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

The “Traditional” Christian View of Nakedness – Introduction

Prologue

I recently had a reader contact me and ask me to comment on an article by John Piper about nudity entitled, The Rebellion of Nudity and the Meaning of Clothing. I thought it might be appropriate to include my responses here on the blog.
Before I do, however, let me explain why I put “Traditional” in quotes for the title of this post.
For the past 300 years or so, the view put forth by Mr. Piper has been the prevailing orthodox view on nakedness. That makes it pretty “traditional.” It is indeed the view that pervades just about all the conservative theological resources available in English today. However, the view cannot be considered Traditional in the same way we would categorize a doctrine that can be traced back to the early church’s beliefs and practices; in the scope of Christian history, this view of nakedness is a relatively recent theological perspective.
My purpose for quoting Mr. Piper’s article here is to demonstrate that while in some ways “traditional,” it is not fundamentally biblical.
I mean no disrespect or insult to Mr. Piper, of course. He has written many wonderful things and has had a tremendously positive impact on the Kingdom of God in our time.
However, in his article on this topic, I am suggesting that Mr. Piper has only restated the theological traditions that he and every other English-speaking student of theology have been taught in the past 300 or so years. In my opinion, it is a fair and reasonable summary of the “traditional” position on nakedness… but I fear that he and so many others have failed to critically examine the biblical foundation for the position. I’m confident that if they really had, they would have found it to be as weak and inconsistent as I have found.
It may sound like I’m making myself out to be “smarter” than all the theologians for the past 300 years… but I am not. I simply believe that others have not (for whatever reason) genuinely and/or honestly questioned the biblical integrity of the view, so they haven’t seen or acknowledged its faults.
==============

Introduction

To begin this series, my first post simply quotes the article in its entirety without any written comment. However, I am going to highlight in red the portions that I consider to be indefensible from the Scriptures; these portions of the position are the “traditional” understandings that I believe are actually in error. I will save my comments on them for another post.
As you read through it, see if you can think of any Scripture passages that definitively teach the portions of the article in red.
[All links within the text are original to the article as posted by Mr. Piper]
===========

The Rebellion of Nudity and the Meaning of Clothing

April 24, 2008 | by John Piper | The first consequence of Adam’s and Eve’s sin mentioned in Genesis 3:7 is that “the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.” Suddenly they are self-conscious about their bodies. Before their rebellion against God, there was no shame. “The man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (Genesis 2:25). Now there is shame. Why? There is no reason to think that it’s because they suddenly became ugly. Their beauty wasn’t the focus in Genesis 2:25, and their ugliness is not the focus here in Genesis 3:7. Why then the shame? Because the foundation of covenant-keeping love collapsed. And with it the sweet, all-trusting security of marriage disappeared forever. The foundation of covenant-keeping love between a man and a woman is the unbroken covenant between them and God—God governing them for their good and they enjoying him in that security and relying on him. When they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that covenant was broken and the foundation of their own covenant-keeping collapsed. They experienced this immediately in the corruption of their own covenant love for each other. It happened in two ways. Both relate to the experience of shame. In the first case, the one viewing my nakedness is no longer trustworthy, so I am afraid I will be shamed. In the second, I myself am no longer at peace with God, but I feel guilty and defiled and unworthy—I deserve to be shamed. In the first case, I am self-conscious of my body, and I feel vulnerable to shame because I know Eve has chosen to be independent from God. She has made herself central in the place of God. She is essentially now a selfish person. From this day forward, she will put herself first. She is no longer a servant. So she is not safe. And I feel vulnerable around her, because she is very likely to put me down for her own sake. So suddenly my nakedness is precarious. I don’t trust her any more to love me with pure covenant-keeping love. That’s one source of my shame. The other source is that Adam himself, not just his spouse, has broken covenant with God. If she is rebellious and selfish, and therefore unsafe, so am I. But the way I experience it in myself is that I feel defiled and guilty and unworthy. That’s, in fact, what I am. Before the Fall, what was and what ought to have been were the same. But now, what is and what ought to be are not the same. I ought to be humbly and gladly submissive to God. But I am not. This huge gap between what I am and what I ought to be colors everything about me—including how I feel about my body. So my wife might be the safest person in the world, but now my own sense of guilt and unworthiness makes me feel vulnerable. The simple, open nakedness of innocence now feels inconsistent with the guilty person that I am. I feel ashamed. So the shame of nakedness arises from two sources, and both of them are owing to the collapse of the foundation of covenant love in our relationship with God. One is that Eve is no longer reliable to cherish me; she has become selfish and I feel vulnerable that she will put me down for her own selfish ends. The other is that I already know that I am guilty myself, and the nakedness of innocence contradicts my unworthiness—I am ashamed of it. Genesis 3:7 says that they tried to cope with this new situation by making clothing: “They sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.” Adam’s and Eve’s effort to clothe themselves was a sinful effort to conceal what had really happened. They tried to hide from God (Genesis 3:8). Their nakedness felt too revealing and too vulnerable. So they tried to close the gap between what they were and what they ought to be by covering what is, and presenting themselves in a new way. So what does it mean that God clothed them with animal skins? Was he confirming their hypocrisy? Was he aiding and abetting their pretense? If they were naked and shame-free before the Fall, and if they put on clothes to minimize their shame after the Fall, then what is God doing by clothing them even better than they can clothe themselves? I think the answer is that he is giving a negative message and a positive message. Negatively, he is saying, You are not what you were and you are not what you ought to be. The chasm between what you are and what you ought to be is huge. Covering yourself with clothing is a right response to this—not to conceal it, but to confess it. Henceforth, you shall wear clothing, not to conceal that you are not what you should be, but to confess that you are not what you should be. One practical implication of this is that public nudity today is not a return to innocence but rebellion against moral reality. God ordains clothes to witness to the glory we have lost, and it is added rebellion to throw them off. And for those who rebel in the other direction and make clothes themselves a means of power and prestige and attention getting, God’s answer is not a return to nudity but a return to simplicity (1 Timothy 2:9-10; 1 Peter 3:4-5). Clothes are not meant to make people think about what is under them. Clothes are meant to direct attention to what is not under them: merciful hands that serve others in the name of Christ, beautiful feet that carry the gospel where it is needed, and the brightness of a face that has beheld the glory of Jesus. Now we have already crossed over to the more positive meaning of clothing that God had in his mind when he clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins. This was not only a witness to the glory we lost and a confession that we are not what we should be, but it is also a testimony that God himself would one day make us what we should be. God rejected their own self-clothing. Then he did it himself. He showed mercy with superior clothing. Together with the other hopeful signs in the context (like the defeat of the serpent in Genesis 3:15), God’s mercy points to the day when he will solve the problem of our shame decisively and permanently. He will do it with the blood of his own Son (as there apparently was blood shed in the killing of the animals of the skins). And he will do it with the clothing of righteousness and the radiance of his glory (Galatians 3:27; Philippians 3:21). Which means that our clothes are a witness both to our past and present failure and to our future glory. They testify to the chasm between what we are and what we should be. And they testify to God’s merciful intention to bridge that chasm through Jesus Christ and his death for our sins.

===========
There were some portions which I did not highlight because I judged them to be defensible in the whole of Scripture. However, I believe that I can make a logical—if not biblical—case for an alternative explanation for each section which I highlighted.
I welcome any comments or questions about sections that anyone might believe I have highlighted in red unfairly or inaccurately. I will be happy to include my reasoning and alternative understandings in subsequent posts.
— Matthew Neal
(See my follow-up articles: Part 1, Part 2, & Part 3 )

Who Hates Nudity… God or Satan?

I’ll wager very few people have ever asked that question.

Is the answer obvious? I don’t think so.

The way things are in our culture today, you might quickly conclude that God hates nudity because it’s so closely associated with perversion and sexual sin.

On the other hand, you might assume that because it is such a powerful tool for sexual temptation, Satan simply loves nudity! “The best tool in my toolbox!” you can almost hear him brag.

Stop and Think About It…

Perhaps the answer isn’t that simple. And certainly the Bible would have something to say about it, right? Well, I believe there’s plenty of evidence in the Bible to tell us who hates nudity, and who doesn’t.

Let me start with God and give the biblical facts, then I’ll give the facts as they relate to Satan. A simple examination of all the facts should lead us to the right answer.

God’s View of Nudity.

• God Created mankind in His own image (Gen. 1:26-27).
  • God made us to look like Him; human beings are a divine “self-portrait.” (articles: 1 2 3)
  • Our image-bearing is utterly and completely unrelated to clothing. In other words, we are “in God’s Image” without clothes. Clothing contributes nothing to that fact.
  • God forbade murder for the very fact that our bodies are made in His image. Murder is the only destruction of the body (the soul and spirit are not destroyed) (Gen. 9:5).
• God’s original design for human society was complete nudity (Gen. 2:25).
  • The creation, as God pronounced it (with the first couple completely nude) was “very good!” (Gen. 1:31)
  • Because God cannot change (Psalm 55:19), we must conclude that He considers the naked human body just as “good” now as He did before the fall. Man’s view of nudity certainly changed with the fall, but God’s view cannot and did not change.
• The first overt evidence of sin in Adam’s life was the fact that he no longer accepted his own nudity as good and right (Gen. 3:6-7).
  • God’s question to Adam, “Who told you that you were naked?” was not an affirmation, it was a rebuke (Gen. 3:11).
  • God’s next question—delivered without waiting for an answer to the first—was, “Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” Adam’s rejection of his own nudity signified a rejection of God’s place of authority in his life.
• God blessed the physical union of Adam and Eve, describing it as becoming “one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24) Through this union, He expected them to obey His command to “be fruitful and multiply.” (Gen. 1:28, Gen. 9:1)
  • This plurality-expressed-as–a-unity (which may mirror the unity-in-plurality of the triune Godhead – Gen. 1:26 Gen. 2:24) literally requires the nudity of the man and the woman. God approves of and blesses the union (Proverbs 5:18); he must also approve of and bless the naked state through which it is experienced (Hebrews 13:4).
  • The fruit of the womb are a blessing from the Lord (Psalm 127:3). Every baby ever delivered has been born with the mother’s naked body exposed. Every baby ever born has been born completely naked. This blessed and joyful nakedness is by the hand of God.
• In all of God’s Old Testament laws and in all of the New Testament instructions, never once has God declared animosity towards simple nudity.
  • All bathing and the elimination of body waste of necessity had to outdoors when the Law was given, yet God never told them to avoid the exposure of their bodies to others (All He told them was to make sure they buried their feces! - Deuteronomy 23:13).
  • God actually commanded one of His prophets to prophecy nude for three years (Isa. 20:2-3). God could and would never lead a prophet to actually do something which He hated.
  • Jesus Himself—Who never sinned—was nude on multiple occasions in His life on earth (birth, circumcision, baptism, foot-washing-John 13:3-4, crucifixion-John 19:23-24, and resurrection-John 20:6-7).

Satan’s View of Nudity

• Satan is opposed to God. That which God loves and blesses, Satan hates and distorts (Matthew 16:23).
• Satan was not made in God’s image… only mankind was (Gen. 1:26-27).
  • Satan sinned because he wanted to be “like God” but could not (Isaiah 14:13-15). When God made mankind in His image, it gave man a likeness to God that Satan himself would never possess.
  • Satan is a murderer (John 8:44). Murder is the destruction of the human body (Matthew 10:28), which bears God’s image (Gen. 9:5).
• The very first thing that Satan influenced Adam and Eve to do after they submitted to his will was to cover their naked bodies (Gen. 3:6-7).
  • Satan was the “who” of “Who told you [Adam] that you were naked?” (Gen. 3:11). While we are not told in the text that this is true, Satan is the only player in the entire story (God, Satan, Adam, or Eve) who had the knowledge and motivation to tell Adam that he was naked.
  • While Satan’s specific words to Adam and Eve after the fall are not recorded, we can be certain that he did not (and has not) from that moment forward been silent.
  • Jesus called Satan “the ruler of this world” (John 12:31). He has exerted influence of deception on the thoughts and actions of all mankind ever since the fall (John 8:44).
• Satan hates marriage and the beauty of marital sexual union.
  • Satan has sought to dismiss, dishonor, or destroy marriage since the beginning (as contrasted to God’s will stated in Hebrews 13:4).
  • Satan desires to distort and defile sexual union since the beginning (Genesis 6:1-5).
• Satan has been fully and completely defeated by a naked Savior (John 16:11)!
  • Although Satan battered the naked body of our Lord almost beyond recognition (Isaiah 53:2-3), yet Jesus died without any sin of His own so that He could take all the sin of the world in His body on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 John 2:2, 1 Peter 2:24).
  • Although Jesus lay clothed in the tomb for three days, He left every stitch of that clothing behind when He came out of the grave (John 20:6-7), bodily risen from the dead! This, indeed, was the final and fatal blow to Satan’s head (Gen. 3:15)!

So, What’s the Conclusion?

When you look at the biblical data above, it’s pretty clear that the one who hates the unclothed human form is not God, but Satan!

How Satan Treats Nudity

How does that biblical conclusion square with what we see in our world today? It appears that the only place you find nudity exposed today is within the domain of Satan’s work! Pornography, sexual immorality, sexual perversion, even Satanism and witchcraft all use nudity.

But think about it… that which someone loves, they protect, preserve, and honor. That which they hate, they abuse, destroy, and dishonor.This is true for no one more than it is for Satan.

Tell me… does pornography and sexual immorality protect the nude human body? Does perversion preserve the human body? Do occultic activities honor the unclothed human body? No, no, and no.

Satan exposes nudity within pornography to dishonor the body. He uses it to distort sexuality… to bring destruction to the body. He uses it to deceive us into rejecting the sight of God’s image as found in the unadorned human form. We—the church—have God’s Word… we should know better!

The World Bought It All.

Satan’s efforts have been very successful.

• He has caused almost all of society to spurn the public exposure of the naked human body.
• He has so distorted our understanding of its exposure that we only see sexuality there, ignoring or completely denying the image of God.
• He has so deftly crafted an impossible standard of “beauty” that young women learn almost universally to hate the look of their own bodies, considering them “ugly.”
• He has managed to get us to believe that seeing the sags and wrinkles of aging human bodies is somehow “disgusting” and repulsive… something you don’t want to see in others, and which you don’t want seen in yourself.

This is the world’s view of the naked human body. And this is Satan’s work.

Satan hates the naked human body. And for millennia, we have followed in Adam’s footsteps, listening to Satan’s voice urging us to participate in his insult of the Creator. Even the Church has been duped into promoting this offense against God… treating it instead as if it were a sign of holiness.

Testimony of a Hostile Witness

Satan’s abuse of nudity is compelling evidence that he hates it. And (if the scriptures provided above weren’t enough), it is also compelling evidence that the nude human form is actually dear to the heart of God.

If Satan hates that which God loves, shouldn’t we love that which Satan hates?

But What About the Animal Skins?

I can’t finish this article without saying something about the skins God provided to Adam and Eve for clothing after the fall. Almost all non-naturist Christians point to that passage and use it to claim that “God really doesn’t want us to be naked now after all!”

Is that what the Bible says? Allow me to quote the account in its entirety:

“The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.” (Gen. 3:21)

What do we learn from that brief account? Very little, actually. There is no command. There is no reason given. There is no proclamation of a shift in the divine perspective on the nature of nudity… although many people quote the verse as if there were.

Any and every understanding of why God gave them clothes must be “read into” the text, because the explanation of God’s purpose simply is not there! Quite frankly, alternative understandings actually fit the context better, but they too must be “read into” the account.

The only thing we can conclude for sure is that God does not object to clothing. But we would be in error if we allowed assumptions about God’s (unexplained!) action to overrule God’s clearly stated proclamation in reference to the Creation and its naked inhabitants before the fall. God never called the clothes, “very good.” Only nudity was ever described that way (Gen. 1:26-27,31, Gen. 2:25).

I See a Problem…

So… God looked at nudity and said “Very Good!”

Satan looked at nudity and said, “Very Bad!”

The Church today looks at nudity and says, “Very Bad!”

Do you see a problem here?

— Matthew Neal

----------------------------

See also:

• Longing for Eden
• Naturist by Biblical Conviction??? — [Part 1]

A Voice of Reason and Truth!

The Naturist Living Podcast has been around for a while. I’ve listened to a few of them. They’re good and informative. But this time, Stéphane Deschênes, the creator of the podcast, produced a masterpiece. (Stéphane Deschênes is owner of the Bare Oaks Naturist Family Naturist Park, and President of Federation of Canadian Naturists)

His topic for Episode #27 was Pornography.

Most non-naturists think that pornography is really just about nudity… consequently, the practice of naturism is presumed to be “live pornography.” Those who participate in naturism, it is assumed, are voyeurs and exhibitionists. Ultimately, if people are naked with other naked people, it will invariably result in an orgiastic frenzy… or so goes the fantasy.

That is a fantasy that the porn industry is delighted that people believe. If people really understood the truth, they would be embracing naturism as the best practical antidote to pornography available to us today!

As Mr. Deschênes so aptly points out in the podcast, Naturism is the antithesis of pornography!

I can think of several ways that this is true…

• Pornography degrades and objectifies women and their bodies;
• Naturism honors the goodness of the entire woman… including her body, and refuses to sexually objectify any body part!
• Pornography promotes a man’s unrestrained conquest of a woman’s sexuality;
• Naturism demands a man’s conquest of himself and his own sexuality (also called “self-control”… a fruit of the Spirit!).
• Pornography exhibits that which is perverse and unnatural (some of it is unspeakably degrading);
• Naturism experiences that which is utterly natural (sun, wind, and water caressing the naturally unadorned human body).
• Pornography inhibits and damages relationships;
• Naturism fosters openness and relational unity.
• Pornography tells lies about the body and sexuality;
• Naturism lives the truth of who we really are as human beings.

The best antidote to pornography is not the judicious covering of parts of our bodies, but the frank and natural exposure of our bodies in non-sexual, mixed-gender contexts. How else will young men learn that the female body is actually the embodiment of a real person? How else will the young woman really and truly understand that her body is fine the way it is… and that the objectifying treatment she receives from men is not “just the way guys are,” but actually the rejection of her true dignity as a young woman?

Mr. Deschênes also makes another claim that I’ve been trying very hard to communicate… that the real basis for sexual arousal is relational rather than visual… even for men!!! The believe that men are “visually aroused” is a conditioned response that has been unwittingly planted and cultivated by the historical church’s prudery, then fertilized, watered, and harvested by the porn industry.

It has been disheartening to me how pervasive this lie is in our culture. Sadly… it’s still believed even by many naturists, despite the fact that their naturist experiences argue powerfully against it.

The best antidote to this lie is not to limit nudity to contexts where sex is the expected activity, but the frank and natural exposure of our bodies in non-sexual, mixed-gender contexts. How else will the nudity/sex conditioning be broken?

Tragically, in our culture today, the very best solution to the porn problem is so closely linked to pornography in people’s minds that they never even consider it as a solution! I have no admiration for the enemy of our souls, but I have to acknowledge the wild success of this, his strategy to keep people bound to the lies of pornography.

It’s good to hear another voice speaking the truth in the face of porn’s lies.

I encourage you to go to the Naturist Living website and listen to the podcast. Or, if you want to download the audio, you can find it here: Naturist Living Podcast #27 - Pornography (mp3 format).

Several of my previous posts speak directly to the issues raised by Mr. Deschênes. You might want to review these articles:

• The Objectification of Women – Part 1 (and Part 2)
• The Stuff of Fantasies…
• I would NOT be a naturist if…
• Naturist by Biblical Conviction??? — [Part 1] (Part 2, Part 3)
• Naturism and Gender Identity

Thank you again, Mr. Deschênes.

— Matthew Neal