Naked! question 178
You just never know what treasures will come in at tentpegsquestion@yahoo.com. I liked this one enough that it was promoted to front of the line!
God never changes, then why was it suddenly a sin, or at least a shame to be naked before God. Didn’t Jesus and his apostles fish naked, aren’t we asked to come “spiritually naked” before God. I could never figure it out why the change.
Gen. 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Gen. 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I [was] naked; and I hid myself.
Gen. 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
While God doesn’t change, His rules about our behavior certainly change! That’s why we didn’t light incense or drag a (presumably) reluctant sheep to the front of the family room (i.e. “auditorium”) for a sacrifice. It is also why I didn’t wear a linen ephod while leading the congregation… which I couldn’t have done at all in Old Testament days since I’m not a Levite.
That said, let’s approach the tricky subject of nudity, clothing, or lack of it. In the Bible, we get to watch people move from the moment they came into existence all the way to the century after Jesus’ death. That covers a lot of territory — and a ton of different cultures and social mores.
There is evidence that God clothing Adam and Eve was not done for decency reasons but for practical ones. Now they had to leave the Garden and enter a world that was suddenly hostile to them. They would have to work much harder and they would be surrounded by thorns, sweat, dangerous animals, etc. The clothes would have been a good first measure of protection for them.
Most of the people in the Bible would have only owned one set of clothes — two at most. It was common to hang up those clothes at the door and wear only an undergarment or nothing at all when in the home or when doing intensive work such as fishing. You just couldn’t take the chance of damaging your clothes! Once they were ruined, you were effectively shut out of public gatherings and you took a loss of status. That is why the Bible frequently uses stains and their removal as a metaphor for forgiveness. “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as wool” was a very powerful mental picture for a people who had no way to remove stains from their clothes. The idea of God being able to remove stains on their souls was thrilling to them because, in their experience, stains were forever!
As homes generally consisted of one open room with, perhaps, a line of fabric strung up to create separate areas, nudity and sexual activity was far more public than it is in the standard American home. That is still the case in much of the world. I can remember the shock on Americans’ faces when they would come to visit Scottish homes and the kids (aged toddlers to ten years or so) would come in from their baths — naked — and dry in front of the gas fire in the living room as the adults continued to talk. It makes sense there as the gas fire is often the only source of heat in the whole house and the bathroom is cold! Some Americans were scandalized. I think they would have had a hard time living in Jesus’ time!
Our problem with nudity and sex isn’t a relic of our Christian faith nor is it, as often posited, a relic of America’s Puritan heritage. Puritans drank, danced, flirted, had children out of wedlock, told bawdy jokes, sang songs that would shock us, and were far more comfortable with their bodies and sex than most of us are. So why do we have such a problem? A couple of reasons:
1. Victorian morality became fashionable in the 1800’s and locked us into a culture that elevated motherhood and womanhood, hiding them behind corsets, layers of petticoats, etc. all because the Queen of England had a huge series of hangups and insisted that everyone else share them.
2. We sexualized our bodies. Victorians began publishing pornography (nothing new there, every society has had some form of porn and some cultures such as India nearly worshiped it) but rather than celebrating sexuality, they used the body purely for titillation. There is a whole ton of evidence about this that I won’t go into here, but the body went from something accepted and understood to a thing of danger, mystery, dark drives, and rebellion. Victorians put up TONS of social rules in order to keep such drives underground and save fainting, hysterical womanhood. It’s all rather hilarious — or would be if it wasn’t tragic at the same time.
Doctors referred to “hysteria” because it came from the uterus of women (which is why we still call removing the uterus a “hysterectomy”). Women were to be closeted away from the predations of men. True love — and true men — professed their love in a completely nonsexual way (and, yes, the old ideas of courtly love during the Middle Ages came into play here, too).
As recently as the 1970s when I was at Freed Hardeman College (I’m pretty sure they’d rather people didn’t know I went there back when it was a two year school!), boys were allowed to wear shorts but girls were not. The reasoning — told to us during chapel — was that men lusted but women didn’t. Therefore, men wearing shorts would not be an occasion of sin to the ladies but if the ladies wore shorts… horrors!
In the Bible, modesty and — here’s a great old KJV word — “shamefacedness” were not about covering every square inch of skin. Biblical modesty is all about not wearing too much! Having too many clothes, too much jewelry, and adorning the body too much was considered immodest, a sign of a lack of humility.
Now… isn’t it time that you cut up your department store credit cards and did a serious culling job on your closets? While public nudity would be out of line for a modern Christian, we could all certainly be more humble in our clothing choices. More “modest” in other words.
May 11th, 2009 at 4:46 am
When I took Greek at Harding Grad School, Dr. Osburn was involved in biblical translation to primitive peoples and told of how we would go into their culture and impose our “modesty.” I remember the story he told of an American missionary giving his suit coat to a woman who came to the “meeting” bear breasted. She took the coat and put it on to keep from embarrassing the preacher, but the next night she showed up wearing the coat with two holes cut out to expose her breast. In her culture, to cover her breasts was to proclaim herself a prostitute.
Good thoughts here, Patrick. I’m seriously considering becoming a natur-ist.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Hmm. I have wondered about this topic. The first act after Adam and Eve sinned was to hide and then be clothed by God. Once the curse is finally lifted will the redemed be only clothed with the righteousness of Christ?
Royce
May 11th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Greg, I hope she wasn’t really “bear breasted”. That would be very furry. I also remember a similar story from one of my professors at LCC.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled commentary on Patrick’s blog . . .
It is very true that modesty varies from culture to culture and from age to age. We live in such a sexually charged culture, that it is hard to imagine nudity without sexual thoughts. It has been pounded into our sensibilities for our whole lives. Everything in the world is sold with sex. Virtually every celebrity we have is marketed for his or her sexuality. It is absolutely insane and ultimately diabolical.
Yes, modesty in the Bible refers to not flaunting wealth. That also applies to us. We sure do a lot of that, especially in the brand of our fashions.
However, many in our culture are flaunting other things, making their assets more obvious.
The thing from Freed-Hardeman was based in truth. Men in our culture are more likely to lust over a woman in tight and/or short shorts than women are for men. That gap is closing, but it is definitely on the man’s side still. You have only to listen to men for a few minutes to believe that. Have you ever wondered why the singles ads on your computer always feature beautiful and seductive women?
Personally, I am very, very glad for clothing. I’ve seen things in my lifetime that made me want a serious dose of eye-bleach!
May 11th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Remember God’s second question to Adam in this narrative: “Who told you that you were naked?”
God didn’t care that they were naked — he made them very good and they had nothing at all to be ashamed of.
What changed was the sum total of Adam’s relationships — with God, with self & others, and with the rest of creation. That change altered his perceptions, and the rest is history.
May 11th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Oops! Thanks Danny. In my comment, that should be “bare breasted.”
May 11th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I never heard that Jesus and the apostles fished naked.
Don’t know about that.
That was pretty standard for the day. “Naked” might be overselling it since a wrap or underwear was often worn. However, when the apostles saw it was Jesus on the shore. notice the deal about the garment? (John 21:7)
May 12th, 2009 at 12:06 am
Being in their underwear would make a bit more sense.
I always thought complete nakedness was a pretty taboo thing in Jewish culture.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:56 am
I gotta agree with nick gill again; I think God made clothes for Adam and Eve because they knew they were naked – and with the knowledge of good and evil, they knew shame.
They knew they had sinned before God, and their nakedness was a constant reminder that before God their lives and souls were naked, too.
With sin came shame. God provided grace and a covering.
Royce is kinda asking if we’ll be nakey in heaven, I think. Actually, the phrasing of Revelation 18:9 seems to imply that the church (the bride) will be clothed with the righteous acts of the saints. We’re there by the righteousness of Christ.
So I guess if we don’t all want to be wearing Speedos in heaven, we’d better get busy!
May 12th, 2009 at 2:13 am
Patrick, thanks, one more question, what was Jesus waring when he left the tomb?
I have no idea, but my guess is “nothing” unless he borrowed something from one of the unconscious guards!
May 12th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Patrick, I believe the answer is a bit more “cut and dried” than that. unless you are willing to believe Jesus stole clothing from a helpless person, borrowed means you plan on returning it. Nope he left naked as the day he was born.
He knew he was going to rise, if he had thought clothing was a necessity, he could have requested some to be placed in the grave with him,but he didn’t. Nope I don’t believe there will be clothing in heaven, there may not be anything to hide
The thought of heaven being just one Speedo away from a European man on a cruise ship…. oh my….
May 12th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Ha!
May 16th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
My perspevtive, we know that when Adam and Eve sinned they inherited the knowlege to know what it means to obey God and now to to disobey Him. And form this Man now understood what it meant to be able to look at things from a poor perspective spiritualy and physicaly if there realy is any difference.
It was the tree of the knowlege of Good and evil. So now in this disobediance they gained a knowlege that was to an extent opened as Gods eyes as satan said it would, but little did we know that it would be a curse for us to have this ability to not only recognise things that God was good and thats all we need to know, but Satan helped us see an alternate choice which came by disobedience. And now it became a tainted experience to openly see ones nakedness to take ease and not consider differences where all was peace has now become a place where one can choose by his new cursed knowlege that he is at war to control. The war of seeing things in a pure light or a perspective of whats in it for me, giving us a now vulnerability not only physicaly as Patrick pointed out but emotoinaly. it could be said now with our new knowlege or choice with what motive am I being looked at, if I expose myself, an insecurity. this is perhaps why they hid themselves from God cause now they new there was a difference to taking only form Gods words or choosing anothers. If I have this new knowlege of how am I being looked at by Adam is it also shameful in my disobedience to be vulnerable before God when I have disobeyed. They said we were afraid and hid ourselves because we were naked, God said in a sense, who told you this new knowlege, who gave you another perspective from only knowing how to look at nakedness only from a pure perspective, who gave you a dirty side perspective. well we disobeyed you and listened to the serpent and took of the tree you dont take of.
before they took of the trre they only new a pure way of looking at nakedness after they gained gained another perspective, which is exactly what satan was going for, cause it put his chips on the table and now he had a say. As long as they remained only in their perfect perspective and pure thoughts as God first set them out to be they were safe, as soon as they gained the other perspective they then knew fear, embarrasment, and vulnerability cause they had angered God who was nothing but good to them and so they had to experience the price that goes with the knowlege of the other perspective. Whew! did I say enough, and I am such a bad typer. Library computer and it cuts out all the time. Peace!