Month: August 2024

Book Plunge: Christian Body — The Moral Effect of Clothing

Does clothing have a moral effect? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Frost tells us that if we were to visit a nudist society, we would find it is actually family-friendly. Well, that might depend on which one you go to. I daresay that across the board there are always exceptions. However, one thing he does say is that the body loses its sexual connotation and becomes unprovocative, the way that it should be.

But is that how it should be?

For instance, you have some valuables that you do keep out in public, such as fine art that you want people to see, but at the same time, you might still keep them behind glass or something similar. Meanwhile, you have other valuables that you keep away for special occasions. You don’t put the fine china in a separate cabinet because you’re ashamed of it. You keep it there because it’s for special events. I have a suit in my closet. I haven’t worn it once since I came to New Orleans. Am I ashamed of it? No. It’s for special occasions.

What if the human body could be the same way?

What if the human body is sexual because we are sexual beings. What if parts of the body were made to arouse the opposite sex, among other things? What if a man or a woman doesn’t display their body not because they’re ashamed of it, but because they think they should save it for someone special that they trust. What if that body becomes a symbol then of the unique trust they only give to one another?

This is part of the problem. Frost says we have a problem with lust, and he is right with that, but then says “Get rid of clothing and there’s no issue” and he’s wrong on that. The problem with lust is not that we see people as sexual beings. The problem is that is the only way that we see them. We see them as objects to fulfill our desire. A man sees a woman as something to conquer instead of a person to woo. The female body for a man in the former becomes an object to conquer and claim dominance over. In the latter, a treasure to adore.

Frost also says that when we bring clothing to these societies that practice nudity, we end up creating problems of lust. Again, the account he gives comes from the 1800’s with no further research on that. A problem here is that Frost regularly says the problem of lust is not based on anything external, but then turns around and says that clothing, something external to us, creates a problem with lust.

As an illustration, see here:

Is a shortage of clothing the root cause of moral stumbling? Does clothing prevent stumbling? In James 1:14 we read, “each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.” From this we learn that lust is caused by our sinful desires, NOT by the sight of anything created.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (pp. 61-62). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

But then he says:

The point I am making is that the natural body does not actually cause involuntary lust. Though it seems counter-intuitive to our backward, legalistic way of thinking, it is actually the clothing that causes the lust, and when those standards are finally removed, the erotic effect quickly disappears as naturists around the world can attest.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (p. 65). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

And again on the other hand:

According to the Bible, nothing I see can cause lust; it can only expose the lust that was already festering in my heart and needed to be brought to the surface and dealt with.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (p. 210). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

So nothing I see can cause lust, but….

The clothing standards we cling to for moral protection have created and empowered the lust and sexual addiction in our culture.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (p. 131). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

So which is it? Frost can’t have it both ways. Now as a man, I don’t care if the woman is completely naked or if she’s wearing completely covering armor over her, if I lust, I am the one to blame for my lust. Yes, she could be doing something that makes it easier for me to lust, but I bear responsibility for my own sin.

So again, I don’t think Frost makes his case. If anyone is trying to evade responsibility here, it is not people who practice what is called purdah, but himself.

We’ll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Christian Body — Unclothed Cultures

What about unclothed cultures? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

It’s really sad that this is in the book that Frost decides to cite other sources. When he’s talking about the Bible and archaeology and other such things, he cites no sources. When he gets to talking about anthropology, he does.

What Frost cites are reports from the late 1800’s about places around the world where nudity was supposedly the norm and yet people were quite virtuous.

I’m not an anthropologist nor do I play one on TV. However, that being said, I want to make a few observations.

First off, natural law applies to everyone. Everyone has some standards of right and wrong and there are universal moral truths that we all know and can’t not know. Some of us can suppress them and usually we try to redefine reality to fit our moral beliefs. Hence, when it comes to abortion, you’re not aborting a human person say defenders of the practice, you’re aborting a fetus (Supposedly taking that to mean something non-human) or a parasite.

Second, there was a tendency to try to break away from biblical morality at the time. Consider works later on like Coming of Age in Samoa which was found to be massively wrong later on. The goal of many was to show these people didn’t have biblical morality and yet they lived in a paradise and it was much more closer to the idea of free love.

Third, I get suspicious that all of these sources are dated to the late 1800’s. Is there nothing from more recent research that can further back and expound on this? Have these societies now somehow become totally corrupt?

Fourth, all societies have some kind of modesty standards in what behavior is acceptable for men and women. There is not a society out there that is “Anything goes.” All of them have a morality of some kind that is to be upheld. Someone like Frost can say it is different from ours and to be sure, it could be, but it is still a standard.

Right now, I am also thinking of the second time I went to the National Conference on Christian Apologetics. We had a speaker that spoke of witnessing to a tribe whose name I can’t remember right now, but he talked about bringing the gospel to them. At one point, there was a man among them who converted and after he did, he was given a name that meant “Does not chase after women.”

Bringing a society clothing will not ruin them. If you think clothing leads to a downfall in society, you’re missing the main point. Sin leads to the downfall of a society and the only way to eliminate that problem is not by going nude. It is by turning to the cross and coming to Jesus. If a culture can be Christian somewhere in another country and have different clothing codes than mine and still honor Jesus and honor the marriage bed, good for them. In the same way, we can honor Jesus in our clothing culture and honor the marriage bed just as much.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Christian Body: Frost’s Conclusion on Biblical Data

How does Frost close his case? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Let’s start with the first quote of Frost:

Earlier I have shown that the typical “proof” texts for today’s religious purdah do not actually command clothing, and now we have just seen the Bible go a step farther by showing how God has both allowed and even directly commanded, caused, and personally modeled nakedness on multiple occasions.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (p. 127). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

I have found these cases to be problematic and not ONE TIME has Frost interacted with a biblical scholar in this. Frost was the one who said at the start we should listen to the scholars. It’s strange to say that and never mention one of them. Is it because all of the scholars would disagree? Then why? Could it be the data is not in his favor?

The only case I can think of God commanding nudity publicly is in Isaiah, and that was to shame. God often did cause it, but that was also for shaming. Also, I am not convinced Jesus was nude and even emailed Jewish scholar in first century Jewish burial practices Jody Magness about this who told me the body would have been buried in wool most likely.

Frost goes on from here to say:

If the unclothed body was truly indecent or was somehow responsible for creating lust, there would be scores of passages scattered all through the Bible making reference to this sinful and corrupting influence of nakedness, and these passages would command that we should take steps to keep the body hidden for this reason. However, in all the passages that mention nakedness and all the passages that deal with lust and sexuality there is not a single passage that frames nudity as a moral issue, and there is not a single passage that suggests that clothing is a spiritual virtue of any kind or that covering the body is a useful defense or protection against lust.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (pp. 129-130). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

But this is how a fundamentalist reads the text. It needs to be explicitly stated or else it’s not true. Frost told us at the start also to watch the assumptions we bring to the text and yet he is blind to his, that if something is true, the Bible must explicitly state it.

The Bible does not state background knowledge often. There is no text telling people how much they need to eat or how much water they need to drink or how much sleep they should get. People don’t need text on what causes them to sin. They already know.

Also, in the overwhelming majority of these passages, nudity is seen as shameful, and this is Scripture. I have no reason to think Frost has any understanding of honor and shame. There is a real danger when he thinks our society anyway should be a one-to-one parallel with the biblical one. An individualist society is not at all like a collectivist one. An honor-shame society is not like a guilt-innocence one.

Many cultures have existed with very minimal clothing standards or no clothing at all, and yet in many cases these cultures have held much more wholesome standards of moral purity even without the help of our religion.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (p. 131). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

Yet, Frost doesn’t realize that the clothing commanded in the Bible is mainly for that reason. Purity. Clothes were there to show everyone what your social status was and what your identity was in the society. One example is virgin daughters would wear special robes to show they were virgins. It is also irrelevant what many cultures have done. Many cultures have also survived without our technology and have not had to have cars and have eaten bugs. What matter is what is our culture like and how is it like the culture of the Bible? How is it different?

He also says that for some boys and men, the sight of a naked woman or even the thought of one can be immediately sexually arousing even outside of a sexual context. Is this a problem? Could it be that God made the human female form to be alluring to the male and the human male form to the female? What if this is a feature and not a bug? What if women were made to be beautiful and some of that beauty was saved only for their husbands and vice-versa for men?

He then says the modesty approach has caused the rash of pornography. Um. Don’t think so. Pornography exists because the heart is sinful and if they weren’t degrading women through porn, they would degrade them through another means. We had several centuries of Christianity where pornography wasn’t the issue it is today. The cause of our sin is not we have a culture that wears clothes. The cause of our sin is that we have a culture that denies Christ. The solution is not to remove our clothes. It is to remove our sin. It is not to take on the nude form. It is to take on the form of Christ.

And then finally we read:

At this point the Biblical stance has been entirely laid to rest. Anyone still stubbornly insisting that Biblical Christianity must require clothing is simply stuck in irrational legalism in rebellion against God’s revelation. Such a person cannot claim to be following the Bible or Christ in this regard.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (p. 137). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

What does one say to such arrogance as this? It could not be that someone could look at Frost’s work and find it lacking, like I do? No. The problem cannot be Frost. If anyone disagrees with him, then they are in rebellion against God’s revelation. Frost can hold his opinion all he wants to, but the moment you claim that if someone disagrees with you, then they are in open rebellion against God and not following Christ, then you need to take a big slice of humility. This is the way cult leaders begin and cultic personalities begin. Frost should say that his conclusion is that this is what the Bible says, but he welcomes any criticism in case he is wrong.

As I have often said, when I meet a person who cannot conceive that they are wrong in anything, I find it hard to think that they are right in anything.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Christian Body: Exodus and Ruth

How was Ruth gleaning? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Today, we are going to look at some various passages. The first two are related and are from the Pentateuch. In Exodus 22:26-27 we read:

26 If you take your neighbor’s cloak as a pledge, return it by sunset, 27 because that cloak is the only covering your neighbor has. What else can they sleep in? When they cry out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.

and in Deuteronomy 24:13 we read:

Return their cloak by sunset so that your neighbor may sleep in it. Then they will thank you, and it will be regarded as a righteous act in the sight of the Lord your God.

In both of these cases, a person has their cloak taken from them as a pledge that they will do X for the person they are giving it to and the borrower is told to make sure they can at least sleep in it at night. What can we get from this? If we go and say this person had nothing else, then this is a poor person and all they have is a garment.

This would mean that if anything, a poor person would at least have clothing as his last possession, hardly what we would expect from a heavily nudist Israelite culture. Second, this is not at all saying that this is ideal. Frost is still on a hangup that Christians would consider this immoral. No. If you don’t have a garment and you are poor and in need, that is not immoral. Now if you do have a garment and yet you go gallivanting down the street, especially in the sight of children, that is something different.

Then we get to Ruth. Frost tells us that in Ruth 3:3, the word for best describing clothes is not there. Many translations do have it. I don’t have Hebrew qualifications and I don’t think Frost does either as he gives me no reason to think he’s an authority and has cited no biblical scholars. If many translators are putting the word best in there and Frost thinks they shouldn’t, it is up to him to make the case why they shouldn’t. That being said, in verse 15, he asks her to bring him the shawl she is wearing and it is a different Hebrew word.

He also says that Ruth would have been gleaning in the nude as was the norm. The problem is that nowhere does Frost demonstrate this. He just says it. There aren’t any Bible scholars cited or any archeologists cited. No evidence is given. Also, if Frost wants to convince us that these nudist societies were safe places in the past, then why did the men need to be instructed to not touch Ruth?

So Frost says this and then says the translators shoehorn the word best into the text in 3:3 because of our sensibilities. Really? Since when did Frost gain the ability of mindreading? He could be right, naturally, but he needs to show that. Could it be that maybe Hebrew translators know something he doesn’t?

What about in 1 Cor. 12 where Paul talks about our unpresentable parts? Frost says this refers to things like scars and warts and means “Less beautiful.” However, Ben Witherington says:

Verses 21ff. stress that no particular body member can devalue another or declare it to be of no worth. This then applies to people with gifts differing from one’s own. In vv. 22–24 Paul speaks of the weaker, less honorable, and even indecent body parts, referring at least in the latter case to the genitals, while the weaker organs may be the tender inner organs. His point in v. 23 is that these seemingly less honorable parts get more attention, being protected with more clothing. The “presentable” parts by contrast would be those that are not clothed. God composed the body by giving the parts that were lacking in appearance even more honor, bestowing on them the most crucial of functions, that is, reproduction. With this Paul is alluding to weaker and perhaps less apparently gifted Christians. His point in any case in v. 25 is that differences or divisions (schisma again) in the body are avoided by making the body of multiple interdependent parts.

Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 259.

It’s also difficult to see how scars and warts would make sense. Neither of those are essential parts of the body. The genitals and other parts are. I see no basis for less beautiful and again, Frost cites NO biblical scholars on these points.

Frost also says that in Luke 17, the servant coming in is told to clothe himself. The word there is actually the word gird. It could indeed mean as many translators seem to say, to dress properly. It would be saying to get out of your work clothes and be fitting for the table. Frost says that the workers worked in the nude, but again, no citations. He starts off with his assumption and then goes from there.

He also says that in John 20 at the resurrection, Jesus would have been naked seeing as the linen cloths were still in the tomb. Actually, the Jewish Virtual Library says that Jews were buried clothed. The linen cloths were burial cloth and not clothing. Clothing would be used to preserve purity, even of a corpse.

He also says that in John 13, Jesus went naked to wash the feet of His disciples. Okay. And? He also immediately when done put his clothes back on before rejoining them. Why didn’t He just stay that way if this was the ideal? What was seen as worthy of emulation in Jesus was not nudity, but servanthood. It is even questionable if the word means He was completely naked or just removed outer garments, but I am going with the worst-case scenario for my side. For some reason, the early church never seemed to embrace nudity as normative.

Next time, we’ll look at how Frost concludes this part of his book.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Christian Body: Ezekiel and John

What can we learn from these passages? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Frost starts off this section with looking at Ezekiel 16. He quotes 36-37:

36 This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Because you poured out your lust and exposed your naked body in your promiscuity with your lovers, and because of all your detestable idols, and because you gave them your children’s blood, 37 therefore I am going to gather all your lovers, with whom you found pleasure, those you loved as well as those you hated. I will gather them against you from all around and will strip you in front of them, and they will see you stark naked.

He argues at this point that nudity is not morally sinful to which I am still left saying “Who is making this argument that nudity in itself is morally sinful?” Does not Frost know that people against the naturist position have to take showers and if married, like to have sex? This is still the straw man.

He does say that public nudity was humbling and so constituted a fitting punishment. He says it was common in contexts such as manual labor and public bathing. Unfortunately, he has not shown us that public nudity was done in any of those locations. He has just asserted it. His emphasis is just it wasn’t sinful. Frost could have learned something about shame, but it seems he’s more interested in a justification for his position than seeing what the actual position of Scripture is.

What about John? In this story, Jesus goes out fishing with the others and Jesus calls to them from the shore and they have a miraculous catch. The beloved disciple says that it is the Lord and Peter puts on his outer garment and swims to the shore to see Jesus. Frost says the word outer isn’t in the Greek, and fair enough, it isn’t, but either everyone else is involved in some conspiracy here to cover up, or perhaps there is some nuance that is not being understood.

Yet notice this, Peter still puts on his garment and even SWIMS in his garment to the shore. One would think if nudity was so common and acceptable, Peter would not have had any need to put it back on. This would be especially so to go swimming in a garment and wind up on the shore in a wet garment.

So let’s suppose Peter was nude while he was fishing. To this, so what? What does this prove? Peter is out with his friends and there’s no one else around. Also, there’s no word of what anyone else was doing or wearing. As has been my contention, there could have been settings where nudity even in public to an extent could have been acceptable and this could be like men and women being in their respective gym shower rooms together.

Next time, we will look at two more passages from the Old Testament and see what Frost has to say about them.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Christian Body: The Naked Prophet

What can we learn from Isaiah’s naked wanderings? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

When we go to Isaiah 20, we find out it starts off with this:

In the year that the supreme commander, sent by Sargon king of Assyria, came to Ashdod and attacked and captured it— 2 at that time the Lord spoke through Isaiah son of Amoz. He said to him, “Take off the sackcloth from your body and the sandals from your feet.” And he did so, going around stripped and barefoot.

3 Then the Lord said, “Just as my servant Isaiah has gone stripped and barefoot for three years, as a sign and portent against Egypt and Cush, 4 so the king of Assyria will lead away stripped and barefoot the Egyptian captives and Cushite exiles, young and old, with buttocks bared—to Egypt’s shame. 5 Those who trusted in Cush and boasted in Egypt will be dismayed and put to shame. 6 In that day the people who live on this coast will say, ‘See what has happened to those we relied on, those we fled to for help and deliverance from the king of Assyria! How then can we escape?’”

What does Frost have to say about this?

Again, I have scoured every commentator I could find on this passage and almost without exception every one of them is quick to insist that this passage surely cannot possibly mean what it plainly says.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (p. 97). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

So I opened up my Logos to see what was said. I am keeping in mind Frost’s book was published in 2018 so I will only be using material that was available then.

(a) Isaiah went about in a sackcloth coat for an unstated period, perhaps because this was a prophet’s garb (2 Kgs. 1:8), or perhaps as a sign of mourning for events he prophesied;

(b) then three years ago, which would be the beginning of the independence movement, he cast off his sackcloth coat;

(c) for three years he has thus gone about at least coatless—no joke in a Jerusalem winter;

(d) just now the Assyrians’ defeat of Ashdod leads to the threat that Egypt and Cush (and other peoples associated with them) will also be transported.

John Goldingay, Isaiah (ed. W. Ward Gasque, Robert L. Hubbard Jr., and Robert K. Johnston; Understanding the Bible Commentary Series; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2012), 122.

This one could indicate nudity. Not for sure.

How about another one?

The date the “supreme commander” (cf. 2 Kgs 18:17) of Sargon’s army captured Ashdod was 711 BC. This date appears to be the year (v. 2 “at that time”) that God directed the prophet to perform a sign act of going naked for three years to warn his audience in Judah. Isaiah’s radical actions symbolically point out that the Assyrian defeat of Ashdod has serious implications for Judah. Ashdod’s reliance on the Egyptians for protection from Assyria should serve as a lesson for Judah’s future military policy (vv. 5–6).

Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 1–39 (ed. E. Ray Clendenen; The New American Commentary; Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2007), 365.

Hmmmm. Smith didn’t seem to hesitate.

This one is from 2017, just a year before Frost wrote:

While the strongest pronouncement of these judgments is to Egypt herself, God is also sending a message to Judah and to any small nation that, threatened by the vicious Assyrian Empire, is tempted to rely on Egypt for help. Judah should know better, but Isaiah 30:1–7 clearly reveals emissaries traveling across the desert with money to buy an alliance with Egypt. We will speak more in due time about that sinful unbelief on Judah’s part. But other small nations in that region were also tempted to turn trembling to Egypt’s might for aid from the Assyrians. Isaiah 20, one of the strangest chapters in the whole book, shows God’s command to his prophet, Isaiah, to act out Egypt’s humiliation by going around naked and barefoot for three years as a sign against Egypt and Cush. The message was clear: Egypt is no refuge against the terror of the Assyrian Empire and its expansionist ambitions. Assyria will defeat Egypt and humiliate her completely. Then all the people will realize how foolish it is to rely on the strength of man and not on God.

Andrew M. Davis, Exalting Jesus in Isaiah (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2017), 113.

He doesn’t say what Frost says.

Dr. Lange wrote in 1877. Maybe they were a bit more prudish then and he would hesitate to mention nudity.

1. In the year when the Tartan, i.e. commander-in-chief of king Sargon of Assyria, came against Ashdod to besiege the city—which he also took after a comparatively short siege,—Isaiah received commandment from the LORD to take off his garment made of bad sack linen and his sandals, and to go about naked and barefoot (vers. 1, 2). For the incredible thing shall happen that the Egyptians and Ethiopians, shall be compelled to go into captivity naked and barefoot, like Isaiah goes about, (vers. 3, 4). Thereupon all inhabitants of the sea-board of Palestine, will, with terror and shame, be sensible how wrong they were to confide in the power and glory of Ethiopia and Egypt (ver. 5). They will say: Thus it has gone with the power from whom we expected protection; how now shall it go with us? (ver. 6).

John Peter Lange et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Isaiah (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 231.

No. He seems to say that also…

I’m pretty sure Calvin wrote before 2018.

2. Go and loose the sackcloth from thy loins. In order to confirm this prophecy by the use of a symbol, the Lord commanded Isaiah to walk naked. If Isaiah had done this of his own accord, he would have been justly ridiculed; but when he does it by the command of the Lord, we perceive nothing but what is fitted to excite admiration and to strike awe. In this nakedness, and in the signs of a similar kind, something weighty is implied. Besides, the Lord does nothing either by himself or by his servants without likewise explaining the reason; and therefore the Prophet does not merely walk naked, but points out the design which the Lord had in view in ordering him to do so. In other respects false prophets imitate the true servants of God, and put on varied and imposing shapes, to dazzle the eyes of the multitude, and gain credit to themselves; but those symbols are worthless, because God is not the author of them.

John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (vol. 2; Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 86.

I think this is sufficient to show that there are plenty of commentators who don’t hesitate to say that Isaiah was naked.

This seems to be much of Frost’s point, but then says God would not have commanded Isaiah to do this if it was something sinful. True enough, but at that point, Frost stops. He never asks the important question.

Why did God command Isaiah to do this?

The fact that Isaiah was commanded should show that this was not normative. “Isaiah. I command you do to that thing you always do where you walk around naked.” No. This was something unusual to the society so they would have noticed. What’s the point?

Isaiah was saying this is what is coming for them. They think what is happening to him is shameful. That same thing will happen to them! Indeed, it did. Captives were often led away naked just for the point of shaming them further. Again, Frost only seems to see either sinful or celebrated. He never sees anything else. I don’t think he has any understanding of honor and shame at all.

Well, we’ll see what he has to say next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Book Plunge: Christian Body: The Naked King

What can we learn from Saul going buff? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Frost turns to 1 Samuel 19. In this, he recounts how Saul appeared before Samuel and stripped down to nothing and prophesied. Thus, Frost says we have not only Saul going nude, but this is under God’s direction. No one is reacting with disgust or talking about impropriety. Case closed! Right?

Here, Frost has badly misread Scripture.

If you go and read the whole passage, Saul is out for blood. He is trying to eliminate his rival to the throne, David. David flees to Samuel and tells him all that is happening and David stays with him. Saul sends men to Samuel who end up prophesying. Then another group goes to Samuel and the same thing happens. Finally, Saul goes himself.

It is here where we get the most detail. At this point, the Spirit of God comes upon Saul and he ends up stripping naked entirely and prophesying. So what is going on here?

A few commentaries could have helped Frost out:

But in a climactic tour de force, the Spirit of God made a mockery of the most ardent efforts of David’s opponent. Saul’s first servants had not begun prophesying until they arrived at Naioth; however, Saul began prophesying as “he walked along” some distance from Naioth. Then when he actually arrived at his destination, the Spirit of God so overwhelmed him that “he stripped off his robes” (v. 24) as he continued to prophesy “in Samuel’s presence.” The triple employment of the Hebrew phrase gam hûʾ (lit., “even he”; not fully noted in the NIV) in vv. 23–24 emphasizes the fact that Israel’s most powerful citizen was subjugated by the power of God.
Saul’s loss of royal attire in the presence of God’s Spirit presented a powerful image confirming the prophetic judgments Samuel made earlier (cf. 15:23, 28). God had rejected Saul as king, so in God’s presence Saul would not be permitted to wear the clothing of royalty. Saul had “rejected the word of the LORD” (15:23), so now in an ironic twist he would be condemned to be a mouthpiece for that word.
Saul remained “naked” (Hb. ʿārōm; NIV, “that way”; a grave shame in the ancient Near East) and in a prophetic trance “all that day and night.” His actions, so out of keeping with his background and character, gave new life to the proverb coined when Saul was first anointed king over Israel (cf. 10:11), “Is Saul also among the prophets?” As Youngblood points out, the proverb now also distances Saul from the royal office.

Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (vol. 7; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 210–211.

And

The final and rather strange incident in this chapter describes David’s flight to Samuel, who becomes the first of many people with whom David will take refuge. Saul hears of David’s location and sends messengers. God himself protects David by throwing the messengers into a prophetic trance repeated times. Finally, Saul himself goes and his journey to Samuel at the beginning of his career is repeated. However, his experience at the beginning of his career is reversed. There the Spirit came upon him as validation of his appointment as king but now the Spirit comes upon him in such a way as to protect his replacement and confirm his rejection. Saul’s isolation is vividly presented as he strips off his clothes and lies naked and humiliated for a day and a night.

Andrew Reid, 1 & 2 Samuel: Hope for the Helpless (Reading the Bible Today Series; Sydney, South NSW: Aquila Press, 2008), 109.

It is quite alarming that Frost takes a message of judgment and rejection and turns it into a message of celebration. Saul does not go nude to show the glory of the human body. He goes nude because he is not worthy of royal clothing and he is to be shamed.  This also then furthers the idea that in ancient Israel, nudity in public was seen as shameful.

How does Frost so badly misread this? I can only speculate he got what he wanted to see.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Christian Body: Nakedness in the Ancient Culture

Were the ancients running around naked? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

One of the big problems I have with this section is that Frost makes several claims, but he never cites any sources on those claims. The information could be true enough, but how can I check? I have no idea where Frost gets his data and I have no reason to think that I should see him as an authority.

Let’s start with one claim he makes.

The first factor to understand is the economy of ancient Palestine. Fabric had to be hand-made through a long process of gathering materials, treating, dying, spinning, weaving, and sewing. Because of all this labor and expense, clothing was not something you could pick up at the local Salvation Army for an hour’s wage. It was a valuable commodity.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (pp. 80-81). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

Okay. I can agree that this is a costly and timely process, but how does it follow then that people went without clothes? Let’s talk about what else was a costly and timely process. Food. Getting something to eat and getting something to drink were costly and timely. Despite that, we know the ancients did it because, well, we’re their descendants so they obviously survived long enough to reproduce. (That was also a dangerous experience often as women died in childbirth, but the ancients still did it.)

He then cites Scripture where if you were poor, you went without clothing. Yes, and you went without food. You can say you simply went naked, but you can also say you simply went hungry.

The first two Scriptures Frost cites are Job 24:7 and 10.

Here’s 7:

Lacking clothes, they spend the night naked;
    they have nothing to cover themselves in the cold.

This is talking about the poor. Now go down to verse 10 and what do you see?

Lacking clothes, they go about naked;
they carry the sheaves, but still go hungry.

Nakedness and hunger go together. This is not saying they simply went naked. This is saying going naked was a BAD thing in that culture.

Ezekiel 16:39 is next and yet, one wonders if Frost even read the verse.

Then I will deliver you into the hands of your lovers, and they will tear down your mounds and destroy your lofty shrines. They will strip you of your clothes and take your fine jewelry and leave you stark naked.

This is not commendable and it is not as Frost says “People simply going naked because they had no food. The whole passage is God talking about how He made a covenant with His people to be their husband and the surrounding verses show how strong His judgment is.

35 “‘Therefore, you prostitute, hear the word of the Lord! 36 This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Because you poured out your lust and exposed your naked body in your promiscuity with your lovers, and because of all your detestable idols, and because you gave them your children’s blood, 37 therefore I am going to gather all your lovers, with whom you found pleasure, those you loved as well as those you hated. I will gather them against you from all around and will strip you in front of them, and they will see you stark naked. 38 I will sentence you to the punishment of women who commit adultery and who shed blood; I will bring on you the blood vengeance of my wrath and jealous anger. 39 Then I will deliver you into the hands of your lovers, and they will tear down your mounds and destroy your lofty shrines. They will strip you of your clothes and take your fine jewelry and leave you stark naked. 40 They will bring a mob against you, who will stone you and hack you to pieces with their swords. 41 They will burn down your houses and inflict punishment on you in the sight of many women. I will put a stop to your prostitution, and you will no longer pay your lovers. 42 Then my wrath against you will subside and my jealous anger will turn away from you; I will be calm and no longer angry.

Nakedness in this case is a PUNISHMENT! Jerusalem played fast and loose with her body. Now God is going to say “If that’s the way you want it, I will let everyone see you.” This is something shameful!

Next is Luke 3:11.

John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”

This is John the Baptist telling you that if you can spare clothes for the naked, do so! Again, nakedness is not celebrated! For this one, I will post the surrounding verses:

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

Clothing was a physical need! Nakedness was not something to celebrate. Frost does say it would be embarrassing, but not for the reasons we would imagine. He doesn’t say what those reasons were nor does he say what the real reason is. Frost does say that the nudity was not considered to be immoral, and aside from Ezekiel 16, that is true. However, that’s a far cry from ancient Israelites running around saying “Look at the natural body in all of its glory!”

Frost then goes on to say:

The commands to clothe the naked are always in the context of providing warmth, protection, and social dignity to the underprivileged, but there is never once any indication in Scripture that body-shame, lust, or carnality had anything to do with it whatsoever.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (p. 86).ess UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

But this again is the false dilemma that Frost always presents. Either the body is shameful and nudity is wrong, or else nudity should be celebrated. He says nothing about honor and shame. I suspect he knows nothing about them. He later says that nakedness, homelessness, and hunger are not desirable, but they are not sinful. Again, Frost needs to say who is saying that they are. For instance, I fully agree that a husband and wife having sex in and of itself is not sinful. Doing it in the middle of the grocery store or where it could put one of the people in physical danger to a health condition is different.

This is something Frost still hasn’t dealt with. He has gone up against a straw man and has not dealt with social context. As of this point also, there have been zero scholars cited. I am still waiting.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Christian Body: 1 Timothy 2:9

What does 1 Timothy require us to wear in church? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Many people in thinking about nudity and Scripture will likely point to 1 Timothy 2:9. I would agree ith them. Unfortunately, a lot of Christians also get this passage wrong thinking it is talking about something that it really isn’t. It could apply to what they think it talks about, but there’s no real reason that it would.

Many of us today think that what Paul has in mind is not to wear something that would drive a man to lust. A woman shouldn’t wear a really short skirt or a top that will show a noticeable amount of cleavage for instance. I am not saying that that idea is wrong, but I am saying that this is not what Paul is addressing in 1 Tim. 2:9.

In that context, modest dress would refer to that which would be fitting to one’s social setting. If you are not rich, you do not try to dress to look as if you are rich. In this chapter, Frost will say that clothing isn’t really addressed.

The problem is that the word for clothing is extremely hard to find. I went looking at web sites I used in doing research on Greek words and didn’t come up with much. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says:

In the NT the verb occurs only in Acts 19:35–36, where the clerk calms the excited mob at Ephesus. The authority expressed by katastéllō differs from that expressed by the use of katéseisen when Paul as a witness to Christ brings the crowd to order at Jerusalem in Acts 21:27ff. The noun occurs in the advice to women believers in 1 Tim. 2:9, where Timothy is told to exhort them to adopt either a seemly demeanor or seemly apparel. The context of worship perhaps supports the former rendering, but the use of stolē for “garment” in the Apologists favors the latter.

Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1985), 1075.

Meanwhile, another website says that:

repress, restrain, οἶκτον E.IA934; τὸν ὄχλον Act.Ap.19.35, cf. Wilcken Chr.10 (ii B.C., prob.); κ. τὰς ἐπιθυμίας Phld.Rh.2.284 S., cf. Arr.Epict.3.19.5; τοὺς νέους Plu.2.207e, cf. 547b, etc.:—Pass., ἅπαντα λήξει καὶ κατασταλήσεται Apollod.Com.18; of persons, to be placed under restraint, reduced to order, PTeb.41.21 (ii B.C.), BGU1192.5 (i B.C.); also κατεσταλμένοι τοῖς ἤθεσι of calm, sedate character, opp. τολμηρός, D.S.1.76, cf. Arr.Epict.4.4.10; κατεσταλμένον ἦθος D.S.10.3; κατέσταλται πρὸς τὸ κόσμιον Plu.Comp.Lyc.Num.3, cf. Ael.NA4.29, Arr. Epict.3.23.16.

If the reading is ambiguous then, the next place to go is as TDNT said, the apologists, these are the fathers of the first centuries of the church who knew the language and their use of it favors garment.

What does this mean? It would mean we would largely have to depend on context to understand. The main point is Paul is wanting people to not draw attention to themselves by going fancy but go modestly. The problem is if this is somewhere where Frost thinks he has a strong point, then it’s weak since we have so little usage of the word to compare and the understanding of the early church implies a garment.

Now one point that Frost does get right here is when he says:

Wherever we go we should seek to dress in a way that would downplay any facade of status, elitism, or wealth that would draw attention to self-superiority. How we obey this passage depends entirely on those around us.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (p. 74). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

This is certainly accurate. We should not dress in church to draw attention to ourselves. We should dress in a way that will honor God.

I still hope to do more study on the term under question in the future, but for now, I’m not convinced by Frost.

Next time, we’ll start looking at how nudity was understood in the ancient culture.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

Book Plunge: Christian Body: Romans 14

Is clothing a Romans 14 issue? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Many of us know about Romans 14 issues. In the ancient world, it was what kind of food you could eat and what days you could observe. We have our own. It can be what kind of entertainment do you partake in. What should you wear to church? What kind of music should be played in church?

Well, Frost wants us to consider that maybe the question of if we should wear clothes is one of those questions. He says that Paul says that earthly things are neutral. They cannot be spiritually unclean and it only matters how we use them in our hearts. He then says this applies to clothing because we have taken what God has made and said in our hearts it is unclean.

Again, Frost seems to always chase after windmills. He never tells us who is saying this.

So let’s try some other scenarios of things God created and see how well that works.

Sex is created by God. It’s a good and beautiful gift. He made it to be enjoyed by husband and wife and we should not look at it as shameful. Therefore, you think it’s okay for a husband and wife to publicly have sex in a church service. I don’t. Let’s just agree to disagree.

God created defecation. He made the body to work in this way. It’s a part of the natural order. You think it’s okay to drop your drawers in the middle of the street and poop on the sidewalk. I don’t. Let’s agree to disagree. (I do understand this is a hot debate in San Francisco right now.)

He then quotes James 1:14 saying temptation comes from within, and therefore lust is caused by that which comes from sinful desires and nothing that we see.

Yes, everyone out there. If you have ever lusted, it had nothing to do with something that you saw. Nope. It was all you. You just spontaneously started lusting for no reason.

Now I am not saying that the sight of a naked woman forces a man to lust. A man needs to control himself, but that doesn’t mean that women also don’t have responsibility. Achan needed to control his own greed, but seeing the riches in the ruins of Jericho were enough to inspire greed.

Frost also tells us that clothing causes lust. Remove the clothing and the erotic effect will disappear.

Look. I know it’s only anecdotal, but I can safely say that when I was married, seeing my wife naked never ceased to have an erotic effect for me. I contend Frost lives in a delusionary world if he thinks this will happen. He is right that if something is forbidden, it often becomes that which is most longed for, as in some societies, for instance, women’s feet are covered to avoid lust. Society still recognizes some parts of a person’s body need to be treated with special honor.

Ultimately, Frost has taken his personal issue and acted like suddenly it’s a Romans 14 issue because of disagreement. We’ll be looking at 1 Timothy 2 next time, but I find Frost’s case highly unconvincing. He would need to show me why he thinks it would be wrong for a husband and wife to have sex in church publicly. After all, God created that good thing and it’s not shameful or sinful either.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)