for clothing is almost universally assumed to be valid, there is no credible evidence for it in the Bible… Not in Genesis 3, and not anywhere else. Since it is not a biblically valid purpose for clothing, it cannot explain God’s purpose for clothing Adam and Eve.

Any Others?

Have I missed any other purpose for clothing that might be found in the Bible? I welcome any feedback that would offer evidence that I have. I would be happy to add to this series of articles to include any oversight.

The Most Reasonable Answer…

Of all the purposes for clothing found in the Bible, only one fits the context of God’s provision of clothing for Adam and Eve. Without any doubt, Warmth and Protection provide the most reasonable explanation of God’s purpose for the coats of skin. Consequently, we can conclude with a good measure of confidence that God graciously clothed the first couple to protect their bodies from cold, thorns, and other potentially harmful factors that would have been reality outside of the Garden of Eden.

Of course, the Word of God does not give us a direct answer to our question of why God clothed Adam and Eve, so we cannot build doctrines or moral standards upon our conclusion, no matter how firm we believe it to be. However, it is very important that if we are going to offer any suggestion as to what God’s purpose was, we must offer an explanation that is both both biblical and reasonable.

Sadly, the most common view of why God gave Adam and Eve clothing—to control lust—is neither biblical nor reasonable. Despite that fact, entire systems of moral standards have been based upon its faulty logic. This view and its false standards must be rejected.

— Matthew Neal

This article Series:

The Biblical Purpose of Clothing – Epilogue

2011-11-13T14:50:00.001-08:00

During the course of this study, we’ve looked at all of the biblical purposes for clothing in order to attempt to discern why God clothed Adam and Eve after the Fall. In the end, it was concluded that the best explanation was that God provided clothing for warmth and protection.

Along the way, we looked at other potential reasons for the clothing, but rejected them for a variety of reasons. I suspect, however, that two of those reasons that I rejected may still be held as viable by some. Specifically…

Some believe that we really do need clothing to address our sense of shame.
Others may still maintain that God did give clothing as a sign that mankind needs a covering for his sin.

Yet both of these positions overlook a very important implication of holding to such a view. I want to address those implications here in the Epilogue.

What if Clothing IS Supposed to Address Our Fear and Shame?

I’ve heard people talk of Adam and Eve’s scramble for fig leaves as if it were the most natural and normal thing in the world… they were NAKED, after all! And we all know how ashamed we would feel to be seen naked. We would just die if someone saw us without our clothes! Adam and Eve were just doing what any of us would do, right? We’re supposed to feel shame like that… isn’t that why they got dressed?

And (it is believed)… God “agreed” with their solution to fear and shame, so He provided them coverings that would last longer and cover them better than the leaves ever could. Now that they were fallen, God knew that shame would simply be a human reality, so he provides clothing to deal with that shame and the fear of being seen naked.

As I said in Part 1 of this series, Gen. 3:11 cannot at all be understood as anything other than a reprimand. It is not reasonable to just ignore that fact and conclude that God later affirmed that which He had just rebuked.

But for the sake of discussion… let’s assume for a moment that God did give Adam and Eve clothing because He knew they needed a covering for their bodies to address their fear and shame.

What then?

Well, what impact does the work of Christ have on that purpose for clothing?

The Bible teaches that when a person is in Christ, old things are passed away and all things are made new (2 Cor 5:17). It tells us that God has not given us a spirit of fear (2 Tim. 1:7). We know that perfect love—God’s love for us—casts out fear (1 John 4:18). We know that Jesus took our guilt and our shame (1 Peter 2:24, Hebrews 12:2). We no longer have any reason to fear or be ashamed!!

If God provided clothing for Adam and Eve to address their fear and shame, Christians should be the first to shed their clothes! In fact, continuing to wear clothes would amount to telling a lie about the power of Christ’s love in my heart. Let’s live the truth without fear… we do not need clothes to cover our shame… shame has no place in the heart of a redeemed child of God! As the worship song says, “I know He rescued my soul, His blood has covered my sins,… My shame He’s taken away, My pain is healed in His name, I believe! My Redeemer lives!!” (My Redeemer Lives - © 1999 Hillsong)

What if Clothing IS Supposed to Remind Us That We’re Sinners?

In Part 4 of this series of articles, we saw that sometimes clothing was used to communicate something about a person… perhaps their state of mind (sackcloth = mourning), their social status (distinguishing the rich from the poor), or to symbolize their righteousness (white linen garments).

This suggests the possibility that God may have intended that the coats of skin with which He clothed Adam and Eve were to be perpetual reminders that they were now sinners in need of covering for their sin. This meaning, or course, is never stated in the Bible, but many Bible teachers have offered this idea as the true meaning of the clothing.

But there’s a very important implication that those who promote the idea evidently overlook or simply ignore…

Let’s suppose for a moment that this is true—that clothing is intended to be a “sign” that people are sinful and in need of salvation.

What then?

Well, what impact does the work of Christ have on that purpose for clothing?

The Bible teaches that when a person is in Christ, old things are passed away and all things are made new (2 Cor. 5:17). It tells us that Jesus took our sin away from us… as far as the east is from the west (Psalm 103:12). Because Jesus became sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21), we know that God will not remember our sins (Isaiah 43:25)!! And the Bible never ever refers to a follower of Christ as a “sinner” once they’ve chosen to enter into Christ’s work on the Cross… instead, they are called “saints”(Eph. 2:19)!

So, if I am in Christ and my sin is taken away, do I still need to wear clothes that shout, “sinner”? No! Instead of wearing clothes to remind myself and everyone else that I am a sinner in need of redemption, shouldn’t I go without clothes to remind myself and everyone else that I am redeemed? Jesus has cleansed me from every sin (1 John 1:9); though my sins were like crimson, now I am as white as snow (Isaiah 1:18)! While the unredeemed continue to cower under clothing that ever condemns them, I walk free of all such condemnation, for I am in Christ (Rom. 8:1).

If God clothed Adam and Eve to proclaim that they were sinners, then Christians should be the first to be shed their clothes! In fact, continuing to wear clothes would amount to telling a lie about the efficacy of the work of Christ. Let’s tell the truth about our redemption… we do not need clothes for that purpose any more! As the hymn says, “Dressed in His righteousness alone, faultless to stand before the throne.” (The Solid Rock – PD)

But, That’s Not What They Mean…

In both cases above, the ideas are not really being presented to teach credible and biblical purposes for clothing. Rather, they are put forth in the attempt to create a requirement for clothing where the Bible simply does not give one. They are presented and taught as evidence that clothing is required for us today.

But the reasons given for clothing are fully and completely addressed by the work of Christ! Naturally, If the reason for the clothing has been otherwise addressed in a person’s life, then the need for the clothing is gone. To continue requiring clothing for these reasons is to deny the the power of the cross.

In other words, these reasons actually argue for the abandonment of clothing rather than the requirement of clothing…

… but that’s not what they mean.

Why is it So Hard to Accept?

The idea that God clothed Adam and Eve to protect them from the post-Fall environment outside of the garden makes good sense. It has biblical corroboration as a valid purpose for clothing, and there were harmful factors (thorns) mentioned right in the same Scriptural context (Genesis 3:18). Furthermore, the explanation actually reveals the loving character of God, who expresses grace and mercy, even as He issues judgment.

So… why would anyone object to such a simple and fitting explanation for God’s actions?

I can think of only one reason why the explanation of “warmth and protection” would be rejected: because it does not support the idea that clothing is a moral requirement.

As I mentioned in the introduction to this series, I’ve had a Bible teacher tell me, “if it was good enough for Adam and Eve, it’s good enough for me!” There’s no other passage in the Bible that is quoted more frequently as “proof” that God' wants us to be clothed.

But if God’s purpose really was only to protect Adam and Eve from thorns and from the cold, is there any moral requirement to wear clothes at all times “around other people”? Of course not. When the weather is warm and the thorns have been cleared away, there is literally no need for clothing.

But that notion is utterly untenable to the modern Christian’s mind. Their belief before even examining the Scriptures is that clothing must be required by God. And since God’s clothing of Adam and Eve is the best proof-text available for that belief, explaining God’s purpose for the coats of skin some other way—one that would not mandate clothing today—is unacceptable.

From my point of view, that path to arriving at moral truth is what is “unacceptable.” We should all be more interested in being biblically accurate and intellectually honest than protecting a culturally contrived moral standard.

— Matthew Neal

This article Series:

Starting Points for Discussion

2011-07-23T06:07:00.001-07:00

Starting with “End-Points”??

Several weeks ago, I posted my refutation of Ted Slater’s article regarding nudity. Thereafter, I personally contacted him with the hope of entering into dialog with him about it.

At one point in our discussion, he challenged me with some “end-points”… evidently with the intent of demonstrating that what I believed just couldn’t translate into real life. He challenged me to go to church nude the next Sunday. No one would ever worship nude… or so he must have thought.

Of course he had no way of knowing that the previous weekend, I had gone “to church” and worshiped with other believers at the CNC-Texas. And yes, almost everyone in attendance was nude; I led worship unclothed and the preacher preached without a stitch. And it really was no problem at all. In other words, the “end-point” that Ted thought would prove my beliefs false had actually been experienced by me and others a few days before… and proven them true! He didn’t even comment when I told him that.

Better to Start with “Starting-Points”!

Instead of chasing “end-points,” I wrote to Ted and asked him to affirm some “starting points.” If we are going to enter into a discussion on Biblical morality—no matter what the issue—we need to know our foundational assumptions, else we will never have any chance of coming to a consensus.

Agreeing on initial assumptions is critically important… consider what a discussion would be like where one person considered the Bible authoritative, but another considered the Bible to be nothing more than fairy tales. Clearly, there would be no chance of agreement on moral issues.

By the same token, if two people agree that the Bible is true, but their method's of interpretation to discerning that truth are different, there will still be no consensus reached on biblical morality.

But… if two biblically conservative Christians hold the same view of Scripture and hold to the same presuppositions about how to approach a moral issue, then it should be a constructive dialog where agreement can be reached!

My “Starting-Points” with Mr. Slater

So, I gave Mr. Slater a list of seven assumptions which I believe should undergird any investigation of biblical morality.

Let me say it another way… no matter what issue you want to examine from a biblical perspective, these seven points must be the starting point before we can have confidence that we will arrive at a trustworthy conviction of moral truth!

I did not invent these points myself… I learned them from my father (a lifelong pastor), my Bible College professors, and many other Bible teachers that I respect.

These assumptions have nothing at all to do with nudity, but they are indeed worthy of our trust to help us discern God’s perspective on nudity as He has expressed it through the Scriptures.

So… here they are… see if you agree with them.

God is sovereign over all the affairs of men, and He alone is the measure and source for all morality.
Moral absolutes (based as the are on the character and person of the unchanging God) are for all men for all times.
The Bible is God's inerrant Word and it alone is our authority for knowing the mind of God on moral matters.
The traditions and cultures of men are NOT authoritative in matters of morality (Isaiah 55:8-9).
Only Biblically specified exceptions to moral absolutes are valid... "exceptions" based on the reasoning of man are false.
The Bible must be interpreted according to what the original author meant when writing to the original audience in the original language (Grammatical-Historical).
Translations of the Scriptures are only authoritative to the degree that they accurately convey the original meaning of the original language text.

I believe that any Bible-believing Christian should be able to affirm every one of those points.

If you’re wondering what I mean by #7, let me add some clarifying comments about it as I did with Mr. Slater:

Point #7 is not an attempt to undermine the authority of English translations. It is simply the acknowledgment that:

a) the very process of language translation is never exact;
b) translators themselves are human and therefore subject to making mistakes; and
c) we must be careful not to base our understanding for significant moral issues and interpretations on the English translation alone.

To the best of our ability, we must examine the original language text to ensure that the understanding we have reached is not contrary to what we find in the original languages of the Scriptures (a process which is also not "error-free," but which is, thankfully, much easier now with the online resources available to us). Where original language study leads to a different understanding than English translation study, the original language understanding must be preferred.

He Didn’t Affirm These Starting-Points.

To my great disappointment, Mr. Slater did not bother offering any comment at all about these points. Instead, he only cast aspersions at my character. I requested three times that he address these seven points, but instead, he checked out of the dialog with an air and presumption of “rightness.”

I have experienced this before… one time I was being confronted about my naturism by another brother in Christ and a pastor friend that he brought into the email dialog in his effort to “correct” me. I sent that pastor a list of foundational principles of hermeneutics so that we could agree on a common starting point for our discussion of the Scriptures. Rather than affirm them, this pastor made this astounding statement:

I often teach, as you likely do as well, that many can read the same Scripture and come to different conclusions. You read a passage, consider its greater context, and come to a conclusion. I read the same passage, and its greater context, and come to a different conclusion. Using all of our "tools" for exegesis, form criticism, contextualization etc. we will likely still continue to come to different conclusions.

The whole point of agreeing on the “Starting-Points” is to avoid all sorts of subjectivism and the disagreement that it brings! Yet instead of agreeing to an interpretational approach I’m sure he would normally teach and promote, he shut down the dialog! This pastor used the very fact that I was trying to reach an agreement on “Starting-Points” as an indication that we would not come to agreement!

Perhaps He Was Correct!

I doubt that anyone would ever admit why they (as normally honest interpreters of the Scripture) would refuse to agree to “Starting-Points” that they would normally agree to in a heartbeat. The only reason I can think of is that they know deep down that on the issue of nudity, their beliefs would NOT be affirmed if they applied those principles to its Scriptural investigation!

I don’t think they can afford to agree to the seven points above because all of the “biblical” support for their beliefs about nudity would crumble away, and they would be forced to lay them aside… and the views about nudity that they were presumed to buttress.

Why do I think that? Because that’s exactly what happened for me! When I applied those same assumptions about how to study God’s Word to the issue of nudity, I could no longer hold to the “Nudity-Taboo” I had always assumed the Bible taught!

And that’s exactly why I present them to people when discussing nudity from a biblical perspective… affirming these principles and basing our study of Scripture upon them will not confirm a perspective that nudity is wrong or offensive to God!

We Have a Choice…

When it comes to the issue of studying nudity in the Bible, we have to make a decision…

Will we hold on to our tried and true principles of Scriptural interpretation, trusting them to guide us to a correct understanding of God’s mind on nudity, even if it means we must lay aside our belief in the “Nudity-Taboo”?

or…
Will we hold on to our belief that the the Nudity-Taboo really expresses God’s mind on nudity, even if it means we must lay aside our tried and true principles of Scriptural interpretation?

For me, the choice is clear.

It seems equally clear what choice has been made by Mr. Slater and the other pastor I mentioned.

On the Side of Truth

I am reminded of a quotation by Richard Whately that seems to be apt at this moment…

Every one wishes to have truth on his side,

but not everyone sincerely wishes

to be on the side of truth.

So I issue a challenge to anyone who considers themselves an honest student of God’s Word…

What is your choice?

— Matthew Neal

------- Related Posts -------

Obviously… (a discussion about assumptions)

Quotes and Comments #5

When is Nudity OK for a Christian? (the precursor to the dialog from which this post was drawn)

The Unchallenged Belief

Does the Bible Ever Condone Social Nudity?

A Surprising Admission

------- Related External Articles -------

An Initial Foray Into Hermeneutics

Eight Rules of Interpretation

Obviously…

2011-07-04T17:58:00.001-07:00

This post is not specifically about naturism… although it certainly applies to its discussion.

Every issue has more than one “side” or viewpoint, and every viewpoint is supported by assumptions which form the foundation for the conclusions that are ultimately reached by the proponents of each viewpoint.

Obviously… there is no “god”…

For example, In the discussion about the origins of the universe and mankind, evolutionary scientists assume that there is no agent outside of the observable universe which could have ever had any impact on what we see today.

By contrast, creation scientists assume that it is possible for an outside agent to exist which may have been a causative agent in our universe’s birth.

Looking at the very same physical evidence, the creation scientist finds multiple evidences for intelligent design in our universe, for no amount of time and chance could produce the exquisite order than we see… from the structure of atoms to the celestial interaction between galaxies.

The evolutionary scientist on the other hand is forced to accept the conclusion—despite the astronomical odds against it—that chance and natural processes produced everything we see in the universe. He concludes this because… obviously… there can be no such thing as a “god.” He is literally forced to accept an impossible explanation because his assumption precludes any other.

Any and every evidence contrary to his assumption is summarily rejected and/or explained away.

Alas, though, I fear that we all are guilty of that error… it’s rather human…

Assumptions aren’t bad… unless they are false assumptions!

There will always be concepts which—while they cannot be proven—do impact the conclusion of an investigation. Sound assumptions lead to sound conclusions; faulty assumptions result in faulty conclusions.

Consequently, when people examine an issue with the very same data set but reach vastly different conclusions, the problem is not generally with the data, but with the assumptions that each side brings to the data to start with!

When such is the case, endless discussion about the evidence will never accomplish anything, because the data being discussed is not really at issue… it is the underlying assumptions that are not being discussed where the true differences between the opposing parties lie.

Differing Assumptions

This problem is manifest many times within the Christian community, and especially between those who hold the Bible to be absolutely authoritative, and those who do not.

Just recently, I was talking to a Christian brother who does not consider homosexuality to be wrong, but rather just the way some people are born. I expressed the opinion that no one was “born gay”—in fact, in God’s eyes, there is no such thing as “gay”—because gender is not determined by subjective ideas like “preference” or “orientation;” it is determined objectively by physical attributes. A male body is designed by God to unite sexually with a female body. Clearly, we were not in agreement with one another.

However, in the course of the conversation, he told me that he did not believe that Bible was truly authoritative in everything it taught.

And herein was our true disagreement… For me, the Bible is the authority upon which any conclusion may be safely reached. For him, it is not. Therefore, our differing assumptions about the authority of Scripture led to different conclusions. And until that difference is resolved, no agreement will likely be reached.

Obviously… God wants people clothed…

People hold the same such assumptions when it comes to the issue of human nudity. They hold a belief system that assumes that nakedness is shameful and against God’s moral law. Consequently, when they read the Scriptures, every piece of “physical evidence” is interpreted in light of that assumption.

Obviously, nakedness is wrong.

Obviously, nakedness is shameful.

Obviously, nakedness is sexual.

Obviously, God wants us to be clothed. Why else would He clothe Adam and Eve??

Everybody knows these things!!

But when someone says, “Obviously,” it usually indicates that they hold an assumption that they don’t really have any real evidence to support.

Again… that’s no problem, provided the assumption is correct. But when it comes to morality and knowing the mind of God, we dare not makes such an assumption when there is no concrete biblical evidence to support it. And of course, if there were sufficient biblical evidence, then we wouldn’t call it an “assumption” at all!

“My thoughts are not your thoughts” – Isa. 55:8-9

God tells us plainly by the prophet Isaiah that we have no business assuming what His thoughts are on a subject.

When considering moral issues, we must not bring assumptions about God’s moral standards to the Scriptures, else we may be found guilty of telling lies about God, for we may declare that God is offended by something when in truth He is not.

Obviously… we need to reexamine our assumptions!

When we (or anyone) make statements that are (or could be) prefaced with the word, “Obviously,” we should stop and reexamine the nature of the assumptions behind the statement… regardless of the issue being discussed. We just might find an argument built on a false foundation.

On the issue of nudity, only those who are courageous enough to question the “Obvious” assumptions mentioned above will ever see anything different in God’s Word. If they do not have that courage, they will instead hold tenaciously to the prevailing sentiment in the church today that sees only shame and indecency in the simple and chaste exposure of God’s image as found in human embodiment.

— Matthew Neal (…Obviously!)

See also:

The Unchallenged Belief

Quotes and Comments #5

2011-06-29T16:55:00.001-07:00

He that is not open to conviction,

is not qualified for discussion.

— Richard Whately —

In other words…
If anyone is unwilling to be convinced by clear evidence to affirm a position contrary to the one they start with, they will never be honest enough with truth to engage in productive dialog.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I recently posted an extensive rebuttal to Ted Slater’s blog post about nudity. Mr. Slater had made an attempt to use the Bible to assign shame or sin to all public nudity, with the assumption (or presumption) that such was the perspective of God Himself.

I made a point to contact Mr. Slater personally in order to see if he had had occasion to revise his view, and if not, to allow him a chance to interact with me directly in reference to my rebuttal.

At first, I hoped for a very congenial and open discussion. However, I’m sad to report that while the discussion was friendly enough, he was (in my opinion) never truly open to allowing his view to be honestly challenged. He simply assumed that his position was correct and mine was in error.

He was NOT open to “conviction.”

Three different times in the course of our email dialog, I stated or reaffirmed that I was ready and willing to change my perspective on social nudity if I was shown solid biblical evidence that I was mistaken. At least once, I asked him if he held that same readiness to change his own position if it was shown to be wrong. He never once gave even the slightest hint that he was willing to do so.

I also laid out a series of seven conservative principles of hermeneutics (“hermeneutics” prescribes an objective and consistent approach to Scripture interpretation) as “starting points” for our discussion. These principles had nothing to do specifically with nudity, only with how we approach our study of the Scriptures for any moral issue (Posted HERE).

I asked Mr. Slater to affirm those hermeneutical principles as valid and trustworthy guides to discerning Scriptural truth, but he simply ignored them. I asked him again, and then finally a third time. Each time, he resorted to making comments that had no real bearing on the topic at hand, ultimately only casting aspersions upon my character.

… So he was not qualified for discussion

Finally, he refused to continue the discussion, citing me as the one unwilling to be convinced by the biblical evidence… despite the fact that I had carefully answered every question he had asked me, and responded fully to every objection he raised to my position.

Meanwhile, he did not answer one question that I posed to him, and my entire rebuttal was never given any substantial response. So, in a sense, he disqualified himself from the discussion, for he never truly entered into it.

Bonus Quote:

The truth is not always the same as the majority decision.

— Pope John Paul II —

Those who hold the “majority” view often feel no need to honestly reexamine their position. Rather than address real challenges to their beliefs, they feel that they only need to reject the opposing viewpoint as self-evidently incorrect.

They may also feel justified in making disparaging remarks about the character of the person bringing the challenge. Another tactic that is invoked is falsely aligning the opposing belief with obviously incorrect doctrines or ideas… instead of addressing the real issue head on with a cogent argument.

Perhaps when the evidence doesn’t actually support the majority opinion, such strategies are the only ones left available to its adherents.

The truth is never afraid of a challenge. But those who cling to the “nudity-taboo” sure appear to be.

Honoring my promise…

Everything that I’ve described here is accurate; this is how Mr. Slater responded to my efforts to discuss this issue with him. I have compiled the entire email dialog into a document which demonstrates that fact. However, Mr. Slater seemed to object when I told him that I intended to make it available to my readers, so I promised him that I would not publish it without his permission.

I did ask for his permission to publish the dialog, but he has not returned my emails even to give me a “yes” or a “no.” I suspect that he is now blocking my email address.

Mr. Slater, if you’re reading this and you feel that I have misrepresented your part in our dialog, please let me know and I’ll post the compilation so my readers may decide for themselves. Or if you prefer, give your own version on your own blog; I’d be happy to link to it from here.

Reminded… again…

Once again… I am reminded that only the Lord’s work in someone’s heart can expose the lies that our culture and the church have embraced regarding the true nature of our bodies; only He can reveal the falseness of the sexualized view of human nudity which empowers pornography and sexual bondage. No amount of discussion, argument, or careful biblical exegesis alone will ever break the bondage.

Once again, I am reminded that I am not smart enough, logical enough, or persuasive enough to convince anyone of the truth in these matters. I think it was an error for me to contact Mr. Slater… if I am really honest about my proud heart, I thought that this time… I might be able to convince someone by reason alone.

Nope. Ain’t gonna happen. Not this time. Not ever.

This kind cannot come out by anything but prayer… (Mark 9:28-29)

So… let us pray.

Lord Jesus, it is Your glory that is at stake, for the image that the church rejects is Your own. It is the beauty of Your Bride that is at stake, for the rejection of Your image in our bodies has led untold numbers of Your followers into all manner of sexual impurity. Please, Lord, shatter the lies that enslaves your people; set them free by truth. May Satan’s first insult of Your image in human flesh be forever rejected by those who confess Your Name. — Amen.

— Matthew Neal

Quotes and Comments #4

2011-06-27T16:41:00.001-07:00

Father, forgive them;

for they know not what they do.

— Spoken by a naked man being persecuted by clothed religious people —

NOTE: This post is not in any way a defense of naturism… it is simply an encouragement to those who are naturists and are being criticized or persecuted for their practice and beliefs.

Jesus’ words above (Luke 23:34 - KJV) are an appropriate model to keep in mind for those of us who live by and speak out for a different view of human nudity than is typically taught in the church today.

Yes, I know “nudity” is not what this this verse is in the Bible to teach us… but the application of its real meaning in our lives still fits. We will face persecution from those who believe that we are a threat to the consensus of religious belief. That part shouldn’t surprise us, however… Jesus and Paul both ensured us that it would happen when we follow the truth.

(But don’t make the mistake of assuming that the experience of persecution is “proof” of “right-ness”… stupidity can bring persecution, too!)

People who hold a pornographic view of the body (the view which regards the sexual impact of the body as the driver for our decisions about clothing) are quick to oppose and/or attack anyone who does not uphold that false view.

As a result, we can expect to experience a great deal of pain and rejection—sadly—even (or especially) from those who profess to be our brothers and sisters in Christ. I do not question their salvation or their motivations; I know that they mean well. However, we still have to endure the persecution.

“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.” (Rom. 12:14)

If that’s happening to you, be generous with your forgiveness… As difficult as it may be, it is the way of Christ.

— Matthew Neal

Tribal Nudity… in All its Glory!!

2011-06-08T18:00:00.001-07:00

A Guest Writer!

I’m pleased to introduce you to a guest writer for today’s blog post!

Luc Pascal is a seminary trained minister of the Gospel. He was born and raised as a Christian and has been serving the in full-time ministry much of His adult life. Luc is very accomplished in the original languages of the Scriptures—both Hebrew and Greek—and, consequently, brings to The Biblical Naturist a level of expertise that I don’t have!

Luc and his wife have only recently discovered the benefits of naturism, but like all others who learn of its goodness, the Lord has been working in his heart and mind over the years to help him see through the falseness of the American cultural understanding of the human body and nudity.

It is from that life-learning process that Luc shares with us today about Tribal Nudity.

I hope that you will enjoy and appreciate what Luc brings to the blog. Please feel free to address questions or comments to him directly… particularly if they have to do with the original languages of the Scriptures or this particular blog post.

Welcome, Luc!

— Matthew Neal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tribal Nudity… in All its Glory!!
by Luc Pascal

Call it “tribal” or call it “indigenous,” but at the end of the day, they’re still naked. Discovery channel (USA) shows them. British Broadcasting Corporation (UK) documents them. Prime time. Late night. It doesn’t seem to matter.

No one thinks anything about the fact that they are all naked. The acceptance of tribal nudity supports (if not proves) the idea that public nudity can be morally acceptable even in our society.

Growing up in a traditional “textile” home with nominal Christian values, I held the same beliefs as those around me: Public nudity is morally wrong.

And the church with which we associated held the same view. “Young ladies, make sure you don’t dress provocatively.” “Dress modestly. You don’t want to cause someone to stumble.” These were the things taught from the pulpit.

Yet, at the Seminary I attended (conservative evangelical), they had a school-wide, public viewing of the documentary entitled, Through Gates of Splendor (Netflix, DVD, Book), which had copious amounts of overt tribal nudity. I ask the question, “Why wasn’t anyone concerned about men (or women for that matter) stumbling from this blatant display of nudity?”

It seemed that no one else was aware of the logical inconsistencies of forbidding public nudity in our culture, but displaying public nudity from another culture (so long as the latter was considered “primitive”). It is not just an inconsistency within the church, but also for society in general.

Let’s look at two main reasons why tribal nudity is accepted in our society but not nudity among our own people.

It is Non-sexual Nudity: Tribal nudity has no sexual connotations.

Opponents of social nudity cannot understand how social nudity could not have some sort of sexual connotation or response. Consequently they adamantly forbid it. But these tribal people prove it is possible. They simply live it.

If nudity is not sexual to the indigenous, why must it be sexual to us? It all depends on the meaning you yourself bring to the naked body. In truth, the naked body has no absolute sexual connotations. By that I simply mean that the sight of a naked body is not intrinsically a sexual experience. That meaning or experience must be brought to the body by the viewer. Certainly there are reproductive organs, but then there are organs for smell, sight, and touch. Genitals are just another set of organs that serve a function.

The problem is that in our society (and thus the church), we have made the sex organs into objects of curiosity and sexual interest (this is called sexual objectification). In Bible times, no one seemed to think anything about body parts in general, or the genitals in particular. King Saul was found to be prophesying naked (1 Samuel 19:24). To onlookers, it only drew the question of whether Saul was now a prophet! They never commented on Saul’s nakedness; they only asked whether he was now to be considered a prophet!

Apparently, there must have been some precedent for prophets to be seen nude. There are at least three references in Scripture to nudity with reference to the prophetic: (1) King Saul (mentioned above). (2) Isaiah was commanded to go about nude for 3 years (Isaiah 20:3). There is no record of any backlash from society regarding his nakedness. (3) Lastly, Micah speaks of receiving a word of prophesy from the Lord and says, “Because of this [prophesy] I must lament and wail, I must go barefoot and naked”(Micah 1:8).

In addition to these Old Testament references, the early church practiced nude baptism. There were many reasons for this practice. One of which was the belief that removing one’s clothes before baptism was a sign of putting off the “old man” or the old ways of life. Another belief was that by removing the clothes, one was following in the way of Christ, because He was crucified naked.

There are many other examples of public nudity even in the modern world which are, like tribal nudity, devoid of sexual connotations. The Finish Sauna and The Japanese Bath House are two such examples. Both represent a cultural practice of mixed gender nudity and are considered completely acceptable within that culture.

So we see that from ancient to modern history, both in the church and without, nudity did not always have such sexual connotations as we generally assume it to have today. These cultures practicing public nudity recognized something about the human body and its passive relationship to sex and sexuality that we, as a church and a culture, have not yet grasped.

They are Lifestyle Nudes: The tribal people are nude all the time.

The people of indigenous tribes are constantly seeing other people naked—day in and day out. There is not a chance for objectification of the genitals because every part of the human anatomy is visible at all times, and therefore unremarkable.

Most people probably have a hard time imagining ever getting to that point, but this article How to Hit a Nude Beach (Fox News) shows how very quickly it can happen, even to a “red-blooded American.”

The article quotes relationship coach John Wilder as he writes this about his trip to a nude beach, “after five minutes on the beach, I was struck with how normal and unaffected everyone was… I saw beautiful young women on the beach and even spent the day with a beautiful girl on a blanket and there was no hanky-panky. Finally I was so bored that I had to go back to the family beach and see a girl in a bikini to get interested again.”

This is a practical example of how covering the breasts and genitals actually incites lust rather than prevents it. In only one day, full exposure diffused Mr. Wilder’s ingrained objectification of women’s bodies. Evidently, he preferred to have that objectifying perspective, since he became bored on the nude beach and needed to see a bikini to pique his sexual interest again!

We have two examples of lifestyle nudity in the Bible: Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and Isaiah. I will focus on the latter. God actually commanded Isaiah to go nude for 3 years. We may tend to think that he was huddled in his room afraid to venture out. But it is very likely, based on our previous discussion regarding prophets and nudity, that this was not the first time he had been nude in the course of his prophetic duties. This was perhaps the longest time he had to go nude, however.

He had to function normally for 3 years in the nude. He must have met people on the street, talked to friends, purchased goods, took baths, travelled, and continued his role as prophet in Israel for three years totally naked. Again, nowhere in Scripture is a backlash or shame from society ever mentioned regarding Isaiah’s nudity.

It took me years to work through all the false teaching about the human body and nudity. Wrestling through the obvious cultural duplicity—that rejected social nudity in America but accepted it for tribal people—helped me a great deal in realizing that there is no inherent sin or shame in our naked bodies. It is our intentions in revealing and concealing parts of it that make it morally wrong. Jesus called lust a sin (Matthew 5:27-29). In the same way, intentionally provoking lust in another person is also a sin for the simple reason that it causes another person to stumble.

Let me offer a twist to the whole debate about nudity and sin. Consider who is sinning in these two scenarios (leave me some feedback/comments on this):

A woman is feeling unloved by her husband and feels the need for attention. She dresses with a low-cut blouse so a particular co-worker will notice her breasts. She is completely clothed, but reveals just enough to invite lust.
A couple visits a nude beach. They feel relaxed in the environment, because they know the rules: no one is supposed to treat their nudity or the nudity of others in a sexual way. People may notice them, but no one is “looking” to be enticed or to entice. All the people on the beach abide by a mutual agreement: I will treat you and your body with respect; I expect the same from you.

Now, according to the Bible, who is sinning? Is it the fully dressed woman with the intention to incite lustful attention? Or is it the completely nude couple, neither of whom is looking with lust at others, or inciting lust in others? I think the answer is obvious.

People may ask: “How do you know someone isn’t looking with lust at you on the nude beach?” Well, you can never really know what is in someone’s heart. But wearing clothes is no guarantee that a person will not lust after you either! I hope you have realized in this blog how frank exposure to non-sexual nudity actually diffuses lust rather than incites it.

I believe wide-spread nude beaches and places for nude recreation would be a tremendous benefit to our society. However, there is a greater ideal to press toward: it is really when lifestyle nudity is embraced that the most freedom from sexualization and objectification occurs.

If you are familiar with the other posts on this blog, you will already understand that lifestyle nudity is not about seeing others naked (voyeurism) or about being seen naked (exhibitionism). It is about demystifying, desexualizing, and accepting every body. As the icing on the cake, we can experience the joy of living clothes-free.

— Luc Pascal

A Thoughtful Response to Mr. Piper – Part 3

2011-06-04T20:45:00.001-07:00

This is Part 3 of my response to John Piper’s article on nakedness which I quoted in full in The “Traditional” Christian View of Nakedness). A reader asked me to respond to it. My first action was to highlight in red the portions of the article I considered to be biblically indefensible and in error.

I was busy posting my responses to this reader’s questions about Mr. Piper’s article when I got sidetracked and posted some other things. I had finished Part 1 and Part 2, but haven’t gotten around to the third and final part until now. My apologies for the delay.

Once again, the reader’s questions pertaining to those “red” sections from Mr. Piper’s article are in green below. My responses follow.

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

Apart from the text I have some basic broad questions as well. The main ones are 1.) How can post-Fall man (or woman) attain a sense of purity and godliness while being naked? If the original reaction to nudity was shame, why should ours be any different?

By that same logic, I could ask this: “If the original reaction to the opportunity to sin was to go ahead and sin, why should ours be any different?” As you can see, “original reaction” (particularly after sin arrived on the scene) is not a sufficient basis for prescribing God will for our reaction to be today.

However, to be perfectly accurate... the “original reaction” to nudity was “shame-free” (Genesis 2:25). And the pre-fall reality really should continue to be our post-fall ideal (more on that in a moment)!

You would be amazed how easy it is to be naked with a sense of purity and godliness in God’s presence—it was God’s original design, after all! Let me pose some thought questions to you:

Is there any part of your body that you need to hide from God’s sight?
Does clothing commend us to God at all??
Are you somehow too “impure” when you’re taking a shower to sing songs of praise and worship? Stated another way, will God not accept worship from a naked person?
Is God somehow offended if you have a chat with him while you’re exposed and “on the throne” in the bathroom?

You see, it is WE who make the naked state “incompatible” with godliness and an offense to the Almighty… not God! In truth, your question is actually reflective of what Adam thought when he felt that he must hide from God… that his nudity was no longer acceptable in God’s presence!

Think about the three facets of relationships we all live with and what they were like in the Garden:

Before the fall, man lived in right relationship with God. It was broken at the fall.
Before the fall, the man lived in a right relationship with his wife. It was broken at the fall.
Before the fall, the man lived in right relationship to himself (no shame!). It was broken at the fall.

Christ died and rose again to redeem us from ALL the brokenness of the fall. He didn’t go “2 for 3,” overcoming the first two points but coming up short on the third. No, our redemption truly includes all three points. It had to be that way, because the pre-fall reality is and always has been the post-fall ideal. Dare we claim anything different?

We may struggle to live in right relationship to God, but we should continue to pursue Him passionately.
We may struggle to live in right relationship with our spouses, but we should continue to pursue them with all our hearts.
We may struggle to live free from shame of any kind, so we should just give in to it and convince ourselves that we can never get there so don’t even try. Everyone since Adam has been ashamed of their nakedness, so there’s no use trying to live differently.

Does that fatalistic resignation sound right to you? Nope. Not to me, either. But that’s what our formal theological position essentially tells us is the truth. Can you find it anywhere in the Bible? Does Gen. 3 tell us that?

The irony is that of the three broken relationships, the easiest one to experientially restore is the the third one… at least as it pertains to body-shame (other types of shame have other sources). If we simply stop relying on our clothing to protect us from that shame, we will find that in shedding the clothes, we shed our body-shame along with them! To those still bound by body-shame, no words could sound more idiotic. But for those released from that shame, these words ring astoundingly true! There really are some things that can only be comprehended by experience!

In case you’re wondering about the “pre-fall reality” being the “post-fall ideal,” read Matthew 19:4-6. Jesus basically says that for marriage, the pre-fall reality is still the post-fall ideal. He quotes Gen 2:24 to make His point. Is there any Scriptural basis to think that Jesus would affirm verse 24 in a post-fall world, but reject verse 25?

~~~~~~~~~~

2.) How does Naturism integrate the biblical principles of modesty?

The “biblical principles of modesty” that you reference is—at very best—a moving target. If the Bible really is clear on the matter, why is there so much disagreement in Christendom about how to define it?

Scripturally, if you’re thinking about 1 Tim. 2:9-10, are you sure that the “modesty” that’s preached today to “make sure ‘this and that’ are adequately covered” is what Paul had in mind? “Modesty” has more than one meaning even in English. I can address this particular passage more if you want, but I’ll say this… the kind of “modesty” talked about in the American church today is not taught in the Scriptures (for a detailed treatment of 1 Tim. 2:9-10, read this paper).

To help you see just how indefinable “modesty” really is, consider these questions:

Exactly what body parts should a woman keep covered (or a man, for that matter)?
- Where is that found in the Scriptures?
Why should the beauty of the face be “permitted” but the beauty of the breasts (created to feed babies!!) be immoral to view?
If seeing more skin incites lust, why not cover it all? (It would seem that some expressions of Islam have embraced that logic! see The Objectification of Women – Part 1 / Part 2)

Here’s another point to explore… do some research about the history and practice of baptism in the early church. It was done nude. Don’t take my word for it… research it yourself! How does that historical reality (practiced when 1 Tim 2 was written) square with today’s ideas about the “biblical principles of modesty”? (see Nude Baptism in the Early Church? You Decide.)

One last perspective to consider… C. S. Lewis addressed the topic of modesty in his book, Mere Christianity (Book 3, Chapter 5 – Sexual Morality). Mr. Lewis demonstrates how “modesty” is really only a social construct, when the true moral issue regarding sexual behavior is “chastity.” One particularly significant quote is this: “I do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it…” I encourage all my readers to read his words in context so that you can see that I have not taken them out of his intended context.

To get back to your question of how Naturism integrates the “Biblical principle of modesty,” I would first summarize 1 Tim. 2:9-10 to say that Paul does not want us (women specifically) to use clothing or jewelry or hairstyles (or our bodies, I would suggest) to draw attention to ourselves. But in an environment where everyone is nude, “how much skin showing” is not an issue. No one is using clothing or their bodies to attract attention to themselves (or shouldn’t be, for that would be immodest!). No one is teasingly showing “a little bit more".” Everyone is simply who they really are. Everyone is “dressed” the same. In all honesty, I believe that kind of context exemplifies true biblical modesty more than just about any clothed gathering can!

Our society really does know the truth about how clothing can be used to distinguish people from one another and to allow one person to attract attention to themselves… that’s why some secondary schools have decided to require uniforms rather than allowing the kids to wear whatever they want! It puts all the students on an equal plane in reference to clothing. Well, so does social nudity.

~~~~~~~~~~

3.) If you truly and wholly embrace Naturism, why not be naked all the time? Not that I think you should or that it would be appropriate, but if you think it’s best how do you decide when to do it or not to do it. (I realize that you are a Christian first, and this is more of a devil’s advocate question, but it definitely comes up in the general conversation).

Being a naturist does not equate to being stupid! If my body needs protection from cold or power tools, I’ll put some clothes on!

There are also laws that we have an obligation to obey. Then there is the issue of deference; I have no desire to needlessly offend those around me.

But the real heart issue is this... Am I ashamed of God’s image being seen in my body? Well, I’m not any more! I don’t care who sees me… at least for my own sake… I care who sees me only for their sakes, so that I will not be forcing them to see me if they would rather not.

There might be a place and time to “educate” people, but right now, it’s probably not the best strategy for changing people’s attitudes about God’s image in all of our bodies.

~~~~~~~~~~

The other thing I wanted to address was something you mentioned in your opening paragraphs to the whole email. For one thing, I was wondering why 300 years was the number you mentioned. Is there a rich heritage of Naturists in Christian History that I’ve never heard of before?

As an offshoot of this I can’t help but go to the hermeneutical principle of looking at the history of interpretation of other godly men and women. Not that humans are infallible, but if we are going to say that the generally accepted position that wearing clothes is a good thing is mistaken, there should be a pretty good reason, and preferably not an argument from the Bible’s silence.

I’m all for questioning and seeking to be in accordance with God but there should be a point where we align with historical Christianity or recognize that the topic in question is a matter of Christian liberty.

That’s a very good point. It should counsel us to be very careful and reticent to simply lay aside theological understandings that have been accepted for a long time. I affirm that.

However, in the scope of all church history, the last 300 years is only a very small part (15%!). The fact of the matter is that our modern obsession with clothing was not even possible until the industrial revolution when the weaving of cloth became mechanized.

The idea that someone should never be seen naked wasn’t even “the rule” for Western societies until colonization found so-called “inferior” races that lived entirely without clothing and we “civilized” people were certainly “not like those ‘naked savages’!!” (I have heard but not been able to confirm this claim historically, yet I strongly suspect it is true). Unless I’m mistaken on this point, it means that our insistence on avoiding nudity really has its roots in a cultural—perhaps even racial—pride.

Nudity in sacred art was no problem at all until the last 300 years or so (check out a book at the public library called, The Old Testament Through 100 masterworks of Art... you’ll be surprised how much nudity was used!). Imagine a Christian artist today being commissioned to paint a biblical theme that included nudity!

Bathing suits as we know them today didn’t even exist several hundred years ago. But should we assume that no one ever swam? Or isn’t it more likely that they swam the same way they bathed... in public, at the river... with no concern for who might see them?

And as I mentioned above, the fact that the early Church originally practiced nude baptism should also inform our understanding of the Church’s “historical” view of nudity.

Yes, we should consider historical understanding when we consider theological issues, but not just the last 300 years! The fact is that the nudity taboo written into the theological moral code of the church today is relatively recent. It is not founded in the Scriptures, and it is not founded on reason. It is founded only on relatively recent tradition and a very false view of the meaning of our bodies!

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

This concludes Part 3 of my response to Mr. Piper’s article regarding the questions raised by the brother who brought it to my attention. I’ll continue with the questions and my answers in my next post. (See also Part 1 and Part 2).

There may be other portions of Mr. Piper’s article that another reader may feel that I have not adequately addressed. If so, I welcome comments to this post with those questions and I’ll be happy to address them either as additional comments to this post, or, if warranted, a “Part 4” for this series.

— Matthew Neal

When is Nudity OK for a Christian?

2011-06-01T21:57:00.001-07:00

Where he is, I once was…

One of my readers pointed me to an article by Ted Slater addressing the question in the title of this blog post. I don’t remember seeing it before, but I thought it worth a response. I understand his position, for where he is, I once was.

Like most good Christian young men, I’d heard all the Scriptures Mr. Slater used and knew exactly why nudity was “forbidden” in the Bible. One day, however, before I became a naturist, I was challenged to reexamining my understanding about nudity. So I looked at every one of the passages referenced. Under close investigation, I found that every last one of those passages failed to uphold the anti-nudity doctrine it had been invoked to support.

Let me assert my final analysis right from the start:

God does NOT tell us in the Bible when nudity is “OK” for a Christian and when it is not. However, the anti-nudity bias behind the “nudity taboo” taught by the church today misuses the Scriptures to create the impression that God objects to nudity in spite of the Bible’s silence on the matter.

Mr. Slater has really done nothing more than present the Biblical “support” from the anti-nudity bias. My task in this blog post is to show how each point is in error, since not one of them stands up under honest scrutiny.

No, this passage doesn’t really mean that.

My pattern for this post will be to quote a portion of Mr. Slater’s the article and then respond. I apologize that my responses are so much longer than the statements that I respond to. It often takes a lot of words to demonstrate how the assumptions behind a few words are invalid. This is especially true when simple Scripture references are used without quoting the verse or examining its context. In such cases, it requires a full explanation of the verse within its actual context to demonstrate how the verse has been misinterpreted.

¶1	When is Nudity OK for a Christian? by Ted Slater Comments on several blog posts tell me that this is a hot topic: When and how is it appropriate to include nudity and portrayals of sexual intercourse in various forms of art, specifically film?

The content of Mr. Slater’s article is much more about nudity among people than it is about nudity or sexual intercourse portrayed in art or film. That is likewise where I will focus my responses.

¶2a	In regards to viewing nudity, it’s clear that there’s a spectrum of appropriateness. On one hand, it may be appropriate for a man to view his wife’s or baby’s unclothed body; at certain times a male physician may be within his right to view a woman’s unclothed body.

The task of proving my opening assertion (in red above) really need go no further, for Mr. Slater has granted my point in his very first paragraph. He says, “There’s a spectrum of appropriateness.” If God has spoken on the matter, there can be no “spectrum.” Interestingly enough, he does not quote scripture to prove this point, but rather he cites culturally accepted “exceptions” in real life (see You Can’t Have it Both Ways for a more thorough treatment of this point).

Furthermore, it is worth noting biblical standards of morality cannot be based on subjective ideas like “appropriateness.” The best approach to this topic should be to start with what the Bible actually says. Mr. Slater has instead started by expressing a cultural assumption… that it really is OK for parents to see their children or doctors to see their patients. Those ideas have to be considered “cultural” because they are nowhere to be found in the Bible.

¶2b	On the other hand, it’s never appropriate for a man to view a woman other than his wife with lustful desire in his heart, whether she is clothed or unclothed.

Here, Mr. Slater speaks the absolute truth. Lust is forbidden, and the amount of clothing worn by the object of that lust is of no consequence at all. In my opinion, Mr. Slater could have written this sentence (with no “other hand”) and nothing else for the entire article, and it would have been profoundly true.

As soon as we start trying to define some additional “rule” for righteousness which God has not clearly declared in the Bible, we step into legalism. Rather than welcoming that legalism (which is based on human reasoning), we should actively reject it (see Col. 2:20-23).

¶3	Perhaps the rightness or wrongness of viewing nude forms has to do with vocation: a husband’s vocation to please his wife, for example, or a physician’s vocation to care for his patients.

There is no evidence for this assertion in the Scriptures. Mr. Slater has invoked another culturally developed notion and suggested that it is (or might be) God’s perspective on nudity for the Christian. There is no concept of “vocation” in the Bible that has any bearing on much of a person’s skin someone is permitted to see.

¶4	And perhaps the rightness or wrongness of viewing nude forms also has to do with the heart: viewing a woman lustfully is clearly wrong.

There is no “perhaps” about this statement. this is biblically true… based on the words of Christ Himself (Matthew 5:28). However, like the statement Mr. Slater made in ¶2a above, the nudity or non-nudity of the person being seen makes no difference at all. Jesus did not include any such caveat in His statement to us about lust.

¶5	Perhaps Scripture can provide some clarity, some insights into this issue.

Scripture does provide insight, but unfortunately, I believe that the scriptures that follow in Mr. Slater’s article are presumed by him to mean something that they do not. The “insight” drawn from them has actually been infused into them by an anti-nudity bias.

Let me say here that I certainly do not wish to pick on Mr. Slater alone. I fear that what he writes here is very commonly believed. I believed the same once myself. But when I subjected those Scriptures to honest examination, I found that every last one of the Scriptures had been misinterpreted in reference to how the nude form was to be understood.

I know that may seem to be a very haughty claim to make… but I wouldn’t make it if I wasn’t convinced that it is true. Personally, I was astounded as I worked through all these passages, only to find that each one could not support the conclusions they are frequently invoked to support. In every case, my previous understanding turned out to be unsupportable, or simply wrong.

Consequently, I’m not going to hold back. My perspective is that Mr. Slater has listed his Scripture references, offering only a summary of what they mean, and expecting us to take his word for it. However, I find that his summaries are misleading or just plain false.

I’ve made some very strong statements here, and I don’t intend to ask you to just take my word for it. I’ll give you the evidence, you double-check it for yourself, then see if you don’t agree.

¶6	Job made a covenant with his eyes not to “gaze at a virgin.” Habakkuk associates “gazing” at someone’s unclothed body as shameful. There’s something about “gazing” at someone you’re not married to that Scripture considers wrong.

Connecting the word “gaze” in these two passages is an interpretational error. Though the words match in English, they are translated from two different Hebrew words, and the two words do not mean the same thing.

The Hebrew word used in Job 31:1 for “gaze” is better translated in the KJV: “…why then should I think upon a maid?” Job’s covenant may be with the eyes, but the commitment is all about his mind. The word “maid” here actually refers to a virgin. Therefore, we can see that Job is committing to not allow his mind to dwell on a sexually inexperienced woman. He’s not promising to never look at a woman. He’s promising to never look with lust. This is precisely in harmony with Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:28.

In Habakkuk, The prophet is talking about a person who purposely gets his neighbors (plural) drunk in order to take voyeuristic advantage of them (sounds like watching porn!). Without any doubt, that act IS shameful! But simply seeing someone’s naked body? Is that what this passage is talking about? No, I do not believe it is.

I am troubled that this verse would be referenced without acknowledging the aspect of intentionally getting someone drunk in order to look at them. That detail is critically important to a correct understanding of the passage. Leaving it out gives the incorrect impression that it is shameful anytime one person sees another naked. I trust that its omission was only an oversight or mistake, because leaving it out on purpose would amount to deception.

¶7a	To directly challenge a comment on another blog post: Scripture does indicate that a woman’s breasts are sexual for men, and not merely for men in “civilized cultures.” Consider Proverbs 5:19 and Song of Solomon 7:6-12 and Ezekiel 23:3,21, for example.

By the same token, we should consider lips sexual, because the bible also acknowledges that kissing is a part of sexual activity.

As Mr. Slater suggests, I have considered these passages. I have found that they do not support what amounts to the sexual objectification of women’s breasts (see 007b.com for a great culturally relevant site about this topic). I will address each one.

Proverbs 5:19 – Yes, this passage is about sexually enjoying your wife for all your life. But it is also poetry; it uses poetic language. The verse could just as easily read, “let her face/kisses/embrace fill you at all times with delight” and the verse would lose little of its meaning. It just so happens that the breasts are one of the clear gender-identifying attributes of a woman. The term “breasts” works wonderfully as a euphemistic reference to a man’s wife. Add to that the fact that “let her breasts satisfy you…” (NASB) is a clear allusion to the real purpose of breasts to “satisfy” babies, and it is very effectively constructed poetry. Would anyone suggest that the poet’s point that a man should go gaga for his own wife’s breasts instead of her person? I don’t think so. I believe the account is really just saying “Enjoy your own wife!”

Can Proverbs 5:19 be used to support a sexualized view of women’s breasts as being how God wants us to view them? No, it cannot.

Song of Solomon. Granted, the entire book is essentially about sex, so it might be assumed that every time breasts are mentioned, it must be considered a “sexual context.” But is that correct? I don’t think so. Solomon is often simply extolling the beauty of his bride. Yes, among the various parts of her anatomy, he mentions the breasts… but does that mean that breasts are (or should be) primarily sexual to a man? If so, then what about the navel? Or the ears? or her nose or legs (they are all mentioned in the text with essentially equal emphasis)? No, Solomon was extolling every facet of his bride’s beauty… and that included the undeniable and notable beauty of her breasts.

(Incidentally… shouldn’t we take note of the fact that God’s Word includes a rather detailed description of the beauty of a naked woman’s body? Isn’t that instructive? Solomon was inspired by God to help all of us imagine and ponder the naked beauty of his OWN wife!)

Ezekiel 23:3,21 – Obviously here, the breasts are mentioned of as a part of the sexual misconduct of “Oholah” and “Oholibah” who were “sisters” spoken of metaphorically in reference to the unfaithfulness of the sister nations, Israel and Judah.

I think we can all agree that during sex, a woman’s breasts are handled by the man. I believe this passage of Scripture acknowledges that. However, I think we can also agree that there’s probably no part of a woman’s body that is exempt from the same sort of attention. Therefore, I see these two rare verses as simply descriptive of that reality… nothing more. I do not believe they have the power to call out women’s breasts and declare them to be more sexual than any other body part. These passages acknowledge that breasts play a role in sexual interaction, but they do not mean God wants us to view them or treat them that way at all times.

I can’t help but wonder if, before Mr. Slater posted his opinion about these verses supposedly “proving” the “sexual” nature of breasts, he had examined the whole counsel of God’s Word to see how breasts are referenced throughout the Bible. When I was pondering the biblical perspective on breasts, that’s exactly what I did, for I wanted to really understand how the Bible views them. I found that overwhelmingly, the Bible refers to breasts in their God-given design to feed babies. The second most common usage of the term is to simply refer to the front of a person’s chest… male or female! Only in the rare occasions that Mr. Slater quoted can they be construed as “sexual.”

Like the other passages, I find that we have no real biblical basis to consider breasts as primarily sexual, nor any support that God intends for us to view them or respond to them as if they were. Such a conclusion simply is not in harmony with the whole of Scripture, which—incidentally—mentions breasts a lot (I would recommend that same investigation to all my readers).

¶7b

To further illustrate, let me ask our female readers a couple of questions: If a man not your husband touched your shoulder, that’d probably be all right, right? But if he touched you elsewhere, it would not be all right. If he looks you in the eye, that’s probably all right, right? But if he gazes elsewhere, would you not feel uncomfortable? Of course, because you would feel sexually violated.

Unfortunately, Mr. Slater here invokes the subjective experience of his readers to affirm what is really a culturally understood idea. What’s more, all of his expected readers are members of the very culture that has embraced the sexualized view of breasts that he has articulated. If the very same question were asked in a very different culture—one that does NOT sexualize breasts—he would receive very different answers.

This point is really no proof at all. I fear that it only betrays the fact that genuine biblical proof is actually lacking.

¶8a	Nakedness is associated with disgrace and shame (Isaiah 47:3, Micah 1:11, Nahum 3:5, Revelation 3:18)

Isa. 47:1-3. This passage is misinterpreted for the simply reason that the verse is lifted out if its context, both culturally and textually. The real meaning is this:

A curse is pronounced against the nation of Babylon using the metaphor of a woman who is a princess (“virgin daughter of Babylon”). From her lofty position, she is literally dethroned, stripped of all her glory, and made to work as a slave girl for others. Because clothing was tremendously expensive in those days, and the poor often had none at all, slaves and other manual laborers worked nude as a matter of course to avoid soiling the one article of clothing they may have owned. There was no real “shame” or “disgrace” for such a person to be seen naked, The “shame” or “disgrace” came from being demoted from the rank of “princess” in a kingdom (with many servants of her own) to that of a lowly slave girl, forced to do manual labor in the nude like all the other peasant/slave girls… that disgrace was huge.

Is this shame and disgrace at simple nudity? No, it is not. The context demonstrates otherwise.

Micah 1:11 – Here again, Nations are being judged. Samaria and Jerusalem will be judged and destroyed for their idolatry and spiritual prostitution. All the buildings will be destroyed down to their foundations. All of the idols will be smashed. This is the prophecy of the coming judgment. But then Micah shifts gears…

Micah himself declares that he himself will go naked… in expression of his own mourning (Micah 1:8 – evidently no sin in that). Furthermore, verse 11 is not a description of judgment by God… instead, Micah is giving a command… telling the people of Shafir to go naked! If the prophet is telling them to do it just as he is doing it, how can anyone conclude that the nakedness itself is wrong? Shouldn’t we rather conclude that the prostitution and idolatry are the real causes of their shame? Micah himself chose to go naked as a public expression of grief and repentance. He called the people to do the same. This is not a shame that can be attributed to nakedness. Their shame is entirely about their sin.

Nahum 3:4-7 – This too is the metaphorical description of the judgment on a nation… this time it’s Nineveh. God describes the nation as having acted as a whore “countless” times to other nations. God then declares that He is against her, promising to pull her skirt over her head (and face, of course) to put her whoring body on public display. He also promised to throw filth on her exposed body in the sight of everyone to make her a “spectacle.” Being publicly punished in such a manner would indeed be very shameful situation. Furthermore, acting as a whore—the sin which prompted this judgment—is also very shameful. There is no basis to read this passage and conclude that for the simple reason that her body was exposed, nakedness was the actual source of the shame.

In all three of these passages, there was nakedness and there was shame. But was the nakedness the source of that shame? In every case, it was not. We must not accept the idea that the unclothed human body is shameful to be seen simply because “shame” and “nakedness” appear in the same Scriptural context.

Rev. 3:17-18 – This passage is admittedly more difficult to grasp. At the very outset, however, we should ask this question: Is this passage intended to teach us the nature of physical nakedness? I think the answer is “no.” Consequently, we should be very careful not to place upon this passage—as seemingly “clear” as it appears to be in associating nakedness with shame—the responsibility of declaring God’s attitude about simple nudity. A careful examination of the passages reveals that the “shameful nakedness” that is being spoken of is spiritual, not physical.

Looking at the text, we see that the Exalted Christ is speaking to the Church of Laodicea. He has nothing good to say about them. They think they’re healthy, proud, rich, sighted, and clothed. Jesus describes them as wretched, pitiable, poor, blind and naked. Note… none of these conditions that Jesus is describing are physical; they are all spiritual.

Is it a sin to be poor or blind? No, of course not. Is it a sin to be spiritually poor and blind when you think you’re “just fine”? Yes it is. By the same token, is it any sin to be physically naked? Some may think so, but that cannot be demonstrated from this passage. Spiritual nakedness is sin, to be sure, but this passage is not teaching that physical nakedness is sinful or shameful any more than it’s teaching the physical blindness is shameful.

The real shame of their spiritual nakedness is in the fact that they were not clothed in the righteousness of Christ… According to Jesus’ words, they needed to “buy” their gold and salve and white garments from Him! To be in His presence without such spiritual garments is indeed a very shameful nakedness.

No, not even Rev. 3:17-18 can bear the weight of proving that simple nakedness is intrinsically associated with shame.

I have talked extensively about each passage because in so doing, I believe it is very evident that Mr. Slater’s usage of these passages is not accurate. The only way to make them appear to support an anti-nudity postulate is to pull them out of context and make quick summaries of their meanings that, in truth, cannot be validated by careful and honest study.

Sadly, not only Mr. Slater, but many other well-meaning servants of God have fallen unwittingly into the same error. Because the lie of the nudity-taboo is so deeply entrenched within our cultural fiber, its deceptive presence even within the church’s theology has gone unrecognized.

¶8b	…When we see someone who is without clothing, we are not to admire their form, but to cover them (Isaiah 58:7, Ezekiel 18:7, Genesis 9:22-27).

Isa 58:7 & Ezek. 18:7 – Hunger is evidence of a physical need; it is not a moral need. Nakedness is evidence of a physical need; it is not a moral. In both of these passages, we are told that true righteousness includes meeting the physical needs of the poor and destitute.

An examination of the multiple references to “clothing the naked” in the Scriptures reveals that it’s always about providing them with warmth for their bodies, not protecting them from the embarrassment of being “seen” naked. The fact is that the many iterations of that command demonstrate that in the Biblical culture, seeing naked poor people was relatively common.

We must also understand that at that time, clothing was such a valuable commodity that it could legally be used as collateral for a loan (and it was regulated; see Exo. 22:25-27). As such, it would also be an asset that could be used to barter for food. This would explain why the poor were often naked.

Simply because someone was naked was not reason enough to clothe them… people had to bathe in public throughout the biblical history (imagine the 40 years the Israelites were living in tents in the desert!). Seeing others naked in the normal course of life was probably as ordinary as seeing someone who was hungry.

When we were commanded to feed the hungry, it’s not talking about anyone whom we meet who happens to be hungry at a given moment, but those who are perpetually hungry, with no means to find food. By the same token, clothing the naked is not a matter of clothing any person who happens to be naked at a given moment, but those who are perpetually naked, with no means to get clothing to keep warm.

I’ve already dealt with the story of Noah in-depth in a previous blog post, but I’ll add some additional comments here…

The account of Noah’s drunkenness, nakedness, his son’s actions towards him, and the subsequent curse are one of the mysteries of Scripture. We are told so little about what happened, and we are left with many unanswered questions. There really is very little we can learn about it, and we learn nothing about God’s will on nakedness. Because that passage is narrative, we cannot derive biblical principle from the tale unless God interjects a statement of His will into the account (for example, Gen. 2:18-23 tells a story; it is followed by a command in v24).

Unfortunately, in Gen. 9:20-27, God never speaks. We are not told to imitate or reject anyone’s behavior. Aside from getting drunk and naked, we don’t know what Noah was doing in the tent. We don’t know what Ham really did when he saw his father. We don’t know why Ham’s 2 brothers responded as they did. We don’t know the cultural mores of the time or the family dynamics or even how many of Noah’s grandchildren were around. We don’t know even why Noah cursed only Ham’s fourth son, Canaan, instead of Ham, the one who had actually wronged him.

Can we guess that Shem and Japheth’s actions were more noble than Ham’s? Yes.
Are we commanded in this passage to cover nakedness like they did? No.
Are we commanded to honor our father as they did? Yes…but not in THIS passage! This story does not even give us a command to honor our father! It only illustrates the command given later in Exodus 20:12!

As to the “admiration” of physical human form, it IS biblical to do so. We’re told straight up that Bathsheba was very beautiful to look at… while she was naked (1 Sam. 11:2 - for the record, there is no condemnation in the Bible for her bathing in view of the palace in the Bible). That’s not David’s take on it, that’s the divine commentary found in the inspired narrative. Rachel was also described in the Bible as beautiful of “form” and face (Gen. 29:17 - she had a nice figure). For that matter, Joseph was described the same way (Gen. 39:6)! And I believe we’ve already discussed Song of Solomon…

¶9

God modeled this by clothing Adam and Eve. God did this because He deemed such a gift to be good; not giving such a gift would not be good; therefore it would be bad not to give such a gift; because this gift’s purpose was to cover their unclothed bodies, it follows that it was bad for Adam and Eve to go around with unclothed bodies.

Mr. Slater’s assumption here is that God’s purpose was actually to “cover.” or to “hide” their bodies. This assumption is without any biblical support, and in fact, contradicts the meaning of the immediate context.

God had just rebuked Adam for being concerned about his nakedness… (“covering” it and hiding) in Gen. 3:11. Why then would anyone conclude that God changed His tune and decided that “covering” and hiding the body was a good thing after all… only ten verses later? God’s reason for clothing them (completely missing in the text) cannot be contrary to His reprimand of Adam just a moment before. And there is absolutely no reason to conclude that God’s motivation for the clothing were the same as Adam’s when he sewed together the fig leaves.

A much more realistic explanation (drawn from the immediate context) of why God clothed them is that it was for protection! Why? The ground had been cursed with thorns. The living accommodations (outside the Garden) had just gotten a lot more difficult. When something beautiful and valuable is in danger of being damaged, you cover it for protection, not to hide it from view. When there is no immediate danger, there is no longer a need for the covering.

Would a gift of “protection” be a good gift? Of course it would be. Does it follow that our bodies must wear protection at all times? No, it doesn’t.

Like Mr. Slater, many people jump to the conclusion that because God clothed Adam and Eve, that we must stay clothed, too. But this perspective ignores the obvious implication that, if this account really does amount to a mandate to stay clothed, it must also apply to contexts where it’s just a husband and his wife, for that’s all that there were when this “good” gift (and the implied command) was given.

¶10	God again covers nakedness in Ezekiel 16:8. Jesus affirms clothing the unclothed in Matthew 25.

Here again, to understand this reference correctly, one must observe the context in Ezek. 16:1-8. In this metaphorical story, God describes the birth and growth of the nation of Israel… she was cast out at birth, but God cleaned her up and made her grow an prosper, all the way into maturity (breasts and pubic hair have grown). God “passes by” again and determines that it’s time for her to get married, and he’s the one who's going to marry her!

And all this time, she’s been naked with God’s full knowledge and oversight. Probably 16 years old, and never having worn a stitch of clothing. There is not even a hint of shame in the entire account (that comes later… after she was clothed). These years of God-permitted and shame-free nudity are a significant part of the story. Should we just ignore it?

Meanwhile, in an act of love and marriage, God “covers” her nakedness… much like Boaz was asked to put his “covering” over Ruth (Ruth 3:9 - it was a formal request that he care for her and take her as His wife). The picture In Ezekiel is of God’s love and commitment to Israel. It’s not the “correction” of her “shameful” condition. If that were the issue, God could have and should have done it a lot sooner in her life!

Matthew 25:36. This is, again, about clothing those who have no means to clothe themselves, and doing it as unto the Lord. Isn’t it also worth noting that in this passage, Jesus describes Himself as “naked”? If it was a sinful or shameful condition, would he have described Himself that way?

¶11	I need to make it clear that the human body is not shameful. It is glorious. But in most cases, uncovering it before others is condemned. Just as, perhaps, interacting inappropriately with the sacred Ark of the Covenant was condemned.

I find this an interesting disclaimer. We have just read 10 paragraphs declaring that nudity is shameful, then we read a contradictory statement saying the the body is actually not shameful. I feel as if we’re being told that the body is NOT shameful, but we should act as if it really IS (or more aptly, “Gnosticism is heresy, but we must live as if it is true”).

Mr. Slater says that “in most cases, uncovering it is condemned.” Yet I have not seen one verse at all that “condemns” the simple uncovering of the body. Sexual misconduct, yes… but never simple non-sexual nudity. The only thing we have been offered as evidence of condemnation is a shaky association of nakedness with shame. Even if that association were valid, association does not equate to condemnation.

I find the connection between unclothed human bodies and the Ark of the Covenant to be a very dubious one, and I do not see that lends any support to Mr. Slater’s claims. Is the Ark ever in all the Scriptures used as a analogy for the body or the body for the Ark? Not to my knowledge.

¶12

Scripture is clear that it is wrong to “lie sexually” with someone to whom you’re not married (Leviticus 18:20). The marriage bed is to remain undefiled (Hebrews 13:4). Actors who portray sexual intercourse with someone to whom they’re not married are rejecting both of these principles. By paying money to view these actors, we are facilitating and affirming their ungodly behavior.

Unfortunately, this summary of Leviticus 18 is egregiously in error. The passage defines and prohibits incest (See my blog or article on The Meaning of Nakedness). It’s not about people you’re “not married to,” it’s about “blood relatives.” That specific context is stated four times in this one chapter (Lev. 18:6,12,13,17). Furthermore, Lev. 20:17 says that it’s also wrong to “lie sexually” with someone that you ARE married to… if that “someone” is your sister (compare translations or do a word study, “takes” in this context means “marries”).

I agree with Mr. Slater’s use of Heb. 13:4 and it’s application to sex in film.

¶13

I see plenty of instances in Scripture where viewing unclothed bodies is wrong. Does Scripture ever portray unclothed bodies as right? Hm. Well, maybe. Isaiah “walked naked and barefoot for three years as a sign … against Egypt and Cush.” The Lord Himself directly commanded Isaiah to do so in order to indicate the shame these peoples would experience.

I have not yet seen ONE instance in the Bible where the simple sight of unclothed bodies is “wrong.”

Regarding Isaiah, once again, I perceive an intentional avoidance of some obvious implications in this story, Furthermore, I see only a surface treatment of the content of the prophetic message proclaimed by Isaiah’s nakedness.

First of all, God commanded Isaiah to go naked for thee whole years. It was not a shame to Isaiah… he was obeying the Lord. There can be no shame in that. In fact, the Hebrew word used to describe Isaiah as “naked” in Isa. 20:2 is the very same one used to describe Adam and Eve before the fall in Gen. 2:25; this was simple, innocent, shame-free nudity. Would God command Isaiah to sin? Of course not. Therefore, going around naked full-time cannot be considered a sin by itself. This conclusion is impossible to avoid from this account.

Was Isaiah not to be seen? What’s the purpose of a “sign” if it is not seen?

Isaiah’s prophetic message was that the nations of Ethiopia and Egypt would be so totally conquered militarily that their people would be led away just as naked as he himself was.

“…to the SHAME of Egypt.” It is instructive to look up the Hebrew word here translated “shame.” It’s not the word for shame at all! Oddly enough, it’s the word for “nakedness”! Evidently, the translators struggled with knowing what “the nakedness of Egypt” meant so that they used the word “shame” instead. This is the only place in ALL the bible which translates the Hebrew word, ervah, as “shame.” I suspect that it is in error (see this word study on The Meaning of Nakedness). Even if the word does signify some sort of shame, it’s not the naked captives to whom that “shame” was applied… it was the nation of Egypt itself. That makes sense, after all; Egypt had just been dealt a crushing military defeat. The people did feel shame, we are told, but not at their own nudity, rather they were ashamed of their home nations (Isa 20:5).

¶14	Should passers-by have averted their gaze, like the men of Coventry who refused to look at the Lady Godiva as she rode horseback through their town, naked and humbled, sacrificing her honor for their sake? Yeah, probably.

There are no instructions in all the Bible that tells us to avert our gaze from any naked human we happen to see. “Probably” is not biblical mandate… it is cultural convention.

¶15	It’s also likely that Jesus was without clothing as he was hanging on the cross. His garments were divided among those who carried out the crucifixion. This nakedness may have contributed to the shame He experienced on the cross.

Did Jesus ever for one moment on earth have any reason to feel real shame? Jesus was perfect and without sin. Only HE—of all people in the history of the world—could claim to be “naked and unashamed” as purely as the first Adam had been. Shame is always the result of sin. It always indicates that something is wrong in a person’s relationship with God, others, or him/herself. Jesus never sinned and there was never any fault in His relationship to His father. He was never ashamed!

To be sure, those who crucified Him made many efforts to shame Him. THIS is the shame that Jesus “despised,” refusing to allow it to infect his life. He endured it, yes, but it did not touch him.

When considering our naked Savior on the cross and the nature of nakedness, we must not ignore a fact found in the immediate context which has significant bearing on the topic… there were LADIES at the foot of the Cross where He hung naked (John 19:25)! Did these women turn their faces away from Him so as not to see his circumcised penis? Did they lift a hand to block the sight of His genitals so they could look up in His face without viewing that “shameful” part of His body? Was Jesus any less their Lord because his fully naked body was visible for all to see? No, no, no.

There was no sin in Jesus hanging naked exposed to the whole world. There was no sin in those women who stood by Him weeping in His holy and naked presence. They honored Him to His last breath while He died naked for their sins.

It is we today who find Jesus’ naked form on the Cross too “offensive” to view. It is we who dishonor Him by turning our eyes away lest we see His “maleness” exposed on the cross. Jesus hung there without shame for you and for me. Do we dare we deny His work by looking away?

¶16	As with Isaiah, Jesus’ humiliation was a display of God’s holy judgment against sin. Like Lady Godiva, He sacrificed His honor for our sake. It had no entertainment value.

Jesus never sacrificed His honor. He was indeed dishonored by men, but men are not the source of true honor. God highly exalted (honored) Him precisely because He endured death on a cross (Phil 2:8-9). Jesus never acted with more true “honor” than the day He “honored His Father” by obedience, even to death on the cross.

Let me make this next statement as graciously as I can, yet without holding back the truth at all…

If we hold fast to a perspective of shame regarding the unclad human form, that perspective will distort our understanding of human embodiment to such a degree that we will mistakenly assign that same shame to the sinless body of our God-incarnate, Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. This would be a grievous—if not blasphemous—error.

¶17	(Note, of course, that the nakedness of neither Isaiah nor Jesus was in any way sexual, but was heartbreakingly shameful and humiliating.)

I reiterate, there was nothing shameful about Isaiah’s obedience, and especially none for Jesus’ obedience. Isaiah was not “humiliated.” Nor was Christ. Though His enemies tried desperately to humiliate Him, they failed to do so.

Remember… Satan lost that day!

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

The Appearance of Wisdom…

The Bible does NOT tell us when nudity is OK and when it is not. In my view, Mr. Slater’s efforts here in his article fall far short of demonstrating anything to the contrary.

Using man’s wisdom in a culture that sexually objectifies both the male and female bodies, it’s not difficult at all reach the conclusion that the best way to suppress sexual impurity is to hide the “temptations” (our bodies) from view. We have impure thoughts when we see nude bodies; we have pure thoughts when we do not (or so we deceive ourselves into believing). So we make up the rule—the “Nudity-Taboo”—we try to find Scriptures that seem to support the rule, then we declare that “This is God’s will for you!”

Yet, despite the lofty label, it remains a man-made rule.

No matter how firmly we believe that hiding the human form will help us overcome sexual sin, Paul’s words in Col. 2:20-23 cut right through our deception and reveal the folly…

20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

Allow me to comment on the portions of this passage I have highlighted in red:

“Why… do you submit to decrees… commands and teachings of men?”
- It is vitally important that we make no mistake in identifying which decrees, commands, and teachings are truly of God, and which are actually of men.
- We must strongly oppose and actively reject the teachings of men.
- The “nudity-taboo” is one such false rule and it must be rejected.
- We must only submit to the teachings of God, no matter the cost.
Even though they have the “appearance of wisdom”
- The “nudity-taboo” may make a lot of sense… according to man’s wisdom…
- But it is still false, because it is not found in God’s Word.
These false teachings are most surely a “severe treatment of the body”
- We recognized psychological abuse as “real” abuse when it’s perpetrated on a person.
- We have been blind to the reality of the psychological abuse towards the naked human body perpetrated by the nudity-taboo.
- Such “severe treatment of the body” is a clear confirmation that this “rule” is not of God.
The “nudity-taboo” is of “no value against fleshly indulgence.”
- We have a sure and unfailing guarantee from God that the very goal that we profess as our motivation for the “nudity-taboo” will never be reached. It won’t even help a little bit.
- If the “nudity-taboo” were of any real and lasting help towards sexual purity, then God’s Word in this passage is not true…

What more is there to say?

— Matthew Neal

Lust is a Secondary Issue!

2011-05-28T15:39:00.001-07:00

Note… I did not say lust was an “unimportant” issue!

But it is secondary to the question of the biblical morality of social nudity… which is the primary issue.

Here’s why this is important…

If God forbids social nudity, then the question of “lust” is moot. Even if there is no lust involved, social nudity would still be unrighteous all by itself.
If, on the other hand, social nudity is not forbidden by God, then we must address the issue of lust (which clearly is forbidden by God).

The implications of these observations should be pretty clear:

It means that if we are addressing the biblical position on social nudity, we must answer that question before we discuss the role of lust and how it should inform our practice.
It means that in any discussion about the morality of social nudity, if someone invokes the “lust” argument in their attempt to establish a divine prohibition of nudity, they have inadvertently admitted that there is no stand-alone divine injunction against social nudity in the bible.
It also means that if the attempt to establish a prohibition against nudity is based solely on the “lust” factor, then we must also conclude that if the lust factor can be mitigated, then God would not disapprove of socially nude context.

Indeed, that third point is actually where most people end up in practice, for few have a moral objection to a woman going to a male doctor, even though she may be nude in his presence. We expect the doctor to act with professional decorum, treating her body with dignity and without any lust in his own heart. Consequently, since there is no lust, the nudity is permissible.

But, that reality (that point three is how we truly live) is not acknowledged by the proponents of the nudity taboo. They typically say that “medical necessity” is a morally acceptable exception, but that in all other cases, nudity around anyone other than one’s own spouse is forbidden.

(As an aside here, I have often suggested that if the nudity “exception” could be found in the Bible, then it would make the case against nudity much stronger, even in the absence of a clear prohibition of social nudity. However, both the prohibition AND the exception are missing in the Bible. See my related post, You Can’t Have it Both Ways)

You Want to Talk about “Lust”?

Here’s where the rubber meets the road. “Lust” IS a worthwhile topic to address as a naturist. Sometime in the future I expect to do so here in my blog.

However, if we’re discussing the morality of Social Nudity, then I’m not going to talk about “lust” with you unless you first admit that there’s no specific Biblical prohibition on social nudity itself… irrespective of the “lust” component. Make the case that the Bible forbids social nudity and your point is granted.

If you must talk about “lust” in order to make a case against social nudity, then you are by default, admitting that the Bible does not overtly prohibit social nudity. But in so doing, you must also grant that when lust is not a factor, then the nudity is not sinful. To claim otherwise is not logically consistent.

Perhaps it is possible to make a case that lust is impossible to to avoid when mixed-gender nudity is present, therefore all social nudity results in sin. But that’s a very different assertion than the claim that God prohibits of social nudity in and of itself! Lust is as secondary consideration.

The “Debate”

Some years ago, John Kundert of the Fig Leaf Forum once entered into a formal debate with Pastor Mark Roberts regarding Mr. Robert’s assertion that “Social nudism is condemned by the Bible as sinful.”

At the very beginning of the debate, Mr. Roberts immediately invoked the issue of “lust” and asserted that Mr. Kundert could not ensure that lust did not happen in the context of social nudity. In light of what I’ve just explained in this blog post, it must be concluded that Mr. Roberts was, in essence, already conceding defeat in the debate, for he could not support his stated assertion from the Scriptures alone. Rather, was compelled to invoke the “lust” issue in an effort to support his position from the very start.

(You can read the entire debate here.)

Lust is clearly sin according to God’s word. As such, it is absolutely a very important issue. But if one claims that the Bible specifically forbids social nudity, that claim must be demonstrated without invoking the “lust” argument.

— Matthew Neal

For related posts, see:

You Can’t Have it Both Ways

Naturist by Biblical Conviction??? – Part 1 - Part 2 – Part 3

Noah’s Nakedness… What Really Happened?

2011-05-14T21:41:00.001-07:00

I’m taking a quick break from the responses to Mr. John Piper in order to address
a question raised by a reader in the “Sound Off” post.

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

I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a story that was covered in Sunday School, but I was sure familiar with it. I’d probably read it for myself as a boy and it made a lasting impression on me.

I’m talking about the story of Noah and what happened when one of his sons saw him naked… and believe me, it put the fear in me to ever see my own dad naked. At those rare times we might have been in a campground shower together, I was intentionally looking the other way when my dad took off his shorts. I sure didn’t want to be cursed like Ham was in the bible… just for seeing his dad naked.

That response to my father’s nudity persisted throughout my life.

Fast forward to about five years ago, and I find myself startled that there are Christian naturists… who claim that the Bible does not forbid us to be unclothed with others in a social context. When I could not quickly and easily refute their claims, it launched for me a rather intense study of God’s word on the topic.

It wasn’t long before I realized that the passages I had always assumed to prohibit social nudity actually did not, but I was still bugged in the back of my mind about the story of Noah. It had so shaped my attitude towards my father’s nudity that I knew I would have to revisit this story and assess my understanding of it before I could ever accept naturism as being morally pure, biblically speaking.

So, rather than rest in the interpretation of a pre-teen boy as being accurate, I looked at the passage again to see what it really said.

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

The story is found in Gen 9:20-25. Here it is in full:

20 Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard.

21 He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent.

22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.

23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father's nakedness.

24When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him.

25 So he said,
        "Cursed be Canaan;
        A servant of servants
        He shall be to his brothers."

The first question we need to address here is this…What does this passage teach us?

In order to answer that, we first need to make some observations about it and consider their implications, else we may try to “see” things which are not there, or miss things that are.

There are many, many observations that could be made, of course, but I’m only going to highlight some that I believe are of special significance when we are trying to discern God’s moral truth about nakedness.

This is a narrative passage; it is not a legal (law-giving) section of the Scriptures. It tells what happened, but it does not establish any sort of moral code.

Consequently, we cannot use this passage to establish some sort of moral rule for righteousness. We may find that it illustrates teaching found elsewhere in the Bible, but it cannot establish a doctrine from it.
For example, the Bible never tells us that we may not see our parents naked or else we will suffer a curse. This story of Noah and his sons cannot be forced to establish such a teaching, since it really is only narrative.
By contrast, however, the Bible teaches very clearly that we should honor our parents (Exo. 20:12). The command carries a promise of blessing when obeyed. What’s more, Deut. 27:16 promises a curse for those who fail to honor their parents.

Clearly, the story of Noah in Gen 9 illustrates these biblical laws perfectly… however, it does not establish them!
A passage cannot illustrate a command that does not exist elsewhere in the Bible. To establish a narrative as an illustration of Biblical truth, we must first locate where in the Bible that truth is declared.

While we know that the story is true (because it is part of God’s Word), within the account itself, we find no divine commentary! God describes the historical event, but He does not give His “perspective” on the event; He does not tell us what we should learn, or what we should emulate.

Consequently, we must be careful not to presume to know the mind of the Lord on the matter, or we may find that we are putting forth our own human thoughts and attributing them to God (see Isa. 55:9)!
Consider the story of Gideon and his setting out a fleece before the Lord (Judges 6:36-40). One might be tempted to read the story and see how God responded to Gideon’s “testing” of the Lord and conclude that this is how we should respond to the Lord, too. However, a little pondering of the story will reveal that Gideon’s actions really revealed his lack of faith, not his possession of it! God had told Gideon that he would prevail, but Gideon did not take God at His word! God’s graciousness towards such unbelief is His own prerogative, but it certainly would be suspect if we concluded that since God answered Gideon’s requests that He wants us to place the same sort of requests before Him ourselves!
I’ve heard it put this way… Narrative is not Imperative. Narrative without Imperative is not Normative.

In other words, a biblical story does not constitute a divine command. If the story has no divine command included, we cannot consider that story’s presence in the pages of Scripture to be a moral guide for our lives.
It is not for us to declare that “this or that” story in the Bible must be emulated when God has not told us to do so!
For an example of a narrative that contains a command, read about the creation of Eve in Gen. 2:21-24. The story is related in verses 21-23. A clear command follows in verse 24!

The story of Noah and his son’s teaches us very little about our lives or even Biblical history. The only enduring reality that we can know for sure from this passage is when, why, and how the people of Canaan were cursed by God. In my opinion, no other conclusion is exegetically justifiable.

Some other observations raise difficult and perhaps unanswerable questions:

Was Noah wrong to be unclothed in His own tent?
If this is a passage about “nakedness,” why is it that it was not the one who was naked who was cursed?
If Ham was the one who dishonored his father, why is it that Ham’s son was cursed instead?
Given the fact that the Hebrew word ervah (translated “nakedness”) seems to very consistently signify sexual activity rather than simple nudity, could it be that there was some sort of sexual component implied in the story that we don’t see in the English translation? (for a careful treatment of this subject, see “The Meaning of “Nakedness” – Part 1” and the full article upon which it is based)

These questions reveal that there is much about this story that we do not know… seemingly pertinent details which God chose not to reveal. This fact underscores the folly of presuming to discern moral absolutes from the account. We simply do not know enough about what actually happened.

The conclusion that I have reached on this passage is that it cannot be interpreted to be any sort of divine prohibition of simple nudity, or the establishment of a curse for one who sees his own father naked.

How many years did I live under the fear of a curse based on a very faulty understanding of this passage? I don’t know, but I’m free from that fear now!

— Matthew Neal

A Thoughtful Response to Mr. Piper – Part 2

2011-05-06T17:18:00.001-07:00

This is Part 2 of my response to John Piper’s article on nakedness which I quoted in full in The “Traditional” Christian View of Nakedness). A reader asked me to respond to it. My first action was to highlight in red the portions of the article I considered to be biblically indefensible and in error. the reader wrote me back with questions pertaining to those sections. Below are my answers to his questions as they relate to Mr. Piper’s article. His questions are in green and my responses follow.

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

I’ve briefly reexamined Genesis 1-3 and have a some broad introductory questions both from the text and others as far as moral implications of the Naturist lifestyle. Gen. 3:7 reads “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. (NASB)” Hermeneutically this seems to be a cause and effect event. They saw they were naked and in response to this awareness they made loin coverings for themselves. Good hermeneutics would ask why.

Alright… this deserves a pretty thorough response… I’ll try to keep it succinct…

The simple reading of the account sounds like they ate the fruit and then “all of a sudden,” they realized, “Oh, my!! We’re NAKED!!!” But is that accurate? (Did you ever wonder why Eve didn’t know that she was naked until Adam had eaten, too?)

Well, I would ask you to also take into account the question asked by the Omniscient One just 4 verses later… “Who told you that you were naked?…” The question itself suggests that there was a person involved in their eyes being “opened.” Of course, God already knew the answer to His question, so it is safe to assume that the way He phrased the question was in keeping with what He already knew the answer to be!

Add to the mix the fact that Satan was in the area and was actively involved in the events that had just happened. Did he just stop speaking as soon as Eve took her bite? Don’t we generally assume that since nothing more is recorded, he said nothing more? But is that in keeping with what we know about him?

I believe the text supports an interpretation that once Adam and Eve sinned and were then under the dominion and influence of Satan, that it was he who invented the idea of “naked” and suggested that they cover themselves.

Regarding the answer to God’s question, “Who told you…,” there were only 4 “who’s” that it could have been: God, Adam, Eve, and Satan. Clearly it wasn’t God. Adam evidently didn’t tell himself. If it was Eve, then who told Eve? That leaves Satan.

But did Satan have any motivation to induce shame in Adam and Eve about their own bodies? For the answer to that question, we should first consider what we know about Satan…

We know that Satan was created as a sinless angel (Ezek. 28:14-15). We know that his heart was lifted up with pride because of his beauty and that he wanted to be “like the Most High” (Isa. 12-14 — That’s the critically important truth here). As a result of that pride, he was cast down.

Now take a look at the creation of man and woman. God says, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” Gen. 1:26 In other words, that which Satan longed for in his own pride was freely granted to Adam and Eve at their creation!

One additional piece of the study here for me was the fact that hermeneutically, I had to conclude that the “image” portion of the likeness was actually physical (That’s a whole other topic… see articles: 1 2 3 for an extensive word study that demonstrates this truth).

So… one of the ways that man is “like” God is his very physical form—a sort of self-portrait of the Almighty.

Knowing Satan’s hatred of God and his jealousy of mankind for possessing that which he never could gain (likeness to God), it is very easy to imagine that Satan would have had significant motivation to urge the first humans to be ashamed of their physical bodies, because it was one of the most significant ways they bore God’s likeness. What more potent insult of the Creator could there be? God’s crowning creation ashamed of their Father’s image on their own bodies!

In summary, I believe that Satan is the “Who” of “Who told you…?” I believe that his motivation was to insult God, and to do so, he incited shame in the very ones God had given His likeness to. Admittedly, there is a lot of reading between the lines with this, but no more than any other understanding. And I find it more internally and biblically consistent than the traditional views.

~~~~~~~~~~

What was the link between their awareness of nudity and the making of loin coverings? Why make loin coverings? Why cover the loins? I would like to hear how you answer these questions.

Here again, since I have concluded that the covering was at the suggestion of Satan, it turns the question to one of, “Why did Satan want them to cover their genitals?”

I have to admit… that one stumped me for a long time. One day, I was reading a systematic theology book and some of the things it said prompted my thinking about this issue… and I believe I arrived at a satisfactory explanation, although I readily admit that it is purely speculative on my part. Yet, I think answers that question while remaining consistent with the biblical facts.

Once again, remember that Satan wants to be “like God,” but cannot be. That honor was placed only upon mankind.

One of the things that only God can do is to create new eternal beings. Only God can call into existence a creature with a soul and spirit that will persist for all time. Satan cannot do that. He never will.

Yet… this very ability is one in which God has allowed humanity to participate! Yes, all animals reproduce sexually, but only humans produce brand new eternal beings! This gift from God, which is an image of His own creative power, is carried out by the sexual organs of the man and the woman… which are found in the loins!

So, shame for body in general and for the reproductive organs in particular… a double insult to God.

Make sense?

~~~~~~~~~~

Similarly, Gen. 3:10 reads “He said, ‘I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.’” Twice, the man (Adam) links nakedness with what appears to be sinful feelings/actions. Why would he fear being naked? What relationship does his nudity have with his, now, sinful state? He directly relates his nudity to fear and then says that that is why he hid himself from God; why? Does this correlate to how we should feel before God today? Why/why not?

Let me ask you this… is shame a virtue? Is shame in any way “godly” (God-like)? Doesn’t shame indicate that something is actually wrong?

Remember again… you’re listening to the man who has just plunged all of humanity into sin. He’s been under the direct influence of Satan himself (not just one of his lesser underlings that you and I have to deal with).

Would you consider Adam’s words here to be prophetic and verbally inspired and therefore true? Our understanding of inspiration simply affirm to us that the account of what Adam said is true… not necessarily the statements that he made.

If indeed Adam was speaking under the immediate influence of Satan, then we should expect that Adam’s words more accurately reflect what Satan wants us to think about our bodies than what God wants us to think!

So, were Adam’s shame and fear an expression of godliness, or were they the results of sin? If Adam had not been in a sinful condition, would he have felt any shame or fear?

No, shame is not God’s will for us. If we have done something shameful, His will is that we humbly repent and find forgiveness and restoration. He certainly does not desire for us to remain in shame!

Finally, given the fact that shame is a direct result of sin and the fall, what part of the fall did Jesus not redeem us from? Did Jesus only die for my soul and spirit? Or did He die for all of me… body, soul, and spirit? When we suggest that it is God’s will for us to feel shame, we are—in effect—denying the power of the cross.

~~~~~~~~~~

Gen. 3:21 says: “The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed” them” This seems to indicate that God was in agreement with their initial impulse to cover up their nakedness. What reason would you have to say otherwise? or what alternate interpretation would you offer? Also, if it was only Adam and Eve, a married couple, and God, why have clothes at all, if not for a moral/theological implication in the clothes? Why cover up at all?

Some great questions here…

If God was NOT in agreement with their clothing themselves in Gen. 3:11, why would He then turn around and affirm the action in Gen. 3:21? Isn’t that interpretation at odds with the immediate context? I fear that we have for so long been ashamed of our bodies that we fail to see and feel the harshness of God’s reprimand for their concern over their nakedness! (“Who told you…? Have you eaten…?”) Amazingly, we have turned it around and made God instead say, “I’m proud of you for at least figuring out that you need to cover your nakedness! But let’s talk about that fruit…” (pardon my sarcasm…) This notion simply is not biblically consistent.
If I were to ask you to quote the verse that tells us exactly why God clothed them, what would you quote? Nothing, right? If I were to instead ask you to quote me the verse that tells us why God banished them from Eden, what would you quote? Gen. 3:22! There it is… plain as day.
- Every person who has every lived has to face the question, “What should I wear today?” Knowing God’s will on his purpose for clothing Adam and Eve would seem to be very significant information to guide my clothing choices. Yet, on that point, God offered no explanation.
- No person on earth today (or anytime since the flood… long before this account was even written!) has had any remote opportunity to enter the Garden of Eden, or even be turned back by the angel with the flaming sword… let alone eat from the tree of life. Yet, for some odd reason, God saw fit to include the minutes from the triune Godhead council to let us know exactly why they weren’t allowed back in.
- God knew how to explain His actions. He chose not to tell us why He clothed Adam and Eve. He did choose to tell us why they were banished. The only conclusion we can draw from that truth is that we don’t need to know why He gave them the coats of skin! Evidently, knowing why none of us live forever was more important to our lives. Does that square with our theological position on clothing today?
Of course, human curiosity is such that we can hardly bear to wonder why God clothed them without trying to come up with a suitable answer. However, I think our cultural commitment to the “normalcy” and “rightness” of body shame has so dulled our minds that we don’t even try to look at the Genesis account to find any alternative answers. Note these observations from the immediate context:
- They will no longer be living in paradise (we are not told, but it was likely perfect in climate and all other environmental variables).
- They had just been cursed, and one of the elements of the curse was that there would now be thorns, and hard work. The hostility of their environment had just increased significantly.
- In the midst of the curse, there was grace… the promise of a Savior (Gen. 3:15). Even in His judgment, God was intentionally gracious!
- Don’t these realities that are Scripturally undeniable point to a very different answer to the “why” question? Isn’t it possible that the real reason God gave them more durable protection from the thorns and climate was that He was graciously caring for them?
Some suggest that God gave them clothing because He knew that now, in the fallen state, clothing would be required to abate lust.
- Where is “lust” or anything having to do with sexual immorality in the context?
- Where is there a command to “keep wearing clothes now…”? Were they just supposed to “know” it was a command? Are we?
- Should husbands and wives be covered even when it’s just the two of them? Were they (and we) supposed to just “understand” that husband/wife are exempt?
- Where—in ALL of the Bible—do we find a clear statement or reiteration of this “command”? Where might we find any affirmation that clothing actually abates lust?
You asked, “Why cover up at all?” but your question itself presumes that the purpose is to “cover up,” as if “covering” from view were the goal!
- If you own a valuable painting, but you need to move them from one part of town to the other on a truck, you would never think to ask, “Why cover it up at all?” because the reason is obvious… the “covering” would be all about protection of the image, not hiding it from view.
- Wouldn’t it be silly to ask your question this way, “Why protect it at all?”

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

This concludes Part 2 of my response to Mr. Piper’s article and the questions raised by the brother who brought it to my attention. I’ll continue with the questions and my answers in my next post. (See also Part 1 & Part 3 )

— Matthew Neal

A Thoughtful Response to Mr. Piper – Part 1

2011-04-30T14:01:00.001-07:00

As I mentioned in my last post (The “Traditional” Christian View of Nakedness – Part 1), a reader pointed me to John Piper’s article about nakedness and I reposted it in its entirety, only highlighting in red the portions that I felt were not biblically defensible, and actually incorrect. This was also the first piece I sent to my correspondent.

He then wrote me back with his response to the passages I had highlighted in red with questions pertaining to those sections. Below are my answers to his questions as they relate to Mr. Piper’s article. His questions are in green and my responses follow.

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

Q. What do you attribute Adam and Eve’s shame to?

I think a better question is... “To what did Adam and Eve attribute their shame?” And the next question is, “Were they correct?” They certainly acted shamefully, and they certainly felt shame, but does it make sense that nudity suddenly became shameful when it was not shameful just a moment before?

Obviously God had no problem with their nudity before the fall... Did God’s perspective change when they sinned, or did their own? A little thought about the event reveals that their shame was actually misplaced. They had no need to cover their genitals (what did their genitals have to do with their sin?)... they needed to run in repentance and fall before their Maker to seek forgiveness and restoration... all the while still naked as He had made them. Their body shame was a actually a false shame, and as a result they applied their efforts to an incorrect (and sinful) response!

~~~~~~~~~~

Q. You highlighted “I deserve to be shamed.” Are you rejecting the link between Adam’s nudity and shame?

Yes, I am rejecting that idea. Surely Adam felt the shame and placed it on his own nudity, but was he thinking clearly at that moment? His shame should have been on his actions, not on his physical attributes. Remember Who had personally crafted his genitals... to whom then was it an insult when Adam was ashamed of one of the body parts given to him by the God Who loved him? (more on that in later posts)

~~~~~~~~~~

Q. Are you rejecting the implication that if Adam felt shame in his nudity that we should too? Or are you rejecting it for another reason?

Being ashamed of his nudity is not the only thing that Adam did after he sinned...

he also hid from God.
He also blamed his wife and ultimately God.
He evidently did not truly repent, even when confronted by God.

Would you accept the implication that because Adam hid from God, that we should too? Would you accept the suggestion that because Adam blamed his wife for his own sin that we should too? How then can you accept the idea that because Adam was ashamed of his nudity, that we should be, too? Does that really make sense? (Did Adam do anything right immediately after he sinned?)

~~~~~~~~~~

Q. In the eighth paragraph you highlighted “The simple, open nakedness of innocence now feels inconsistent with the guilty person that I am. I feel ashamed.” Why do you disagree with this/what alternate explanation would you give?

Think about this... Adam had just sinned. He now has, for the first time in his life, a sinful nature. He is now the proud possessor of a depraved mind. He had no idea what had just invaded his intellect, and he had no idea how to battle it.

Now you and I, we’ve lived with this reality all our lives. Furthermore, because we are learning to listen to the indwelling Spirit instead, we are (hopefully) making headway towards following the promptings of God instead of our sin nature. Furthermore, we have learned some of the ways of our enemy and we know that he’s really a liar; we know that he’s out to destroy us so we are not ignorant of his schemes as Adam was.

How much of all this did Adam understand immediately after that moment of sin? Any of it? We understand all these things at least to some degree in our own lives, yet we still struggle to walk according to the truth! What chance did Adam have?

Mr. Piper’s analysis implies that Adam understood guilt, that he understood and could accurately trace the source of shame in his own heart, and that he correctly ascertained that covering his own genitals would make everything better.

No, I don’t think Adam understood any of that about himself or why he felt as he did. I don’t think he yet realized that Satan had deceived him and Eve or that he needed to stop listening to him. And no, I don’t think Satan stopped talking or influencing them as soon as they took their bite of the fruit. I think Adam suddenly experienced the horrific absence of God in his heart for the very first time; I believe that he was desperate to do something... anything... to make that feeling go away.

Meanwhile, Satan was not finished deceiving them nor making other suggestions about what to do. “You’re naked!” he might have said! What would “naked” have meant to them, anyway? There never had been “clothed,” so how could there be “naked”? Satan had to actually invent the very concept that their natural state (as God created them) was a problem! (God’s question to Adam in Gen. 3:11, “Who told you that you were naked?” clearly implicates Satan as the one who informed them of their nakedness.)

One more detail to point out, by the way... did you notice in your reading that Adam never claimed to feel shame? In fact, the only place that “shame” is mentioned is in Gen. 2:25, before the fall... declaring that they felt NO shame. Thereafter, Adam claimed to be motivated by “fear.” Now... why do we emphasize the rightness of “shame” but not talk about the “fear”?

~~~~~~~~~~

Q. One thing that made me very curious was your highlighting of the parenthetical statement “as there apparently was blood shed in the killing of the animals of the skins” What would make you think that there was no blood shed?

Read the text again. It doesn’t mention anything about any animal shedding it’s blood. Did it happen? Possibly. Was it the first sacrifice for sin? (and this is really why I highlighted it... most people teach that it is...). Most likely not! Here’s why I say this:

A sacrifice for sin is not something that simply happens every day like the sun coming up. It is for a specific purpose and how it is carried out matters. See if you don’t agree with these biblical observations about sacrifices that were not true in this case:

Sacrifices require repentance on the part of the sinner.
- Is there any evidence that Adam and Eve repented? We can’t know what we were not told, of course, but the data we have in the text would lead us to the opposite conclusion.
Sacrifices were carried out by the hand of the sinner himself.
- Where in all of the Bible was a sacrifice performed by the hand of God? Part of the idea of a sacrifice is that I must by my own hand take the life of the one dying in my stead.
Sacrifices are a picture and foreshadowing of Christ’s work on the cross.
- Nowhere in ALL the Bible is this event referenced as the prototype sacrifice for sin. Think about that for a minute... the first sacrifice in all of the Bible, yet it never warrants another mention? It’s not even referred to as a sacrifice in the Genesis narrative itself.
- Contrast that narrative with the story of the Passover lamb... that sacrifice gets LOTS of airtime throughout the Bible, from Exodus to Revelation!

So... was there blood shed for the “skins”? Perhaps. Was it a “first sacrifice” or a picture of Christ? I don’t think so. That’s why I highlighted that comment. It hints at what I believe is a very flimsy interpretation which seems to be almost universally accepted as true.

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

This concludes Part 1 of my response to Mr. Piper’s article and the questions raised by the brother who brought it to my attention. I’ll continue with the questions and my answers in Part 2 & Part 3.

— Matthew Neal