When is Nudity OK for a Christian?

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 need. 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 two 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!

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?

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

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

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