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

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 for Clothing – Introduction
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 1 – Shame and Fear??
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 2 – Clothing as Currency
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 3 – Sign of Position
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 4 – Communicate About the Person
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 5 – Gender Distinction?
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 6 – Warmth and Protection
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 7 – Controlling Lust??
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Conclusion
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Epilogue

The Biblical Purpose of Clothing – Conclusion

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 for Clothing – Introduction
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 1 – Shame and Fear??
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 2 – Clothing as Currency
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 3 – Sign of Position
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 4 – Communicate About the Person
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 5 – Gender Distinction?
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 6 – Warmth and Protection
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 7 – Controlling Lust??
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Conclusion
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Epilogue

The Biblical Purpose of Clothing – Epilogue

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 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:
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Introduction
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 1 – Shame and Fear??
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 2 – Clothing as Currency
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 3 – Sign of Position
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 4 – Communicate About the Person
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 5 – Gender Distinction?
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 6 – Warmth and Protection
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Part 7 – Controlling Lust??
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Conclusion
The Biblical Purpose for Clothing – Epilogue

Starting Points for Discussion

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.

1. God is sovereign over all the affairs of men, and He alone is the measure and source for all morality.
   
2. Moral absolutes (based as the are on the character and person of the unchanging God) are for all men for all times.
   
3. The Bible is God's inerrant Word and it alone is our authority for knowing the mind of God on moral matters.
   
4. The traditions and cultures of men are NOT authoritative in matters of morality (Isaiah 55:8-9).
   
5. Only Biblically specified exceptions to moral absolutes are valid... "exceptions" based on the reasoning of man are false.
   
6. The Bible must be interpreted according to what the original author meant when writing to the original audience in the original language (Grammatical-Historical).
   
7. 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…

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

Quotes and Comments #5

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

See also: Starting Points for Discussion

Quotes and Comments #4

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

See also: Quotes and Comments — #1