Tag: nude

Book Plunge: Christian Body – Do You Trust The Bible?

Is going nude a sign of believing the Bible? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

At the start of this section, Frost says the following:

The controversy exists because most people who call themselves Christians are not familiar with the Bible except the parts read to them on Sunday mornings by preachers speaking from motivated confirmation bias. Christians typically assume many beliefs that are nowhere in the Bible, or they add teachings because they do not trust it to stand on its own.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (p. 273). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

Sadly, this is very true.

My family and I loved the show Home Improvement and we usually saw Tim Allen movies in the theater together. Recently, Allen has been sharing on social media how he has been going through the Bible for the first time and that there’s a lot of good stuff in there. Some people I saw were surprised saying they thought he was a Christian.

It seemed sad to have to see people say “Just because you’re a Christian, it doesn’t mean you have read the Bible.”

Whatever you might think about Bart Ehrman, he is certainly right when he says that he has students come in for their first class and he asks them if they think the Bible is the Word of God. So many hands go flying up. Then he asks “How many of you have read all of the Bible?” Far fewer hands go up. Ehrman is right to ask that if you think the Bible is from God, don’t you think you should want to know what it says?

But to get back to what Frost says, a problem I have had with the book is that we are expected to have chapter and verse. No. You don’t. There are many issues that we ask about today that aren’t discussed in the Bible because they weren’t around in Biblical times. Can a Christian see an R-rated movie? Can a Christian play a video game that has violence? Can a Christian listen to rock’n’roll? We can even consider topics like dating as we know them weren’t around back then. Most marriages were arranged.

This is why it’s a misnomer to think there has to be a chapter and verse that says “Thou shalt wear clothing in public!” or “Thou dost not hath to wear clothing in public!” For this, we go to the work of cultural scholarship with an interest in the Biblical culture. We can look at pagan cultures, but only in comparison to the Biblical culture.

One advantage of being at a seminary besides a library is that you have so many great minds right here. When the idea of archaeological evidence came up, I decided to go talk to our professor of archaeology and we have had a number of great conversations on the topic. Something fascinating he told me is that outside of pottery, the most common item dug up in Israel is loomweights.

This first conversation where he said this took place at the Post Office where I work. He showed me a book he had just got about the culture of the time and pointed out that even the idols of the pagan deities depicted them wearing clothing and told me that Jews would not do nude artwork, for instance, because that would be close to violating the second commandment for them.

Frost’s issue doesn’t come down to one side believes the Bible or not. Francis Beckwith said once that if they can’t trump you with logic, they will try to trump you with spirituality. It comes down to how we interpret the Bible. I try to look not just to chapter and verse, but also to the culture of the Bible and see what I can gleam from that and something disappointing about Frost’s book is he seems completely unaware of this important research.

Next time, we’ll wrap this book up.

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

Book Plunge: Christian Body – The Master Deceiver

Is Satan behind it all? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

There’s an argument that strikes me as strange coming from the naturist position whereby the devil is said to have been the ones to tell us to cover ourselves up. You would think then that if that was a wicked suggestion, God would not have gone along with it. Immediately after the pronouncement of exile is declared on Adam and Eve, God makes clothing for them Himself.

It would seem as if by this argument, that God and the devil both agree about how they view the human body, which is strange.

So Frost says at the start that many people cannot get past purdah because they cannot accept the incredible beauty of the human body.

That must explain why the pornography industry is so strong. People just can’t accept the beauty of the human body. That must be why guys dating women often wonder about what they look like under all those clothes. That must have been why when I was a married man it was always a joy to see my wife’s body naked.

He then says the devil jumps in and tells you it’s a sin to be enthralled by the beauty. No. Absolutely not. That’s the design of the system. Men and women were supposed to be enthralled with one another. The problem is what you do with that beauty. Are you looking at men and women that you have no right to look at? Are you treating them as just objects to satisfy your desire?

Frost then says:

An important step in overcoming the pornographic lusts of prudish modesty standards is agreeing with God that His creation is gloriously beautiful and worthy of admiration. Satan hates the creation of God and would rather feed our cultural revulsion for nakedness.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (p. 264). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

He is absolutely right on the first part. The body is worthy of admiration, but pornography is not admiration. It is exploitation. It is treating the person on the other end of the screen as just a body. That dehumanizes them.

Naturism from what I see goes the other way. This is not saying anything about cultures where naturism is the main way of living. This is about our culture. They go and say “The body is not inherently sexual.” Both sides are living in denial. The body is sexual and in the proper context is meant to be sexually arousing. This is in our DNA.

This does not mean that different things can be arousing to different people and there are some things you shouldn’t be aroused by. If you are aroused by children, for instance, you need help. If I were to use a personal example, I am a huge fan of the series Smallville and my crush on the series was always the character of Chloe. Most guys went crazy over Lana and later Lois. Nah. Chloe all the way for me.

What drew me to her at the start? It wasn’t that she was a supermodel, but her character on the show was really smart, and I like girls with a good head on her shoulders. It was through that that the rest of her got more beautiful to me over time. The same happened when I was married. My wife became the standard of female beauty for me over time.

Yet with the second part of the above quote, does he think we have a cultural revulsion for nakedness? The porn industry is betting that we don’t, and so far they’re winning that bet. From when I was married, behind closed doors, I would have no objections to nudity in a private setting. Frost seems to have a fundamentalist mindset in mind that would be an extreme minority position.

I regularly wonder who Frost is responding to in this book and he seems to only think in extremes. It’s quite problematic going through. Unfortunately, nothing I saw in the book ever got better.

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

 

 

Book Plunge: Christian Body – Why Wear Clothing?

Why does Frost think we wear clothes? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this section, Frost is going to say why he thinks we wear clothes. At the start, he says it is a result of our inner sin nature rebelling against God’s beautiful creation. Well, that’s a lovely start. That means everyone you know who is wearing clothing regularly is apparently living in sin.

It’s statements like these that are so extreme that it’s hard to take Frost seriously.

But at any rate, let’s look at his big three.

The first one he says is a legalistic ego trip. This might be for some people, but it’s not that they wear clothes and others don’t. It’s more like they think they dress better than others do and they want to wear the latest fashion and trends just to wear them. This is not to say everyone who dresses nice is trying to do this, but no doubt, some are. We know that there can be a pecking order in some social areas that if you don’t wear the right clothes, you are out.

This is not to say there are not times one should avoid dressing their best. If you are on a date or a job interview, you will naturally want to have a good appearance. I won’t claim to know someone’s heart, but too often, it looks like Frost thinks he does.

The second reason Frost gives is to avoid responsibility. Frost does rightly say that it’s easy to blame someone else for our lusts, and this is so, but there is some truth in that some people do dress in order to tempt. That doesn’t justify what someone does with the temptation, but we should be aware of how our behavior does affect other people.

For instance, Paul warns about this with eating meat offered to idols. He wants to enjoy his freedom, but if it means he could entice his brother to sin, then he won’t eat the meat. The weaker brother is ultimately responsible, but Paul doesn’t want to be a contributing factor.

So if a guy sees a beautiful girl and goes home and watches porn as a result, he can’t blame the girl for that. It was his own choice. At the same time, all of us who are Christians should watch what we do and say around others in case we meet people who are susceptible. If I know someone has a history of being an alcoholic, I would not meet them in a bar, for instance.

The final reason is insecurity about our own bodies. Now this is true that we can all have insecurities, and while I know I have some, I also know when I was married, I never struggled with that insecurity around my ex-wife. If anything, our Instagram age has been particularly unkind to women in this area.

Frost never mentions positive reasons though. I wear clothing because for one thing, I am cold-natured and I like to stay warm. I also wear clothing because I don’t want to get arrested out in public. I often wear clothing that tends to reveal something about who I am and my interests. Many people at the seminary Post Office I work at notice my T-shirts about being sarcastic and it’s a good icebreaker when I wear my Smallville T-shirt. On Saturdays, I wear an NOBTS T-shirt in the hopes of meeting a lady who might want a seminary student for a husband.

It would be easier to be kind to Frost’s case if he didn’t go to such extremes in his argumentation. Unfortunately, he does. I hope he has just as much passion for reaching the lost as he does for getting people to not wear clothing.

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

 

Book Plunge: Christian Body — Why Be Modest?

What does Frost see as the reason for purdah? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This chapter is really about the roots of modesty, but there isn’t much worth responding to. Instead, I want to focus on a long paragraph Frost has at the end of the chapter.

Even as a religious hoax, purdah is so deeply entrenched that many people will patently refuse to reconsider their views regardless of any facts. For such people it makes absolutely no difference whether I can establish a perfectly waterproof case from the Bible or demonstrate documented historical and cultural examples from around the world. For them, the evangelical standards of conservative modesty are a vital source of legalistic pride, so the evidence doesn’t matter. Their sense of holiness and self-worth is so deeply invested in this pet interpretation of modesty that no amount of research, Scripture, or sound reason will have any influence on what they are already determined to believe no matter what. They will continue to behave, believe, and belittle others without change regardless of anything they might learn to contradict their entrenched positions. Even if they are logically forced to admit that they have been wrong, they will continue to live without repentance, much less changing their standards or standing up resolutely for a truth that is unpopular, inconvenient or uncomfortable. They are so terrified of change that they would rather persist in a something familiar they know to be a lie, so long as it continues to provide anesthetic comfort and a false sense of security and an external show of piety.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (pp. 200-203). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

Well, there’s no holding back here.

So first off, calling the idea of wearing clothing to protect modesty and uphold morality is a stretch. Frost seems to always think in extremes. It leaves me wondering if something else is really going on.

To be fair, many people will refuse to reconsider their views. This is true for almost everyone. None of us really like the idea of being wrong. This is why I always try to be reading at least one book that I disagree with. Frost needs to realize he can be prey to this as well.

Moving on, had Frost presented a waterproof case, I would have accepted it. Instead, I found speculation upon speculation with NO biblical scholars cited. Frost spent more time documenting other cultures than that of the Bible. What other cultures may or may not do could be interesting, but if we want to study if a view lines up with the Bible, that is the culture we should focus on.

After this, he points to pride as the reason. This is just poisoning the well. As a man, I would have enjoyed a good case that I could get to see naked women easily, but I don’t think it’s here. It looks like if a man wants to enjoy and treasure the beauty of a woman, he might still just have to work hard, be a man, and win a woman’s heart.

It is ironic that Frost goes on to talk about belittling others and about pride. The only case I see going on in this paragraph of pride and belittling is Frost himself. I have documented earlier in this book how Frost has pride in thinking that he has made an airtight case. If this is what liberated Christianity produces, then that will be a hard pass for me.

Would that Frost had spent some time studying biblical scholars. I do not consider that belittling because he did not cite ANY of them. If your case can withstand scholarly scrutiny, show it. Frost has not.

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

Book Plunge: Christian Body – Clothing Standards Worldwide

How do cultures view clothing? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

It’s hard to talk about clothing standards worldwide in a few pages. One would think that would take a whole book in itself. Early on, he says that ancient Chinese women were insecure about their feet and would only uncover them for their husbands. My problem here is no source for both claims. Suppose I grant for the sake of argument they didn’t uncover their feet. How does Frost know it was from insecurity? Does he have any Chinese writings that say that?

I remember reading once in Chesterton that someone in the future could think that because we put flowers on gravestones, that would mean we thought the dead could smell flowers. No one places the flowers on a grave hoping their beloved dead likes the smell. We do it for different reasons. Now it could be that the Chinese women were insecure about their feet, but he needs to show that. It could be that feet were seen as special and they wanted to save that for their husbands.

He later says a statement I am unsure how to interpret.

Truly, culture is contrived without substance and completely arbitrary. It is whatever people think it is.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (p. 164). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

What does this mean? Does this mean that a culture has nothing that defines it? Does it mean it can be whatever people want it to be? Someone could think we live in a dystopian Handmaid’s Tale in the West and I could think we live in practically Sodom and Gomorrah and we’re both right? This is a kind of statement that needs to be explained, but Frost does not do that.

Now Frost goes on from here to list several different cultures. I have written on this in past looks at this book and my same standards still apply. I would like to see more up-to-date scholarship on this area and I would like to have a philosophical explanation of Natural Law theory.

Keep in mind, I could fully accept that there could be cultures where different parts of the body are seen as erotic to them that we do not find erotic at all, and vice-versa. There would also be some cultures where clothing would be an absolute necessity, such as people who live in extremely cold climates.

If clothing is the cause of the sin of lust as Frost seems to think, are those cultures bound to struggle with sin due to the effects of clothing? Once again, and I know this is a radical suggestion, but could it be the problem is not clothing but that the problem is that the heart of man is sinful?

Frost seem to have gone from one extreme to another and I think both extremes are problematic. I have a problem with a nudist culture, but I also have a problem with a culture that tries to hide all bodily beauty, such as the way Muslims treat women and require them to wear full covering even in hot weather. The answer lies in the middle.

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: 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: 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)