Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, natman, Senior Moderator, Moderators
So what does it mean that God clothed them with animal skins? Was he confirming their hypocrisy? Was he aiding and abetting their pretense? If they were naked and shame-free before the Fall, and if they put on clothes to minimize their shame after the Fall, then what is God doing by clothing them even better than they can clothe themselves? I think the answer is that he is giving a negative message and a positive message.
Negatively, he is saying, You are not what you were and you are not what you ought to be. The chasm between what you are and what you ought to be is huge. Covering yourself with clothing is a right response to this—not to conceal it, but to confess it. Henceforth, you shall wear clothing, not to conceal that you are not what you should be, but to confess that you are not what you should be.
One practical implication of this is that public nudity today is not a return to innocence but rebellion against moral reality. God ordains clothes to witness to the glory we have lost, and it is added rebellion to throw them off.
And for those who rebel in the other direction and make clothes themselves a means of power and prestige and attention getting, God’s answer is not a return to nudity but a return to simplicity (1 Timothy 2:9-10; 1 Peter 3:4-5). Clothes are not meant to make people think about what is under them. Clothes are meant to direct attention to what is not under them: merciful hands that serve others in the name of Christ, beautiful feet that carry the gospel where it is needed, and the brightness of a face that has beheld the glory of Jesus.
Now we have already crossed over to the more positive meaning of clothing that God had in his mind when he clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins. This was not only a witness to the glory we lost and a confession that we are not what we should be, but it is also a testimony that God himself would one day make us what we should be. God rejected their own self-clothing. Then he did it himself. He showed mercy with superior clothing.
bn2bnude wrote:...What about the acts (as someone pointed out here or in NC) where Saul, Isaiah and others were publicly naked because of God's prompting (Saul and the Holy Spirit) or because of Gods commands?
bn2bnude wrote:...If I were to take this argument to it's full conclusion, I should only ever dress "simply" as any other dress would be drawing attention to myself and be rebellious.
jochanaan wrote:BTW, has anyone gone back to the original site to respond to the article?
natman wrote:...Instead, it applies to those who use nudity as a rebellion against morality, such as swingers, pornographers, streakers, flashers, strip clubs etc. or those that use nudity for the sole purpose of shock and awe or as a form of perversity.
Desert Hiker wrote:.... God's law is the same for everyone! I cannot support any argument that gives Christians a liberty that is only lawful to Christians.
Nor can I accept any argument that reads so much between the lines that a new sin is hatched out of the ether. It is obvious to me that this fellow is grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to outlaw nudity.
Sorry, no sale.
Return to Struggling with nudism / naturism
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest