Three Questions For You

[Josh]

#3 - because mankind was commanded to in Eden; the Bible tells us we should cover our bodies so that the shame of our nakedness is not revealed.

We can see the consequences of disobedience to this with Noah and Ham.

The NT continues this theme, telling us the Lord would wish we would spend money to buy clothes so that we cover our nakedness, and buy gold refined in the fire to buy such clothes.

[Ernie]

#3 - because mankind was commanded to in Eden; the Bible tells us we should cover our bodies so that the shame of our nakedness is not revealed.

So am I understanding you correctly that you think there is something shameful about nakedness, that has nothing to do with human's tendency to lust?

The NT continues this theme, telling us the Lord would wish we would spend money to buy clothes so that we cover our nakedness, and buy gold refined in the fire to buy such clothes.

Do you think this refers to physical clothes, spiritual clothes, or both?

[ken_sylvania]

#3 - because mankind was commanded to in Eden; the Bible tells us we should cover our bodies so that the shame of our nakedness is not revealed.

So am I understanding you correctly that you think there is something shameful about nakedness, that has nothing to do with human's tendency to lust?

I think the Genesis account suggests that there is. Consider that Adam and Eve seemed more concerned about hiding their nakedness from God than in hiding it from one another.

[Ernie]

#3 - because mankind was commanded to in Eden; the Bible tells us we should cover our bodies so that the shame of our nakedness is not revealed.

So am I understanding you correctly that you think there is something shameful about nakedness, that has nothing to do with human's tendency to lust?

I think the Genesis account suggests that there is. Consider that Adam and Eve seemed more concerned about hiding their nakedness from God than in hiding it from one another.

Interesting. I guess that was how I always heard it explained growing up but as I got older, I assumed that there was some obvious social things going on that the Genesis writer did not include.

[ken_sylvania]

So am I understanding you correctly that you think there is something shameful about nakedness, that has nothing to do with human's tendency to lust?

I think the Genesis account suggests that there is. Consider that Adam and Eve seemed more concerned about hiding their nakedness from God than in hiding it from one another.

Interesting. I guess that was how I always heard it explained growing up but as I got older, I assumed that there was some obvious social things going on that the Genesis writer did not include.

To assume it is only about human's tendency to lust raises more questions for me than what it answers. Why would it have been shameful for Adam and Eve to be naked considering it was just the two of them?

[Neto]

I think the Genesis account suggests that there is. Consider that Adam and Eve seemed more concerned about hiding their nakedness from God than in hiding it from one another.

Interesting. I guess that was how I always heard it explained growing up but as I got older, I assumed that there was some obvious social things going on that the Genesis writer did not include.

To assume it is only about human's tendency to lust raises more questions for me than what it answers. Why would it have been shameful for Adam and Eve to be naked considering it was just the two of them?

Our former (now retired) pastor thought that before sin, they had been 'clothed' with a sort of 'holy cloud' or mist, and that when they sinned, they lost this. Thus the need to be clothed. But the Scripture tells us that they "were naked, and unashamed".

Whatever explanation we might find in regards to what they lost when they sinned against God, there is clearly something there that changed, a relationship between nakedness and shame. This was something totally new to them. If the effects of sin are still upon humanity (clearly so), then the shame of nakedness still remains as well. That some defy that shame is no indication that it ought not still be respected, and properly dealt with.

[RZehr]

I was just asked recently by my 4 year old why Adam and Eve didn’t wear clothes. I said that they didn’t know that they were naked. Then they ate of the tree of knowledge and then they knew.
Before they had knowledge, they were similar to how animals don’t know that they are naked.

I think knowledge is a part of the answer.

[Ernie]

I was just asked recently by my 4 year old why Adam and Eve didn’t wear clothes. I said that they didn’t know that they were naked. Then they ate of the tree of knowledge and then they knew.
Before they had knowledge, they were similar to how animals don’t know that they are naked.

I think knowledge is a part of the answer.

To assume it is only about human's tendency to lust raises more questions for me than what it answers. Why would it have been shameful for Adam and Eve to be naked considering it was just the two of them?

I don't think it is only about human's tendency to lust.

All we know for sure is that Adam and Eve's eyes were opened, they realized they were naked, they tried clothing themselves with fig leaves, they tried hiding from God, and God made them coats of skins.

I agree with RZehr that it had something to do with knowledge. I think it had something to do with guilt (people want to hide when they are guilty. (Were Adam and Eve trying to hide from God by blending in with the foliage???), and maybe God gave them coats of skin because he knew that with humans now knowing good and evil, clothing will provide less shame and maybe help with the social order. And maybe the temperatures started getting cold at night and they needed some warmth protection.

[Ernie]

I still would not advise girls to wear revealing clothes around perverted men.

And I assume you would not advise them to wear revealing clothes around non-perverted men as well? If so, why?

[Bootstrap]

In some places, some women have gotten the feeling that their bodies are primarily a temptation to men. But women's bodies are primarily women's bodies, the physical home of women's souls and spirits, and God saw women's bodies and said they are good. Same is true for men's bodies. To deal with these gifts in a godly way, both men and women have to learn to turn things over to God and walk in holiness.

I agree, but am I correct that you think it is good for people to wear clothes, and that some clothes are unnecessarily provocative?

Oh yes.

Actually it includes ultra-conservatives all the way to progressive conservatives. Progressive conservatives want something stated in the Bible plainly before they do it. The rest are glad to cite Bible verses for many different prohibitions and prescriptions even if it is not directly stated in the Bible as such.

I don't think the Bible teaches the principle of a double covering. I don't know of anything like a biblical command to have at least two layers of cloth.

I know of some teachers who teach the following. But most women who wear cape dresses never heard this. They wear cape dresses because it is a modest way to dress and it is the church uniform. End of subject.

I'm fine with the "modesty matters, and this is the way we apply it in our church" approach.

I'm confused by parts of the following explanation, though, assuming "plain" consistently means what it does in Anabaptist settings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_clothing

Conservative Anabaptist denominations, such as the Dunkard Brethren Church, observe the wearing of plain dress, because Jesus “condemned anxious thought for raiment” in Matthew 6:25–33 and Luke 12:22–31.

Definitely agree that we should not be anxious about clothing. Not sure why that requires plain dress for all Christians, though, in the sense of plain Anabaptists, or why it would require uniform dress.

They teach that the wearing of plain dress is scripturally commanded in 1 Timothy 2:9–10, 1 Peter 3:3–5, and 1 Corinthians 11:5–6

Again, none of these command uniformity in dress or what Mennonites mean by plain dress.

1 Tim 2:9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

1 Pet 3:3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands,

This last one doesn't even seem to be about the same topic, I find it strange in this list:

1 Cor 11:5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

With the adjective kosmios (κόσμιος) meaning "modest", 1 Timothy 2:9–10 uses the Greek word catastola katastolé (καταστολῇ) for the apparel suitable for Christian females, and for this reason, women belonging to Conservative Anabaptist denominations often wear a cape dress with a headcovering; for example, ladies who are members of the Charity Christian Fellowship wear the cape dress with an opaque hanging veil as the denomination teaches that "the sisters are to wear a double layered garment as the Greek word 'catastola' describes."[7]

I don't think καταστολή means "double layered". I can't find a Greek lexicon that even mentions "double layered" in the definition of this word.

Modesty is definitely part of the equation - in both sense of the word, I think.+

καταστολή, ῆς, ἡ (s. καταστέλλω; Hippocr.; Mitt-Wilck. I/2, 12, 15 [88 B.C.] ‘subjugation’; Is 61:3; EpArist, Joseph.) Like the verb καταστέλλω, the basic idea is keeping something in check, hence the use of this term in the sense of ‘reserve, restraint’ (IPriene 109, 186f [120 B.C.] and EpArist 284f: both texts w. εὐσχημοσύνη; Epict. 2, 10, 15; 2, 21, 11: here personal deportment is certainly meant). The verb στέλλω means to ‘furnish, equip’, a sense that extends itself to the putting on of garments. Hence καταστολή readily serves to express outward attire, either the character one exhibits in personal deportment or someth. to cover the body, namely attire, clothing (Jos., Bell. 2, 126; cp. Is 61:3; Plut., 154 [Pericl. 5, 1] also appears to be used in this sense) ἐν κ. κοσμίῳ dress in becoming manner (REB; dress modestly NRSV) 1 Ti 2:9. The writer skillfully moves from the lit. sense of garments to personal characteristics of ‘modesty and self-control’ as appropriate adornment.—DELG s.v. στέλλω. M-M. TW.

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 527.