Tag: Naturism

Book Plunge: Christian Body – Is Grace Sufficient?

Is grace enough to overcome? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

One of the big problems with Frost’s book is that he is so antagonistic in it. He comes in with both barrels blasting too often and when he wants to comment on what the other side thinks, he paints them as denying most everything he can about Christianity. So it is that the same happens when we come to the topic of grace.

Frost says that for many Christians, grace can help them overcome the evils of pornography and dehumanization, but it doesn’t help them joyfully appreciate the human body. Perhaps this is so for some, but not for all. I cannot say that I have ever struggled with porn by the grace of God, but I can say as a man who was married I had a deep appreciation for my wife’s body and often said that if the only evidence I had for the existing of God was her body, that would be enough to settle the case for me. I knew of no other way to explain something that beautiful.

There is a problem with how we talk about grace. Consider Sam Allberry. He is a great speaker on issues of the church and sexuality, and yet he himself wrestles with same-sex attraction. There are some people who have become Christians and lost that attraction, but not all. There are plenty of people who have become Christians while in the clutches of alcoholism and escaped that, but that doesn’t mean that they have to go out and fully appreciate the fruit of the vine by going to a bar and drinking alcohol. That could even be foolish for them.

Sometimes God delivers us fully from wrong desires. Sometimes, He doesn’t. It doesn’t make any Christian a lesser Christian or a greater Christian. All Christians regardless will have struggles in this world until the day they die or until the day Christ returns.

Some people could be delivered from porn and yet never marry and get to enjoy the real presence of a beautiful member of the opposite sex in all their glory. Some might not. Some could have no desire for porn again. Some could have a daily struggle. There is no “One size fits all.”

One reason I would not be out in the public nude is that I don’t want to risk doing anything that would cause my fellow man to stumble in any way. I have to show consideration for them. If I had no problem with alcohol, I would not drink alcohol in front of someone who struggles with it. (For those wondering, I made a lifelong vow early on that I would not drink alcohol so I would not risk doing anything to damage my reputation. I have no problem if someone can control their alcohol.)

Frankly, Frost’s book would be a lot better if he didn’t spend as much time demeaning the other side. Frost comes off as if he thinks he is the super Christian and everyone else is less than he is. His case would be better if he wrote more conversationally instead.

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 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: Exodus 20:26

Why did priests wear underwear? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this section, we’re going to interact with Frost and another writer as well online who engages with this verse. If God wanted the priests to wear garments in their work, it seems that God is opposed to nudity. Right?

To begin with, let’s see what it would mean to say God is opposed to nudity. Most of us are not, provided it is in the proper context. Taking a shower at home or having sex with your spouse? Go ahead and get naked. Want to go swimming in your own private pool or lake away from watching eyes in the buff? Go ahead. Again, this is the private and public sphere distinction.

Frost points to an idea of purdah. You can go to the link for more on that, but it seems like Frost is speaking in extremes. It’s either you hold to a doctrine that everything must be covered entirely, or you go completely naked. Frost tells us that if God wanted a purdah doctrine, he had thousands of years and pages in to tell us.

Because apparently Frost needs a strict command that says “Hey guys, can you wear clothes? That would be kind of cool!”

A more thorough look at this comes from someone online named Mud Walker who I was pointed to by the person who got me started on this. His page is called Renude Life. You can find a link to his argument here.

He states at the start that biblical scholars agree that garments in those days were loose and easily blown aside. Maybe that is so. The problem is he doesn’t tell us any biblical scholars who say this.

He says that nudity and sexual intercourse was common in pagan services. None of this is given with any citations, though I would not be surprised, especially with sexual intercourse. He also tells us that since the priests used these garments, we may assume that they were naked the rest of the time.

In other words, if you have some work clothes that you wear just when you go to work, it’s safe to assume the rest of the time you’re naked.

Mud Walker tells us that simple nudity was common in the ancient world. One illustration of this is a fresco of Pharaoh’s daughter finding Moses while bathing. Well, Pharaoh’s daughter is naked, which tells us that people in ancient times were naked when they bathed. That’s not much of a stretch.

A link from that part takes you to this page. In this, you find that the term to expose someone’s nakedness was a euphemism for sexual intercourse. At times, yes. Definitely in Leviticus 18 and 20. The only link there takes you to recommended resources, which means Mud Walker has presented us with no hard data on this.

Not only that, but we have Scripture that says otherwise.

Consider Deuteronomy 29:5

Yet the LORD says, “During the forty years that I led you through the wilderness, your clothes did not wear out, nor did the sandals on your feet.

I looked it up. The word for clothing means, get this, clothing. The same word is used when the Gibeonites approach Joshua in Joshua 9 and talk about how their clothes are damaged from their long travels, which they faked entirely. Nothing from Joshua saying “Guys. We’re in the wilderness. Just go nude like we are.”

“But Nick, you haven’t cited any biblical scholars!”

Fair enough. So let’s see what Pilch and Malina have to say about this:

Analogously, great concern was shown for the dress of the priest who offered sacrifice, first that he not have to ascend stairs less his nude loins be revealed in sacred space (Exod 20:26), and then that he wear breeches to forestall accidental exposure (Exod 28:42). Thus nudity was linked with issues of purity and pollution in myth and practice. As Genesis and Exodus indicate, if we would understand the cultural perspective of the ancient Israelites and Judahites toward nudity, we must see the issue through the eyes of two complementary models, namely, honor/shame and purity/pollution.

Pilch, John J.. Handbook of Biblical Social Values, Third Edition (Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Context 10) (pp. 118-119). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Unfortunately, the authors we are interacting with do not show any interaction with honor/shame material or purity/pollution material. Frost comes at this with a Western mindset that says it has to be spelled out explicitly. Scripture doesn’t work that way. It is a modern approach that is quite good at creating fundamentalist atheists, but not so much serious studies in Scripture.

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

Book Plunge: Christian Body Genesis 2-3

What does the Bible say about nudity? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So some chaos broke out on Facebook Friday when an apologist friend of mine came out in favor of Christian Naturism. Some of you might be thinking “Love of nature. What could be wrong about that?” Nope. This is a Christian embrace of nudity. One book he mentioned as having an impact was this one. Being concerned about this decision, I decided to look into it.

So the book starts with a look at the account of what happened in the Fall of Man. The author, Aaron Frost starts off saying we all have social conditioning we are unaware of. Of this, who would disagree? He also says we must consult Bible historians and scholars to see what is going on in the text. Again, agreement.

He talks about how he served in different cultures as a missionary and they had different standards about clothing. Yes, but we care about what was ancient Israel’s standard about clothing? How did they see it?

Frost looking at it says that modesty is not in consideration in the account and shame is never mentioned. The problem is this is a Western way of reading the text. It is the idea of “The text doesn’t mention shame, therefore there is nothing shameful.”

On this, we have the firm data. For the ancient Israelites, nudity was shameful. As Pilch and Malina state about Israelite women:

Public nudity inevitably meant “shame” for them, for their chastity was compromised: their physical body was no longer exclusively the property of their husbands.

Pilch, John J.. Handbook of Biblical Social Values, Third Edition (Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Context 10) (p. 119). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.

In Israel, clothing was a signifier of social status. Consider how Tamar tears her robe after her half-brother Amnon rapes her. Why? Because that was a robe for virgins to wear. How did the Israelites know which women in the battle against the Midianites hadn’t slept with a man? Their clothing.

This didn’t just apply to women. As Pilch and Malina again say:

The Hebrew Scriptures relentlessly censure nudity, which was hardly the case in Greece (Thucydides I.vi.4–6). Although God presumably made Adam and Eve naked, they became aware of it with the shame of being discovered as sinners (Gen 2:25). God’s first act of mercy to them was to cover them with garments of skin (Gen 3:21). Thus nudity became inextricably linked with sin and “shame”.

Pilch, John J.. Handbook of Biblical Social Values, Third Edition (Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Context 10) (p. 118). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Nudity was unacceptable in the presence of God. Priests had to have special clothing to make sure no hint of nudity was there. This is not because the human body is ugly or horrible. It’s because of how one is positioned in the society. You approached a king wearing your best. You did the same with God.

Getting back to Frost, he asks if it was improper for Adam and Eve to see each other naked in the garden? Absolutely not. In the privacy of their own homes, it’s also not improper for husbands and wives to see each other naked. Part of the Edenic state is that there was no shame.

Frost does say that there are no thorns or predators or harsh temperatures in the Garden. Maybe not in the Garden, but what about the rest of the world? Am I to think if man had never fell that when they got to the Sahara it would be a pleasant experience, or if they went to the North Pole they could go sunbathing and skinny dipping? The text only deals with one area and if we want to talk about not taking assumptions with us, we should not assume the whole world was like the garden.

After this, Frost writes about how Eve took of the fruit and gave it to her husband to eat. He says for the first time they felt bold defiance against their creator. After that, they experience a horror they never had before. They experience feelings of guilt, shame, and fear.

Excuse me? Where is that in the text?

On p. 24 of Pilch and Malina’s book cited above, they say that our idea of feelings and emotional states of biblical characters is anachronistic. Conscience was not an inner voice saying “You’ve been a bad boy.” It was instead the voice of others condemning them. Consider David for an example. When did he know he had sinned with Bathsheba? When Nathan said those words to him of “You the man!”

Thus, all that Frost says here is anachronistic. It is being read into the text.

He then says they stitched fig leaves together to cover their reproductive organs. Well, the text doesn’t say that they covered those, but that is a fair assumption to grant and it is one that intertestamental writers shared. Consider Jubilees 3.

  1. And when she had first covered her shame with figleaves, she gave thereof to Adam and he eat, and his eyes were opened, and he saw that he was naked.
  2. And he took figleaves and sewed (them) together, and made an apron for himself, and ,covered his shame.

Now some of my fellow Protestants could say “But that’s not Scripture!” to which I say, “Irrelevant.” The point of the writing is to show how Jews saw it. The reproductive organs were to be reserved for husband and wife and not for the public. It would be treating what is sacred as it was common.

Frost tells us that modern readers think they know very well why they hid. It is an assumption that is brought, but it is not stated in the text. Unfortunately, Frost doesn’t tell us forthrightly what this assumption is. It’s like he assumes the assumption. Weird, isn’t it?

At the start, I don’t think it was from one another. For one thing, hiding doesn’t make sense. What would happen? “Eve! You turn around and count to ten and I’ll hide and then I’ll count to ten while you hide.”

That being said, something married men and men who even cohabitate with a woman know well often is many women even in marriage cover their bodies. Many men don’t understand why their wife can come out of the shower and have a towel wrapped tight around them. Many of those men have no such insecurities around their wives.

So who were they hiding from?

Ask any parent who has small children. If the parent comes into the house and the vase is broken and a baseball is next to it, the children are hiding. God comes walking through. The children hide. Foolish to think you can hide from God? Yes, but all of us are foolish before God many times thinking we can’t trust Him, worrying about matters, etc.

Frost’s contention for why they did this? Satan told them to! Satan told them their nakedness was shameful! Where is that in the text? NOWHERE! Satan tempts Eve to eat the fruit and after that he is completely silent. The idea that Satan did this helps Frost with his interpretation, but it’s not rooted in the text.

Besides, if Satan did this, then one would think one of the first things God would do is correct their misconception. He never does. If anything, He enables their decision by putting together clothing for them.

Something we have to consider is the text only has two human beings in the garden. We don’t know what would have happened had children been born in the garden. Would Adam and Eve wear clothing then so that their children wouldn’t see what was meant for husband and wife alone? The text doesn’t say. Do we think Adam and Eve would be having sex together while a young Cain and Abel watched on? Hard to picture even in an Edenic society.

Frost says God gives them garments but says nothing about modesty to them. As if that needs to be explicitly stated in the text! He also never states how they are to grow food and tend gardens in a world of thorns and thistles. He never tells Eve how to raise children when she will give birth with increased pain. (I am leaving aside questions of the age of the Earth and other such matters like pain before the Fall.) A Western society thinks this needs to be spelled out. An Eastern one understands it’s a waste of time and writing to point out what everyone already knew.

Frost says the couple would need more protection than they did in the garden because the sun was hot, the nights were cold, and thorns were there and animals could have venom.

So was the sun not hot before?

Were nights not cold before?

Were there zero thorns in the world before?

Were there zero poisonous animals before?

These are all assumptions Frost brings to the text.

Frost goes on to say in approaching our issues today that:

The plain, unaltered body has been reduced to smut and outlawed from ever being honored appropriately. The human body, as it stands naturally, is now strictly reserved only for pornography and kept that way by Christian influence in government as if that must be how God wanted things to be.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (p. 38). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

Well, no.

For one thing, no one is saying nudity in itself is sinful. The Lord even in ancient Israel knew in some cases, it was a necessity, such as, oh, I don’t know, having children? People would also still have to bathe and wash their clothes. Both could involve nudity. Nudity itself isn’t the problem.

The problem is the context nudity is in.

If you go to the doctor and he says take off your clothes and you’re nude, we understand that is fine. If you go down to main street and take off your clothes and sit on a park bench, that isn’t fine. The context is what matters. If you are in the privacy of your own home and want to go nude, go ahead. In public, no.

And what is pornography? It is pictures of evil sexual sin which is made just to arouse people. Pornography demeans the human body by treating what is sacred and making it common. It also blurs the line between the public and the private spheres. That which is meant for privacy becomes public. (Never mind also that many caught in the industry are victims of sex trafficking.)

He then asks shouldn’t we speak against this perversion that the body is something shameful? Shouldn’t we speak out that the body shouldn’t be covered up? Shouldn’t we speak out against the natural body being inappropriate.

Again, all of this confuses the public and the private sphere. For an Israelite, to be naked in public was shameful. This is the case going on when God regularly says that He will expose the nakedness of His enemies or when David’s men go to speak to a foreign king and get their pants split and their beards shaved and are told to stay where they are until their beards grow back.

None of this says the body in itself is shameful, but it does say the nudity of the body is meant for the private sphere of life and not the public sphere, much like sexuality is. Sex in the Bible is a good and beautiful thing. A man having sex with his wife in the privacy of their home is good. A man having sex with his wife in the middle of a shopping mall is not.

Frost tells us that the Bible tells us temptation is caused by lust and that is the choice of the living dissatisfied with God’s way.

Again, no. As the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says:

This group denotes desire, especially for food or sex. This desire is morally neutral at first, but philosophy, holding aloof from the sensory world, regards it as reprehensible, and in Stoicism epithymía is one of the four chief passions. Epicurus distinguishes between natural and illicit desires, subdividing the former into the purely natural and those that are necessary to happiness.

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), 339–340.

The word means desire. It can be right or wrong. 1 Tim. 3:1 speaks positively of it saying if a man desires to be an overseer, he desires a good thing. James is talking about sinful desires we do have inside of us. It is not just lust in the sense of looking at a member of the opposite sex.

Frost says the Scriptures never say clothing prevents lust or that nakedness offends God. For one thing, I don’t know anyone making this claim. If clothing prevented lust in every way, then teenage boys would not be struggling with lust when they see a cute girl at school. She’s wearing clothes after all.

Second, once again, it is a Western mindset to think this has to be spelled out.

Third, to some degree, they do. The less a woman wears, the more a guy is prone to go crazy over her.

Frost is taking a Western mindset to the text and demanding it spell out everything. We might as well say “The text never tells us to diet and exercise regularly, so we shouldn’t do that.” “The text never tells us to wash our hands before meals, so we shouldn’t do that.” Picture how that last one would go.

“God created dirt and dirt is good and God said a man working hard and laboring is good. Man is meant to work. Why should a man remove that good dirt that God created on this Earth before he eats a meal?”

Frost tells us the solution to porn is not to cover the body but to show an example of good and godly people who are not overpowered by the sight of God’s creation and appreciate one another with dignity, honor, and respect.

First off, good luck with that.

Second, if you become so desensitized to God’s creation that you are no longer aroused by the nakedness of a member of the opposite sex, then I think you have a bigger problem. We were designed to want the bodies of the opposite sex and when we do, our bodies are also functioning properly.

Third, the real solution is to change the way we view sex and sexuality and realize that what is meant for privacy should not be public. We need to have a higher view of sex.

He finally ends saying that the fig leaves were the first decision Adam made with a corrupted mind. Unfortunately for Frost, God nowhere condemns this description and even furthers it by making clothes Himself for the couple. Also, it is worth pointing out that Frost said we should consult scholars and historians of the Bible, but I count nowhere in this section where he has done so. He has argued entirely from his perspective alone.

Next time we look at this book, we will discuss Genesis 9.

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