Naturism is a philosophical form of nudism. Nudism is simply recreational nudity alone and/or with others. To be a nudist simply means you like to do things nude that most people would do clothed. You hang around the house nude, you cook and clean nude, you read books nude, you watch TV nude, you prefer skinny dipping over wearing shame-err swimsuits, et. al. Naturism, in my opinion, is a form of nudism but with a philosophy attached to it. It’s a set of beliefs about the body that would justify going nude in many circumstances and would see clothing only as either decoration or as a means of protecting the body (winter jackets, battle armor, etc.). Naturists typically see culture as having demonized the body to the point where nudity has become a sexual fetish. Many naturists who are Christians have struggled with pornography addiction and have found affirming the teachings of naturism followed by living out a nudist lifestyle has de-fetishized nakedness, de-pornified our brains, and has caused porn to completely lose its appeal. [1]For more on this, see my other articles on this website in which I go into my own personal story combined with my biblical and logical defenses of naturism. Click here. You can also read Phillip … Continue reading I believe the church has done a disservice by sharing the same view of the naked body as the porn industry; i.e that it’s a sexual thing that will sexually excite if you see it. Granted, the church and the porn industry encourage different reactions to it (i.e the church says “Shield your eyes! Turn away!” and the porn industry says “Behold! Gaze and ogle till your loins’ content!”), but their differing reactions are based on the same falsehood. This is why Pastor David Hatton calls it “The Porno-Prudish View Of The Body”. Because prudes and lewds are just different sides of the same coin.
But what does The Bible have to say about it? Well, I think the case for naturist living can be made solely from the Garden of Eden account alone. There are other scriptures (like Isaiah 20:1-4) that show that God doesn’t have a problem with social nudity, but Genesis 2 and 3 show us how God wanted humanity to be!
They Were Naked and Unashamed
Genesis 1 tells the story of God creating everything. Genesis 2 tells us about the creation of Adam and Eve. [2]There is a whole lot of debate over what Genesis 1 is trying to say, and even what Genesis 2 is trying to say. There is debate even over whether Genesis 2 is a more expanded account of the events of … Continue reading At the end of the creation account, God looks over all that he has made and calls it “Very good” (Genesis 1:31). Then we go over to Genesis 2 and read about Adam and Eve’s creation (Genesis 2:7, Genesis 2:21-23). In between Adam’s creation and the creation of his wife, Eve, he was tasked with naming all the animals (Genesis 2:19-20). After seeing that there was no creature like himself, God said that it was not good for the man to be alone, and thus, the creation of Eve (Genesis 2:18). After some reading, one comes to Genesis 2:25 which says “Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.” (NIV) The Hebrew word for naked here is “Arom” which often just means simple and complete nudity [3]See Bible Hub, “6174. Arom” —https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6174.htm as opposed to Ervah which was often in contexts of shame and/or sexual immorality [4]See Bible Hub, “6172. Ervah” — https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6172.htm Genesis 2:25 tells us that Adam and Eve were both naked! They ran around the Garden of Eden without a single stitch of clothing on. And the author seems to be painting their nakedness in a positive light. Neither God nor the author takes the time to make any negative comment about their state of undress. We know from passages like Genesis 2:24 that the writer wasn’t afraid to make little asides, and yet here he does not do so.
We don’t know how much time passed between Adam and Eve’s creation and The Fall which occurs in Genesis 3. The author doesn’t tell us. After doing some research on this topic, I think a probable conclusion can be drawn that it was at least a few days. I think it was a short stay, but their expulsion was not immediate. One indication of a short stay is the fact that Eve doesn’t conceive her first child until after they’re kicked out of the garden (Genesis 4:1-2). Would they really go a whole year without expressing beautiful erotic love to each other? But an indication of a non-immediate expulsion has to do with the trusting nature Eve has towards the Serpent. There’s a whole scholarly exegetical argument to be made that the serpent was a seraph, and Eve was used to seeing these types of beings. They were angelic sons of God and she had no reason to think this being meant her any harm. The late biblical scholar Dr. Michael Heiser writes “One of the things that always bothered me about the story was why Eve wasn’t scared witless when the serpent spoke to her. There’s no indication that she thought the incident unusual. … The truth is that an ancient reader would not have expected Eve to be frightened. Given the context—she was in Eden, the realm of Yahweh and his elohim council—it would have been clear that she was conversing with a divine being. As we’ve seen in earlier chapters, the biblical author has telegraphed that Eve was on divine turf.” [5]Heiser, Michael S.. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (p. 73). Lexham Press. Kindle Edition.
The Hebrew word translated serpent is nachash. The word is both plain and elastic. Dr. Michael Heiser argues that the term applied to the Edenic adversary was probably intended by the author to be a triple entendre. This is what Dr. Michael Heiser wrote in his book “The Unseen Realm: Recovering The Supernatural Worldview Of The Bible“
“The most straightforward meaning…. serpent. When the Hebrew root letters n-ch-sh are a noun, that’s the meaning. But n-ch-sh are also the consonants of a verb. If we changed the vowels to a verbal form (recall that Hebrew originally had no vowels), we would have nochesh, which means ‘the diviner.’ Divination refers to communication with the supernatural world. A diviner in the ancient world was one who foretold omens or gave out divine information (oracles). We can see that element in the story. Eve is getting information from this being. The consonants n-ch-sh may also form an alternative noun, nachash, which is at times used descriptively, like an adjective. This term is used in place names outside the Bible and once within the Old Testament. First Chronicles 4:12 refers to “Tehinnah, father of Ir-Nachash.” The otherwise unknown Tehinnah is regarded in this verse as the founder of the city (Hebrew: ir) of nachash. This city has yet to be securely identified by archaeologists. The phrase means “the city of copper/ bronze (smiths).” Hebrew words like nechosheth (“ bronze”; “copper”) are derived from this noun. Ir-nachash was a place known for copper and bronze metallurgy. The option is interesting because copper and bronze are shiny when polished. In fact, the Old Testament uses nechosheth to describe divine beings (Dan 10:6). …….What I’m suggesting is that, since there are immediate clues in the story that the serpent is more than a mere snake, that he maybe a divine adversary, the term nachash is a triple entendre. The writer wants his readers to consider all the possible nuances in their interpretive, intellectual experience. All of them carry theological weight.“ [6]Heiser, Michael S.. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (pp. 87-88). Lexham Press. Kindle Edition. Heiser goes on to conclude that this being was a seraph. In his book “(Mis)Interpreting Genesis: How The Creation Museum Misunderstands The Ancient Near Eastern Context Of The Bible”, biblical scholar Ben Stanhope show ancient iconography of Seraphim, and guess what? They have 6 wings (as Isaiah 6:1-2 describes) and they have snake-like heads! [7]See Stanhope, Ben. (Mis)interpreting Genesis: How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Ancient Near Eastern Context of the Bible (p. 42). Scarab Press. Kindle Edition.
Why is any of this important? Because if Adam and Eve were kicked out on the same day they were created, they would have had no time whatsoever to get to know any of these celestial entities. Short as their stay was, it had to have been at least a few days, otherwise, Eve probably would have been just as freaked out over a talking snake-headed person with 6 wings as she would have if it were a garden snake! But in realty, Eve was just talking to one of her family members. [8]The Bible teaches that God has two different types of sons; angelic sons and human sons. In passages like Genesis 6:2-4; Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7, and Psalm 82:6, the heavenly host are identified … Continue reading
For these reasons, I believe that Adam and Eve’s stay in the garden was short, but not immediate. They were there for a short while, perhaps a few days, but clues within the text prohibit us from believing they were either expelled immediately or stayed in the garden for a few years.
God seemed content to let this man and woman run around his sacred space completely naked for several days! It wasn’t until they disobeyed God’s command not to eat from the Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:16-17) that they had any notion that they had to cover themselves. The text says that when they ate the fruit, they felt naked and immediately tried to cover themselves with fig leaves (Genesis 3:6-7). In Genesis 3:8-9, we read that the couple heard the footsteps of The Lord God walking in the garden. [9]I take this to be a literal humanoid figure, as Yahweh was known to show up in certain places in the Old Testament in human form. In some very interesting cases, there are even two figures in the … Continue reading In Genesis 3:9, God says “Adam, where are you?” And in Genesis 3:10, we read “He answered, ‘I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.’” (NIV) What was God’s response to this statement by Adam? In Genesis 3:11, we read “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” (NIV)
“Who told you that you were naked?” This doesn’t sound like God is agreeing with Adam’s statement. God doesn’t say “Wow! You’re right! I knew there was something I forgot when I created you. Sorry about that. I made a mental note to create you with built-in pants and it just totally slipped my mind.” He doesn’t say “Thank Me you finally covered up your genitals! Do you know how uncomfortable you were making Me and the divine council? Michael and Gabriel wanted to say something, but they were to embarrassed to speak up. I’m glad you finally figured it out.” No. He says “Who told you that you were naked?” Who told you that you were “Arom”?
When someone says something we find outlandish, even today in our culture, it isn’t uncommon for us to rhetorically ask “Who told you that?” If you have a teenage son who boasts to his friends “My Dad is getting me a Ferarri for my 16th birthday”, you might respond “Who told you that you were getting a Ferarri for your birthday?” You’re not asking how he found out, and really, you’re not hinting at a literal personal being who might have conveyed such information. Rather, you are, in effect, saying “Where’d you get that stupid idea? You are not getting a Ferrari for your birthday.”
A bizarre thing about God’s question is how few commentators really talk about it. None of my commentaries on Genesis in my Logos library talk about it. The best is a brief acknowledgment by Andrew Steinmann. The absence of treatment on this question is conspicuous, perhaps because its implications contradict pre-conceived notions of modesty.
Jesus Sees Eden’s Pre-Fall Condition As God’s Post-Fall Ideal For Humanity
In Matthew 19:3-11, some Pharisees came to Jesus asking about divorce. They asked of it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife for “any cause”? Phil Weingart explains that “There was a dispute in Jesus’ day arising from an innovation in the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1 introduced by Rabbi Hillel, who was born about a hundred years before Jesus. According to Tractate Gittin 90 in the Mishna, the House of Hillel maintained that the phrase ‘a cause of indecency’ or ‘a thing of unseemliness’ actually mentioned two, separate things: indecency, and “a thing.” They argued that because it said ‘a thing,’ a man could obtain a divorce for causes far less serious than indecency; they actually wrote that it was sufficient cause for divorce if she burned his dinner (Rabbis in the related Gemara added that she would have to have burned it on purpose). The House of Shammai disagreed, arguing that the passage only supported divorce in cases of indecency. It’s worth noting that ‘indecency’ was not just adultery, but could also be things like a woman flirting flagrantly in public with a man other than her husband.” [10]Weingart, Phil. The Rabbi on the Mount: How Jesus’ Judaism Clarifies the Sermon on the Mount (p. 120). Kindle Edition. So, basically the Pharisees were just asking if Jesus agreed with the more liberal Rabbi Hillel or the more conservative Rabbi Shammai. Jesus clearly sided with Shammai in verse 9, but before taking his stance, Jesus made it clear that God was not fond of divorce at all. Divorce is a necessary evil in a fallen world in which things like sexual immorality, abuse, and desertion take place [11]For a more in-depth treatment on Jesus’ theology of divorce, see my video “Exegeting Jesus’ Sermon On The Mount (Part 6) – Divorce”., but it was never part of God’s desire for humanity. In Jesus’ own words, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.” (Matthew 19:9)
Notice in that making the case for divorce being unideal in God’s eyes, he quotes Genesis 2:24. In a recent phone conversation with Matthew Neal, he made a very good point. He pointed out that Jesus pointed to a verse describing a pre-fall condition as a post-fall ideal. Genesis 2:24 was how it was with Adam and Eve prior to the entrance of sin. Is it reasonable to expect that Jesus would see Genesis 2:24 as a pre-fall ideal continuing to be the ideal post-fall, but not the verse that immediately comes after it; i.e Genesis 2:25? I don’t think so. Just as it is God’s teleological will for a man to leave his father and mother, cling to his wife, and become one flesh with her, so also it would seem that God also desires us to live “naked and unashamed”.
Suppose the exchange with the Pharisees was on a different topic. The Pharisees come up to Jesus and ask, “Jesus, is it lawful for humans to socialize in the nude?” Jesus replies “Haven’t you read ‘The man and his wife were both naked and they felt no shame’ and when Adam said he was naked, God responded ‘Who told you that you were naked’? Therefore, that which God has rebuked, let no man dispute.” Then the Pharisees retort “Why then did God give Adam and Eve garments of animal skins?” Jesus replies “God gave humanity clothing to protect their bodies from the world outside of Eden, but it was not this way in the beginning. Truly I tell you, blessed is he who is not ashamed of the image of God.” Now, of course, this conversation never would have taken place. As I have written elsewhere, ancient Israel both before and during the time of Jesus were not as clothing compulsive as ours were. They were ok being nude in practical circumstances like field work, bathing, fishing, etc. [12]See my articles “Responding To Nick Peters’ Objections To Naturism (Part 6) – Naked Kings and Prophets” and “Responding To Nick Peters’ Objections To Naturism … Continue reading They were not a society of nudists, but they were not so neurotic about nudity that they felt the need to be clothed at all costs, even when it would be cumbersome to stay clothed. So, this probably wasn’t as much of an issue as it is in our day. But my point here is that it’s quite plausible that if Jesus had been asked this, this would have been more or less the kind of response he’d give.
Eden is either God’s ideal for humanity or it’s not. It’s either how God wanted human society to be or it’s not. Again, do we think that Jesus would see Genesis 2:24 as being ideal post-fall but not Genesis 2:25? The textile Christian who says “yes” needs to give a very good argument for that answer, otherwise he’s guilty of the special pleading fallacy.
Christians would celebrate virtually every other aspect of Eden. In Eden, humanity had an unbroken relationship with God, an unbroken relationship with each other, humans had no sin nature and were able to love each other perfectly (Notice that Adam only throws his wife under the bus after he sinned in Genesis 3:12). There was no death, for humans had access to the tree of life (Genesis 2:9, Genesis 3:22). And humans went about their day totally naked (Genesis 2:25). Whoops! Nope! We don’t want to go back to that one! Restored relationship with God? Great! Fellowship? Great! Good healthy marriages? Great? Clothes free living? Nope. I want my fig leaves. Don’t you dare take our fig leaves away! Why do we make an exception for this? Well, later in this article, I’m going to look at some ways textile Christians try to get around the implications of the Eden narrative, but right now I want to say that through Jesus we can have all that we lost in Eden. To some extent today, and perfectly in the future. Jesus atoned for our sins by His death on the cross (John 3:16, Romans 5:8, 1 Peter 3:18, 1 John 2:2) and resurrection from the dead (Romans 4:25, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8). We who believe in Jesus become sons and daughters of God (John 1:12). We can have fellowship with each other, and one flesh unions with our spouses. The Bible teaches that The Kingdom of God is “Already, but not yet”. It’s already (Matthew 13:31-32, Luke 10:8-9, Luke 11:20 John 18:36) and not yet (1 Corinthians 15:28, Revelation 21-22). As I argued in my lengthy essay “A Treatise On The Christian’s Eternal Home”, I do believe our resurrected bodies will be naked. Because the new heavens and the new Earth John describes will be a New Eden. He telegraphs that to us by mentioning the Tree Of Life near rivers (see Revelation 22:1-2). Everything we lost in Eden will be restored after Christ’s return. Everything, yes, even innocent nakedness. What part does body shame have in New Eden? But I must wonder; if that’s how it will be in New Eden, why can’t it be that way now?
Yeah, But, Adam and Eve Had Childlike Minds!
I’ve often heard it said that Adam and Eve were naked because they had the consciousnesses of tiny children. Tiny children don’t feel shame running around naked in a house full of people, but as they would have matured, clothing would have come about anyway. Just as children learn that they shouldn’t be naked in front of others, Adam and Eve would have learned that too. God gave them a grace period to learn this, but the fall sped things up (Genesis 3:7).
The problem with this argument is that it begs the question in favor of body shame. It begs the question in favor of the textile premise that being naked around others is shameful. This also assumes the de-novo interpretation of Adam and Eve’s creation is correct. Now, it is beyond the scope to dispute the literalness of the dust and side, so I won’t, but why assume that even without the fall, Adam and Eve, and their descendants, would have eventually covered themselves anyway? Do you not know that our bodies are the very images of God in His Cosmic Temple (Genesis 1:26-27)? [13]For more on this whole cosmic temple motif of Genesis 1 and how the image of God doctrine relates to it, see my essay “Genesis 1: Functional Creation, Temple Inaugration, and Anti-Pagan … Continue reading Why would God be so ashamed of His own self-portraits that he would throw tarps over them as soon as possible? Imagine a pagan going into a pagan temple and being so repulsed by the image of his deity that he throws tarps over them as soon as possible so he wouldn’t have to look at them. Such an act would strike his fellow worshippers not only as bizarre, but as sacrilege! And yet, what do we do when we throw fabric over Yahweh’s images (i.e us) lest we be “lewd” and “obscene”. I’m not talking about clothing for practical purposes. You throw a tarp over something precious to protect it from harsh climates. I’m talking about covering up because we view the body as “indecent”, “lewd”, “obscene”. We insult our Creator when we do this. I only wear clothes nowadays for the sensibilities of my textile friends, when it’s illegal to do so, or when I’m cold. But if I’m by myself, with other naturists, or when it’s warm enough, I will let it shine. Why not? I’m writing this blog post and I’m completely naked while I type, by the way.
Moreover, let us not forget that after Adam told God that he hid from Him because he was naked, God responded “Who told you that you were naked?” (Genesis 3:11). God doesn’t seem to agree with Adam. In fact, I can imagine God being insulted. I can imagine this being said with the most indignant tone of voice. “Who told you that you were naked?” Think about what Adam was implying! If we have the kind of time-compression of speech like New Testament scholars say happened with Jesus’ sermons, in real space and time, we can imagine God might have said more. “Who told you that you were naked? You are made in my image! Do you think my own images are something to be ashamed of? Did you think I created you defective? I am not forgetful. Should there be something over your loins, I would have put them there from the beginning. Where did you get this foolish idea, my wayward son? You ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, didn’t you?”
Yeah, But, The Fall Changed Everything. Now Sin Causes Us To Lust After Naked People
This is the main explanation textile Christians give for why we cannot be nudists in spite of how Adam and Eve lived. When Adam and Eve sinned, they obtained a sinful nature which they passed onto all their progeny (see Romans 5). Now, because of sin, we are visually triggered to lust after the opposite sex if we see them naked. And so, modesty is the solution to the problem. If men and women cover up their bodies, then we’ll rob our sinful nature of its provisions and we therefore won’t get hot and bothered.
There are a couple of major problems with this explanation.
(1) First, let’s assume that the reason why a man is enticed to sexual arousal, lust, impure thoughts at the mere sight of a naked woman is due to the sinful nature in him. Even assuming that that’s the case, there’s this little thing called sanctification. It’s this crazy idea that Jesus didn’t just come to free us from the power of sin by his death on the cross (John 3:16, Romans 5:8, 1 Corinthians 15:3, 1 Peter 3:18, 1 John 2:2), but he came to free us from the power of sin as well (e.g Romans 8:29, Galatians 5:22-26)! So if nakedness causes lust because of the sin nature, and The Holy Spirit is in the works of making us perfect (Philippians 1:6, Philippians 2:12), until we are exactly like Jesus in every aspect of his character (Romans 8:29), then it would seem like heresy to say that The Holy Spirit could not purge us from this problem! Even if we grant the premise that “Nakedness causes us to lust because of the sin nature”, The Holy Spirit’s sanctifying power should eventually get that out of us. Or is lust such a powerful force that even The Holy Spirit is strong enough to overcome it? I dare not utter such blasphemy. Can The Holy Spirit overcome my anger issues, my pride, my selfishness, and any other character flaw in me, but lust isn’t one of them? I dare not tell The Holy Spirit that He is weaker than the flesh! And no Christian would ever explicitly say such a thing, yet such a thing is implicitly taught all the time. It is assumed when we try to fight porn with accountability partners, accountability groups, software like Covenant Eyes, filters, or all of the above. No, The Holy Spirit isn’t strong enough to make us internally clean, so we must do everything in our power to prevent ourselves from carrying out the evil in our hearts. Again, no Christian would ever explicitly utter such blasphemy, but actions speak much louder than words.
(2) It is false that this is a result of the sin nature.
The fact is, as Aaron Frost states “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. Because of this, we become mentally conditioned to respond sexually to the sight of these body parts like Pavlov’s trained dogs, drooling for sexual gratification at the sight of nakedness, blinded to the simple beauty and grace of creation, numbly conditioned to think only of sexual indulgence at the sight of a plain body in its natural condition. Some people assume we are biologically hardwired to respond sexually to nudity, but later generations of Pavlov’s dogs might as easily assume that all dogs are instinctively hard-wired to drool at the sound of a bell even though that would be false. To assume that nudity causes lust, is like assuming that the bells cause drooling.” [14]Frost Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (pp. 38-39). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.
Pavlov’s Dogs were conditioned to salivate at the sound of a bell, because every time the bell would ring, the dogs would get food. In his video, “Pavlov’s Dogs…and Nudism?” Chris MudWalker invites us to imagine Pavlov’s Dogs being given to homes after the experiment was over. One of these dogs meets another dog at a dog park and they have a conversation. In the middle of the conversation, Pavlov’s former dog said that he heard his master’s cell phone ring (a bell sound) and it just caused him to salivate so badly that he made a mess on the floor, and how he wishes humans would get rid of all types of bells because it’s such a stumbling block. The other dog thinks Pavlov’s dog is weird for reacting that way to the mere sound of a bell. He hears bells ring all the time and it’s no big deal. Pavlov’s Dog accuses the other dog of basically lying to him or lying to himself. ALL dogs salivate at the sound of bells. It’s just the way they are, he argues. Dogs are hardwired to salivate at the sound of bells. The other dog is still confused and wonders what must be wrong with his new friend. Because salivating at bells is not normal. This is how people were raised nudists or who grew up in “naked cultures” react to textiles who think that boobies automatically lead to erections, or for the lady readers, that a bare-chested muscular man will lead to a moist vagina. It’s not normal, it’s not innate, and we were not “born this way”. We are products of our environment.
In his video, “Pavlov’s Dogs….and Nudism?” Chris MudWalker said “How many people do you know that wake up on a regular basis and jump on their feet to try to touch the moon? Yeah. Me either. How about people who try to swim from Virginia to Africa? Yeah. I don’t know anybody like that either. What about people you know who wake up on a regular basis and try to fly with their arms? Someone, you know, who’s older than five? No. I don’t know anybody like that either. …Why don’t people like give these things an honest try? Why don’t they try to do these things? Because we already know they’re impossible. As soon as you convince someone that something is impossible, that person stops trying. So, we raise our young men to believe and to experience that whenever they see a little too much of a woman’s skin, it’s impossible for him to resist lust. What? Just how exactly do you expect him to react to that? Do you expect him to resist? You just told him it’s impossible! You raised him his whole life ‘impossible’, ‘impossible’ ‘impossible’ ‘impossible’,The best you can hope for is just to avoid the stimulus in the first place. The problem with that though is that when you avoid a stimulus it only intensifies the reactive behavior on the back end. So what happens if you keep yourself really really really warm, if you turn your thermostat all the way up to 80° Fahrenheit in your house all the time, and then, for the first time in your life, you walk outside and it’s 25° Fahrenheit? Well, guess what? You’re going to freeze your little butt off! Okay? And the people out here, regular people, who have been experiencing winter since they were this big, they’re going to walk out in 25 degree weather, put on a really thick jacket, and they’re going to function, but someone who’s never encountered this before…you’re in for a rude awakening. So, how do you keep yourself from freezing to death on an ordinary winter day? You spend your whole life with some exposure to cold> But if you tell someone ‘if you go outside in below freezing temperatures, you will die!’ that person is not going outside. That person is going to do everything he can to avoid going outside on a cold day. When, actually, if you want to increase your survival in the winter, you should expose yourself to cold on a regular basis to get your body used to that stimulus without overreacting.
So, you’ve done these young men a disservice on two fronts. (1) you’ve taught them not to try by telling them that that is impossible. (2) you’ve exaggerated the response by removing the stimulus in the first place.” [15]Chris Mud Walker, “Pavlov’s Dogs…and Nudism?” — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6swtns62zGM&t=7s Mud Walker went on to say “What does naturism does is it teaches you that there can be a bell and no food. ‘Whoopy dooo. There’s a naked body. yay. Whatever.’ So, if you ask an naturist man ‘How can you be around all these naked people and avoid lust?’ and the naturist response is ‘What lust?’ Like, it’s just it’s not an issue. Tt doesn’t come up. What does a naked body have to do with sex? what does it have to do with lust for that matter? It’s it’s just a person. It’s just a human being.” [16]ibid.
Just about every naturist that you meet will testify to not getting hot and bothered just by seeing a naked member of the opposite sex. These people are not a-sexual. Indeed, many Christian Naturists including myself, Chris from Mud Walkers, Phillip Oak, all the pastors at MyChainsAreGone.org, Matthew Neal of The Biblical Naturist Blog, used to struggle with some pretty severe lust and porn issues. But repeated exposure to chaste, non-sexual, non-pornographic nudity (which is often experienced in nudist settings) rewired our brains to stop being triggered in that way. Our own personal testimonies are a testament to the fact that the solution isn’t to never ever see people naked, but to see people naked as much as possible, so long as they aren’t doing anything sexual. I have not yet had the blessing of experiencing social nudity, but I have reconditioned my brain by watching all of the movies put out by The Naked Club, perusing naturist photography, and practicing nudism in my own home, looking at artistic nudes, and so on. I have found that I can now see a beautiful naked woman and not reduce her to a sex object in my mind. I go into my own personal story of my struggle with pornography and my psychological reconditioning in more detail in other articles, especially in my 10-part response series to Nick Peters. [17]If you would like to read my series “Responding To Nick Peters’ Objections To Naturism”, click the following links – Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, … Continue reading
Yeah, But, Adam and Eve Were Married, So It Was Ok
Some say that it was ok for Adam and Eve to engage in social nudity, because they were married. No textile in the world thinks its immoral to be nude in front of your spouse. Indeed, many Christians teach a perverted doctrine that the sight of your naked body is pretty much like a prize for your spouse after your wedding night, [18]See, for example, Nick Peters, “Book Plunge: Christian Body: Exodus 20:26” —https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/01/book-plunge-christian-body-exodus-2026/ and that you’re saving it only for them. Nevermind the fact that such teaching perpetuates the porno-prudish view of the body, I’ve dealt with that issue elsewhere. But were Adam and Eve married?
The answer is yes (see Genesis 3:6). But were they always married? Although the biblical text doesn’t narrate any wedding vows or any sort of ceremony, it seems odd to me that this sacred union would just be automatically enforced the very first second Eve drew her first breath. However, I find it hard to believe that Adam would just wake up to this woman staring him in the face, and the voice of God would boom “This is your wife. You’re married now. Take good care of her.” With Adam, rubbing his eyes from waking up from the “deep sleep” going “Huh? What?” It seems more plausible to me at least that Adam and Eve had to consciously make a commitment to each other in some way, shape, or form. I mean, marriage is sacred, and this seems to be the very first one in human history! It doesn’t seem like God would take a blase approach to this union. “Here you go. You’re married now.” However, if we conclude that Adam and Eve got married, then this implies that when they met, they weren’t married. And if that’s the case, you have an unmarried naked man meeting an unmarried naked woman, and Yahweh was the one who arranged the meeting. And if that’s the case, then it would seem that God doesn’t have a problem with co-ed social nudity unlike many Christians today.
“But” one may object at this point “They were ABOUT to be married. God knew this, so it was ok. Even if they weren’t married, they were about to be”. The problem with this response is that if co-ed social nudity is ok so long as your marriage to the other naked person is imminent, then this leads to some interesting practical implications. Chris MudWalker invites us into a thought experiment. Let’s imagine that you have a young man and woman who have never had sex before with each other or anyone else, and they have never seen each other naked. But on the day of the wedding, you walk into the church to find both of them naked in the sanctuary. They’re not touching each other or anything, they’re just standing a few feet away from each other chit chatting. You go up to them and say “What are you doing!? Why are you naked!?” And one of them responds “Chill out. It’s ok. We’re about to married in like, half an hour.” I highly doubt any believer in traditional Christian modesty would think that that is a valid response. [19]Chris MudWalker, “But Adam and Eve Were Married”, Mud Walkers, June 8th 2024 — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYJ4f2laA8s&t=1s And yet, if you think there is something sinful about that, then you have to admit that God arranged for Adam and Eve to be sinful just by meeting each other. This would impugn God’s goodness and make him the author of sin. Since God is perfectly good (Deuteronomy 32:4, Psalm 18:30) then it follows logically that it is not sinful for an unmarried naked man and an unmarried naked woman to merely be in each other’s presence. And if this is the case, then the lifestyle known as nudism is morally permissible and is a viable option for the Christian.
Now, of course, you could always just go back to the automatically-married option so that at no time in Eve’s existence was she ever not married to Adam, but I just don’t find that idea plausible.
Yeah, But God Clothed Adam and Eve!
In Genesis 3:21, we read “And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.” (ESV) It is often argued by textile Christians that God’s act in this verse is an affirmation that Adam and Eve should no longer be naked. For whatever reason He allowed them to be naked before, now “the fall changed everything” (see above) and now they and all humans after them must be forever clothed unless they’re by themselves or with a spouse or medical professional. But is God really clothing Adam and Eve out of a modern sense of modesty?
First, the text nowhere says that. Secondly, remember what God said in Genesis 3:11. “Who told you that you were naked?” This was in response to Adam saying that the reason he hid was due to the fact that He was naked. (Genesis 3:10) It is just like if we said “Who told you that you could have candy before dinner?” “Who told you that I drive too fast?” We’re not asking how you found out a piece of true information? We’re repudiating the idea! Likewise, God is repudiating the very concept that Adam and Eve had to cover themselves. Did God change his mind? Passages like Numbers 23:19 seem pretty clear that God doesn’t change his mind on things. And so, what reason could there be for God clothing Adam and Eve if he, as I and other Christian Naturists argue, approved of their nakedness?
Well, since Nick Peters lambasted another naturist writer for not engaging with biblical scholars, let me cite a few.
John Walton, Victor Matthews, and Mark Chavalas write “3:21 – Skin garments. The long outer tunic is still the basic garment for many people in the Middle East. This replaces the inadequate fig leaf covering made by Adam and Eve. God provides them with these garments as the type of gift given by a patron to a client. Gifts of clothing are among the most common presents mentioned in the Bible (see Joseph in Gen 41:42) and other ancient texts. It also prepares them for the rigors of weather and work which await them. In the Tale of Adapa (see comment on 3:2–5), after Adapa loses the opportunity to eat from the bread and water of life, he is given clothing by the god Anu before being sent from his presence.” (emphasis mine in bold) [20]Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), Ge 3:21.
Derek Kidner writes “21. The coats of skins. It is unduly subtle, and a distraction, to foresee the atonement here: God is meeting immediate rather than ultimate needs, for both are his concern. The coats of skins are forerunners of the many measures of welfare, both moral and physical, which man’s sin makes necessary. Social action, now delegated to human hands (Rom. 13:1–7; Jas 2:16), could not have had an earlier or more exalted inauguration.” (emphasis mine in bold) [21]Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 77. Although Kidner implies modesty when he says “both moral and physical needs”, he does acknowledge that the animal garments were physical needs.
Robert Jamieson, A.R Fausset, and David Brown write “God made coats of skins—taught them to make these for themselves. This implies the institution of animal sacrifice, which was undoubtedly of divine appointment, and instruction in the only acceptable mode of worship for sinful creatures, through faith in a Redeemer (Heb 9:22).” [22]Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 1 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 20.
Robert D Bergen in the CSB Study Bible says “3:21 By making clothing from skins, the LORD God graciously provided for humanity’s need in a way superior to what Adam and Eve had done with fig leaves. The use of animal skins anticipates the OT system of animal sacrifices (Lv 1; 3–7; Nm 15:1–31). In the NT, the apostle Paul spoke of a day when God would clothe his people with immortality (1Co 15:53–54; 2Co 5:4), thus providing the complete undoing of the curse of humanity’s sin.” [23]Robert D. Bergen, “Genesis,” in CSB Study Bible: Notes, ed. Edwin A. Blum and Trevin Wax (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2017), 11.
Among these scholars, we see two (Walton/Matthews/Chavalas and Kidner) assert that the reason was to protect them from the harsh climate outside of Eden. God just got done talking about the thorns and thistles, and so on, and God knew that they would need protection. Other commentators (Like Jamieson and Bergen) see a typological foreshadowing to both animal sacrifices and Jesus’ death on the cross which would “cover” our sins and “clothe” us in His righteousness, although Kidner explicitly disagrees there. In any case, there is little, if any, mention of God clothing Adam and Eve because their bodies were lewd and obscene. None of these scholars say, as Christian Apologist Nick Peters did, that “Nudity was unacceptable in the presence of God.” [24]Nick Peters, “Book Plunge: Christian Body: Genesis 2-3”, Deeper Waters – https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/07/29/book-plunge-christian-body-genesis-2-3/ which is a weird thing to say since they were in God’s presence naked, and God didn’t clothe them until He expelled them from His presence anyway, but I digress.
Pastor David Hatton says it well “The Bible does not say God gave our first parents leather clothes to hide their nudity. It might have been His provision for better protection in a sin-cursed world. Some think His action foreshadowed sacrificial atonement. But how awkward it would be, if He intended to hide naked spouses from each other! That couldn’t have been his purpose. They weren’t even nude anymore, but wearing their own handmade, textile (fig-leaf) outfits.” [25]Hatton, David L.. “Who Said You Were Naked?”: Reflections on Body Acceptance (p. 26). David L. Hatton. Kindle Edition.
Most importantly, notice that there is no rule laid down here. God doesn”t give a “Thou shalt not be naked in front of thy neighbor” command, nor does the neighbor go on an aside (as he does in 2:24) to say something like “For this reason, man shall not be unclothed in front of a woman, nor a woman uncothed in front of a man. Forevermore, man is to be clothed and ashamed.” It just describes God giving Adam and Eve a gift (Walton) for their physical protection (Kidner, Hatton), and may or may not be the first animal sacrifice for sin (Bergen). Just because God gives some biblical figure a gift, that doesn’t mean we must all have it and use it constantly for all time.
Conclusion
The implications of The Garden Of Eden account are pretty clear. Naked and unashamed living is how God wanted humanity to be from the very beginning. It seems to me, then, that if a Christian wants to be a nudist, it is within his right to be so. If a Christian wishes to remain a textile, he can do so. Nowhere is there any explicit command after the fall that humans can’t be naked together doing non-sexual activities, and there doesn’t seem to be a inference that can be made from a biblical principle that social nudity is immoral. Therefore, this is a Romans 14 issue.
When asked about divorce, Jesus took the Pharisees back to Eden to show God’s ideal for marriage. He cited Genesis 2:24 before giving his commentary “What God has joined together, let no man separate.” What if Jesus would have gone to Genesis 2:25 for God’s ideal concerning fashion? Is Eden the ideal or is it not? Would Jesus affirm that Genesis 2:24 still holds after the fall, but Genesis 2:25 doesn’t? Many Christians would say yes, but we have examined their explanations and have seen why they don’t work.
References
| ↑1 | For more on this, see my other articles on this website in which I go into my own personal story combined with my biblical and logical defenses of naturism. Click here. You can also read Phillip Oak’s book “Surprised Into Freedom: The Effortless Obliteration Of Lust and Body Shame” in which he goes into the story of his naturism and how it has been “the catylist” to his freedom from pornography, and his wife from her freedom from body image issues. Chris on the Mud Walkers YouTube channel has also gone into his story in videos like “Modesty: An Insult To Men”, and “How I Got Into Nudism”. |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | There is a whole lot of debate over what Genesis 1 is trying to say, and even what Genesis 2 is trying to say. There is debate even over whether Genesis 2 is a more expanded account of the events of Day 6 or comes chronologically after Genesis 1. It is far beyond the scope of this article to get into all the nitty gritty scholarly exegetical details of the text. However, if you are interested in hearing my thoughts, you can read my essays “Genesis 1: Functional Creation, Temple Inauguration, and Anti-Pagan Polemics” and “Genesis 2 & 3: Adam and Eve as Archetypes, Priests In The Garden, and The Fall”. And if you’d like, I also have given conference-style talks in my live streamed videos “Genesis 1 – How The ANE Context Solves The Science/Faith Controversy” and “Genesis 2: Archetypes, Priests In The Garden Of Eden, and The Creation/Evolution Debate”. |
| ↑3 | See Bible Hub, “6174. Arom” —https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6174.htm |
| ↑4 | See Bible Hub, “6172. Ervah” — https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6172.htm |
| ↑5 | Heiser, Michael S.. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (p. 73). Lexham Press. Kindle Edition. |
| ↑6 | Heiser, Michael S.. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (pp. 87-88). Lexham Press. Kindle Edition. |
| ↑7 | See Stanhope, Ben. (Mis)interpreting Genesis: How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Ancient Near Eastern Context of the Bible (p. 42). Scarab Press. Kindle Edition. |
| ↑8 | The Bible teaches that God has two different types of sons; angelic sons and human sons. In passages like Genesis 6:2-4; Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7, and Psalm 82:6, the heavenly host are identified as “sons of God”, beney elohim in Hebrew. In passages like John 1:12, Matthew 5:9, Romans 8:14, and Galatians 3:26 tell us that believers in Christ are sons of God. Sons and daughters of God are angelic and human persons who love Yahweh. |
| ↑9 | I take this to be a literal humanoid figure, as Yahweh was known to show up in certain places in the Old Testament in human form. In some very interesting cases, there are even two figures in the picture who are both identified as Yahweh and yet are distinguished. This is what Jewish scholar Allen Segal referred to as “The Two Powers In Heaven.” I have an entire video on this topic on you can check out called “The Angel Of The Lord and A Two Person Godhead In The Old Testament.” |
| ↑10 | Weingart, Phil. The Rabbi on the Mount: How Jesus’ Judaism Clarifies the Sermon on the Mount (p. 120). Kindle Edition. |
| ↑11 | For a more in-depth treatment on Jesus’ theology of divorce, see my video “Exegeting Jesus’ Sermon On The Mount (Part 6) – Divorce”. |
| ↑12 | See my articles “Responding To Nick Peters’ Objections To Naturism (Part 6) – Naked Kings and Prophets” and “Responding To Nick Peters’ Objections To Naturism (Part 7) – Ezekiel and John” for more information on this. |
| ↑13 | For more on this whole cosmic temple motif of Genesis 1 and how the image of God doctrine relates to it, see my essay “Genesis 1: Functional Creation, Temple Inaugration, and Anti-Pagan Polemics”. You can also read John Walton’s book “The Lost World Of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and The Origins Debate” and Carmen Joy Imes’ “Being God’s Image: Why Creation Still Matters”. |
| ↑14 | Frost Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (pp. 38-39). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition. |
| ↑15 | Chris Mud Walker, “Pavlov’s Dogs…and Nudism?” — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6swtns62zGM&t=7s |
| ↑16 | ibid. |
| ↑17 | If you would like to read my series “Responding To Nick Peters’ Objections To Naturism”, click the following links – Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10. |
| ↑18 | See, for example, Nick Peters, “Book Plunge: Christian Body: Exodus 20:26” —https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/01/book-plunge-christian-body-exodus-2026/ |
| ↑19 | Chris MudWalker, “But Adam and Eve Were Married”, Mud Walkers, June 8th 2024 — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYJ4f2laA8s&t=1s |
| ↑20 | Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), Ge 3:21. |
| ↑21 | Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 77. |
| ↑22 | Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 1 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 20. |
| ↑23 | Robert D. Bergen, “Genesis,” in CSB Study Bible: Notes, ed. Edwin A. Blum and Trevin Wax (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2017), 11. |
| ↑24 | Nick Peters, “Book Plunge: Christian Body: Genesis 2-3”, Deeper Waters – https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/07/29/book-plunge-christian-body-genesis-2-3/ |
| ↑25 | Hatton, David L.. “Who Said You Were Naked?”: Reflections on Body Acceptance (p. 26). David L. Hatton. Kindle Edition. |
// One indication of a short stay is the fact that Eve doesn’t conceive her first child until after they’re kicked out of the garden (Genesis 4:1-2). Would they really go a whole year without expressing beautiful erotic love to each other? //
I’m not sure about this argument because they could’ve had sex and not conceived. Women are only fertile about 5-10 days out of the month. We don’t know how things were in Eden but probably the same.
As I see it, this article makes two basic statements, neither of which I find persuasive.
1. God intended for humans to be nude in the beginning.
2. Jesus intends for humans to return to the nude state as depicted in Eden.
GENESIS
The entire argument for nudism from Genesis is God’s statement, “Who told you that you were naked?” and Adam and Eve’s lack of shame in their state. The interpretation is essentially that God acted surprised that Adam knew that he was naked; he was hiding because in his sin, he adopted what you would call a porno-prudish view of the body.
But the story of Adam and Eve is not about nudity, and neither is this interaction. It is about knowledge of good and evil. Adam was not hiding because he was naked, that was just an excuse that he gave as he became aware of the world around him. He was hiding because he sinned. God’s response, “Who told you that you were naked?” wasn’t about nudity, it was about his knowledge. He was catching Adam in his own words. Where did he get that information? Has he sinned? God knew the answer, but he wanted Adam to confess to what he did, and he interrogated him. This interaction is not about nudity, it is about knowledge.
Second, we are told a few verses later that God clothed Adam and Eve. Your interpretation is that this act was a concession to their sin. I don’t know that this is a strong interpretation. As you pointed out, Adam and Eve may not have been in Eden for long. There was a lot to learn. It may be that God was fully intending to clothe them. He would have taught them about creation, and they would have learned a lot of what they came to know if they hadn’t forced the matter by eating of the tree.
Third, your idea that God clothed mankind as a concession to their sin conflicts with your earlier statements about nudity. You make the argument that our response to nudity is a result of a conditioned prudishness. But if God clothed mankind right after the exit from Eden, then we’ve been clothed for a long time, and it has been long ingrained in our mind, literally since the beginning of mankind, not a result of cultural conditioning.
CHILDLIKE MINDS
As you argued, Adam and Eve only lived in Eden for a few days. They came into knowledge unnaturally, but they would have learned more about creation, and probably about clothing. Your objection to this is that is “begs the question in favor of body shame” (I don’t grant the ‘body shame’ title for a second, i’m just quoting you).
Honestly I think you just didn’t know what to say here. It’s an interpretation that follows what I would consider to be a natural series of events. God was teaching them about creation, and I would expect clothing to be on the curriculum. That curriculum was interrupted when they ate from the tree of knowledge, and suddenly realized that they were naked, because they advanced in the curriculum against God’s wishes. Am I assuming a non-nudist interpretation? Of course, and that is okay because there is nothing implausible about that idea.
So, yes, Adam and Eve had childlike minds, and would have learned about clothing eventually.
CONCLUSION
The way you are talking about this heavily implies not just that nudism is the way to go, but also that if you’re not a nudist, you’re in sin. I don’t think these arguments are nearly as strong as you think, but I’m not as concerned about arguments or a point-for-point series of rebuttals.
I’ve looked at My Chains Are Gone and they look like a legitimate, strong ministry. But I don’t see them beating people up or calling them names every chance they get, or implying that they’re sinning. Personally, I’ve never struggled with p***, but I’m trying to understand the passion behind this because I know a lot of men do.
I never once stated or implied that God was surprised. I am not an Open Theist. And even if I were, even they argue that God has perfect knowledge of the past and present. He knows everything that happened in the past and everything that is happening in the present, but he just doesn’t know the future because they would argue that the future is logically impossible to know. So since the sin and covering and the idea that they were naked has happened moments before, even on this less robust view (imho anyway) of omniscience , God should know where they got the idea from. The question is clearly rhetorical.
.
Secondly, no literate student of The Bible would say that the Eden narrative is ABOUT nudity. Anymore than John 21 is ABOUT fishing, or the book of Ruth is ABOUT field gleaning. But in all these cases, these are details of the historical narrative. Genesis 2 is not primarily ABOUT marriage either, yet Jesus still quotes Genesis 2:24 in support of his theology that divorce is against God’s ideal.
.
You wrote \\”Adam was not hiding because he was naked, that was just an excuse that he gave as he became aware of the world around him. He was hiding because he sinned.”// – This seems like a false dichotomy. Why can’t it be both? We all know instances in our own lives in which we’ve done something wrong and have tried to hide ourselves out of shame. In the honor/shame culture of the Ancient Near East, this sense of shame would be even more intense. Of course, the text doesn’t say why they tried to cover specifically their waists rather than, say, their faces. Some theories suggest that in the mytho-historical nature of the story, the sin they commited was not a literal eating of fruit, but was symbolic of some sexual sin pertaining to the use of those parts of the body. I don’t find these interpretations tenable for reasons I won’t go into, but why think “I hid because I was naked” was only a cover story (pun not intended) and nothing more? The text depicts them covering themselves even BEFORE they hear God coming. (Genesis 3:7 and Genesis 3:8).
.
//”God’s response, “Who told you that you were naked?” wasn’t about nudity, it was about his knowledge. He was catching Adam in his own words. Where did he get that information? Has he sinned?”// – God could have easily just said “Have you eaten from the tree…?” Instead of prefacing it with this rebuke. Unless the question is a rebuke of what Adam had just said, it is superfluous to the narrative. It’s just fluff. Whether the serpent told them this (and it just wasn’t narrated) or whether they themselves somehow came up with the concept (which I personally find more likely on the basis of what Genesis 3:7 says), God was saying in effect “Where did you get this information from? Because it didn’t come from me? You didn’t go to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, did you?”
.
//”Second, we are told a few verses later that God clothed Adam and Eve. Your interpretation is that this act was a concession to their sin. I don’t know that this is a strong interpretation. As you pointed out, Adam and Eve may not have been in Eden for long. There was a lot to learn. It may be that God was fully intending to clothe them.”// – Go read the text. What reason is there for God having clothes Adam and Eve? We aren’t given one. Genesis 3:21 just matter of factly describes the clothing. I think my interpretation at least has a little bit of contextual backing, considering that they were cast outside of the garden, and God just got done describing how harsh the environment was going to be, mentioning things like thorns and thistles. At the very least, the idea that he clothed them out of some Victorian sense of modesty is at least on the same grounds as my interpretation because the text doesn’t explicitly say why God did this. is it possible that he had always intended to clothed them? Sure, it’s possibleBut as J Warner Wallace often likes to say, lots of things are possible. We don’t have a picture of an alternate timeline in which Adam and Eve never sinned. We don’t have access to God’s counterfactual of creaturely freedom concerning such a scenario. But it seems to me that if nudity was as horrible as modern Christians make it out to be, He would have wasted no time. Instead, what we have is God not clothing them until the very last second. I can recall even as a young child having this story told to me and coming away thinking that if it wasn’t for sin, clothing may well not have come into the world at all (this was Pre-anti nudity indoctrination). Now that I’m older and hold to an old earth view, I do think clothing for the sake of practical warmth and protection would have come about. It would’ve come into being when Adam and Eve and their descendants went out to “subdue and rule” the wild creation. But it would never have come about as a compulsive desire to hide their bodies as we read in Genesis 3:7.
.
\\”Third, your idea that God clothed mankind as a concession to their sin conflicts with your earlier statements about nudity. You make the argument that our response to nudity is a result of a conditioned prudishness. But if God clothed mankind right after the exit from Eden, then we’ve been clothed for a long time, and it has been long ingrained in our mind, literally since the beginning of mankind, not a result of cultural conditioning.”\\ – I think you misunderstood my argument. I’m not even sure where you would’ve gotten the idea that I was saying clothing was a concession for sin. The only thing I can think of is where I brought up commentators saying that it was to act as a covering for their sin. Some of the commentators I cited have made the analysis that what happens in Genesis 3:21 is a typological prophecy of the later animal sacrifices and ultimately Christ’s atoning death, which would “clothe” us in righteousness. I myself am not too sure that this isn’t reading into the text, but it is an option that is not uncommon among interpreters, and I don’t think it conflicts with the idea that humans were created to be naked. No more than the Eucharist conflicts with the theology that humans are not supposed to get drunk. In both cases, we would have a symbol of a far greater spiritual reality that exceeds the physical symbol. But again, I am not persuaded that anything more is going on here that God clothed them to protect them from the wild and untamed environment outside of Eden.
.
Finally, no, it is not ok to “assume a non-nudist interpretation”. It isn’t ok to assume a nudist one either. We shouldn’t make any assumptions of the text, but read it to the best of our ability and allow the text to speak for itself. Why do I have to argue for my interpretation but you just get to assume yours? I would say there’s nothing implausible about mine either. Especially since I’m only trying to draw conclusions based on details and dialogue that we are presented with, I’m not reading in between the lines.
.
\\”The way you are talking about this heavily implies not just that nudism is the way to go, but also that if you’re not a nudist, you’re in sin.”\\ – That would be a gross misrepresentation of what I’m arguing. No one has to be a nudist. You can agree with the theological anthropology concerning the goodness of our bodies and not engage in recreational or social nudity. That is why I have tried to use the term “nudism” as I frequently as possible, using “Naturism” instead. Naturism is the more philosophical aspect of nudism and it is theoretically possible to agree with everything I’m saying and not become a nudist. However, I often find that once a person becomes persuaded of naturism philosophically, they typically do. A lot of us enjoy being nude, but we just never felt like we were really allowed to outside of sexual or bathing contexts. We’ve been so conditioned to believing that it’s wrong that there was a time where I refused to even go topless, even if it was the hight of summer and I was doing gross, grimy sweaty hard work, lest I be “immodest”. But the idea that wearing clothes is sinful would be just as, if not more, asinine than saying being nude is sinful. Clothes aren’t the problem, clothing compulsiveness is. Clothes aren’t the problem, a porno-prudish view of the body is. If you like your pants, you can keep your pants. But I think everyone is obligated to shed bad theology.
I think sometimes drawn out text debates muddy the waters a little, but I’ll give you a response for a few clarifications.
– I didn’t say that you actually think that God was surprised. I provided my interpretation of Genesis 1. God was pretending to be surprised, but I know that you don’t actually think God was surprised.
– In providing the standard interpretation of Genesis, you ask, “Why can’t it be both the normal interpretation and the nudity interpretation?”. The nudist interpretation just is not necessary to fully understand the text. It can be excluded entirely.
– You said that God could have easily have just said, “Have you eaten from the tree?”. Sure, but as in many cases, God communicates in ways that are not direct; he already knew the answer. He asked “Who told you that you were naked?” because that was the excuse that Adam gave him.
– You point out that we are not given a reason for God to clothe Adam and Eve. That’s true. You gave your interpretation of what you think God’s reason is. I gave mine, and mine doesn’t come with a dozen assumptions about nudity, it’s just straightforward. God was going to teach them about clothing, but because they advanced the lesson against his will, he just gave them clothing without the lesson.
– Regarding assuming interpretations and begging the question: what I am getting at is that the text does not make a definitive statement about nudity. You’re bringing your interpretation and I brought one that is also plausible. Both are based on the text, but yours brings forth more conclusions.
– I am glad to hear that you do not regard non-nudism as a sin. Something about the language related to “putting a tarp over God’s image” made me think that, so I am happy to be corrected about that. I do think that there are some implications related to morality and sin, particularly when it comes to showing the naked body to someone who does not want to see it, putting yourself in a situation where someone might see you who does not want to, or looking at children, etc.
You said “The nudist interpretation just is not necessary to fully understand the text. It can be excluded entirely.” As I said before, if God was not actively rebuking, the propositional content of what Adam had said, then the rhetorical question is superfluous to the narrative. It’s fluff. Why included at all? You would still have the question of if Adam had eaten from the forbidden tree. God rhetorical question needs to be wrestled with, and I think the reason why many commentators don’t even acknowledge the existence of the question is because it has certain implications for the modesty debate. If you disagree, then you need to give a counter argument. You need to show how the question still makes sense if we don’t see this not disagreeing with the very concept of nudity.
.
And this is not a question of direct or indirect communication. This is a question of completely unnecessary communication.
.
//”You point out that we are not given a reason for God to clothe Adam and Eve. That’s true. You gave your interpretation of what you think God’s reason is. I gave mine, and mine doesn’t come with a dozen assumptions about nudity, it’s just straightforward.”// – I think your view comes with the assumption that the human body has to be covered. To say that God would have taught them that walking around naked wasn’t appropriate begs the question in favor of the body being something shameful to display. And if that were the case, then of course God would’ve clothed them eventually. But the way that a lot of Christians talk about it, it seems to me like such a horrible thing, that I can’t imagine God tolerating it for more than a few seconds. I’m trying to draw conclusions about nudity from the narrative. Some of the counter arguments I responded to in the OP are ones I would have used once upon a time. But when I investigated Christian Naturism, I was like “Ok, I need to just try to just approach the text according to the grammatical historical method and try to draw some conclusions.” It seems to me like a more straightforward view of the text is that God liked the human form. We are made in his image, and when the nudity of Adam and Eve is mentioned, it’s not mentioned in a negative tone. Moses or whoever wrote this story mentions it in a positive way. “The man and his wife were both naked and they had no shame” (Genesis 2:25), and then later when they started being naked WITH shame, they covered themselves up and hid themselves even from God. And when “I’m naked” was the reason given for the hiding, God basically scoffs at it. “Who told you such an outlandish thing? Who told you that you were naked?” Yes, it very well could be that Adam was trying to give some other explanation, besides the fact that he was now afraid of God because he had broken the rule against eating the forbidden fruit, but we can clearly see from the proceeding verse that Adam and Eve felt shame over their bodies, even before God arrives on the scene. If this were merely a cover story, we wouldn’t expect them to try to hide themselves with fig leaves when the angel of the Lord isn’t even in the scene yet. Yea, it was an excuse, but it wasn’t the truth swapped for a lie. It was a half truth. He was hiding out of shame of his nakedness AND because he feared the wrath of God. To say it’s one or the other is a false dichotomy.
.
//”God was going to teach them about clothing, but because they advanced the lesson against his will, he just gave them clothing without the lesson.”\\ – Can you back up disclaim with an exegetical argument? Because you say it straightforward, but it is very non-obvious to me.
.
Non-Nudism as sin. – In context, that statement about the tarp was made about people who think that the body has to be covered because the exposure of the body is lewd and obscene. If someone is covering the body out of that motivation, I do think that that is sinful. If you are covering your body because you are cold, because you need to protect yourself from the elements, or even because you’re not in an area where it is legal, these are all perfectly valid motivations. In the video “The Masterpiece” which can be seen over at Aching For Eden, the analogy is drawn between covering a painting to protect it from moisture in storage versus being ashamed of it. Again, naturists aren’t anti-clothes, we’re anti body shame. And yes, I think calling it body shame is quite appropriate. If it wasn’t shame, we wouldn’t feel embarrassed if someone accidentally walked in on us changing. Or we wouldn’t consider it to be the worst thing in the world if someone wanted to share around so-called “revenge porn”. People have even taken their lives over that. Far more is at play here than simply wishing to conform to social norms about modesty for sexual morality reasons. We are trained to think being seen naked, even on accident, is an absolute travesty. I’ve thrown the term gymnophobia around quite a bit in these types of discussions. I’m not being rhetorical or derogatory. If you look up the definition in the dictionary and how it’s used in psychology, I think the term fits. I am being quite literal in my use of the term.
.
//”I do think that there are some implications related to morality and sin, particularly when it comes to showing the naked body to someone who does not want to see it, putting yourself in a situation where someone might see you who does not want to, or looking at children, etc.”// – Agreed, which is you’ve probably met nudists and never even knew it. They mostly confine themselves to their homes, and specially designated resorts like Cypress Cove. They are not exhibitionists or streakers. And as I have said in prior articles, this is as much of a Romans 13 issue as it is a Romans 14 issue. Do it where it is allowed, not where it isn’t. And don’t do it at the expense of someone else’s personal boundaries. I have never once been forced to see nudity outside of the internet because I didn’t go where nudists typically go. The way nudism is typically practiced, these moral concerns shouldn’t be an issue.
I’ll give you a break for a while since you said in the comments on the other post that it’s exhausting. Can I ask about the death threat? That might be something you should call the police over or report it to someone.
I would rather not disclose the detail here. Besides, I’m not worried about it. People who make those kinds of threats in general aren’t usually serious about actually carrying them out.