IBL07: Seventh Commandment
Nakedness
Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony
Subject: Prerequisite/Law
Lesson: 4-20
Genre: Talk
Track: 57
Dictation Name: RR130AE57
Location/Venue:
Year: 1960’s-1970’s
Our text is Genesis 2:23-25, and our subject, Nakedness. Genesis 2:23-25, with emphasis in particular on the 25th verse.
“23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”
This last verse, is important for us to consider, not because there is any particular legislation with respect to nakedness that has to be dealt with, but because the subject is one so greatly misunderstood. And to understand this passage is to understand a great deal about the direction of the law. Law always has a future orientation. Law demands that men conform to a particular standard, so that a particular type of society can be achieved.
When the law legislates against something, its purpose is to eliminate that particular element in society, or at the very least control it, so that a particular kind of social order can result.
Now first of all it is important for us to understand what this passage says. It is one of the most misunderstood verses in the Bible. The Interpreters Bible, which is the most important modernist commentary of our day, says that it means that Adam and Eve were without consciousness of sex. And this is a very popular illusion. But it is of course very clearly wrong. Very clearly so, because Genesis 2:20 makes it clear that Adam saw sex among the animals, and was aware of the fact that there was no sexual partner for him. He was very definitely sexually aware.
It is absurd to maintain that Adam received Eve as his wife and remained celibate, that he was ignorant of sex, and completely innocent of any sexual desire. This is a common interpretation today, but completely erroneous, and without any foundation in scripture. Adam was not a simple man. He had lived for some time before Eve was created; he had classified the animals, worked the garden, and had a firm grasp on the nature of reality, he was a seasoned worker and thinker. Eve as his wife had come to share in his knowledge.
The point of this verse therefore is not the nakedness, but that they had no occasion to feel ashamed about anything. They were in harmony with God and with one another.
The significance of the misinterpretation has to be understood so that we can understand the meaning of this verse as it relates to popular misconceptions today, and to us as we seek to know the scripture.
The dream of a return to paradise is common to almost every culture. All over the world, men through the ages have dreamed of returning to paradise. Very commonly this dream involves a return to the state of nakedness, plus an innocence of any idea of good and evil. Now of course, Adam and Eve knew the difference between good and evil. They very definitely knew that to do good was to obey God, and to do evil was to disobey him, and in fact, to make yourself the principle of authority.
But the idea of many of these groups throughout history has been that if we can only return to a state of paradise, men then will be naked and unashamed, and there will be no sense of right and wrong in whatever they do. And in fact the dream is, divest yourself of all the trappings of civilization and of clothing, and you will return to a state of innocence whereby any kind of sexual action can prevail, and there is no shame and no guilt.
Many groups have been established, dedicated to that ideal. A group that appeared in the early centuries, and became very, very prominent in the late Middle Ages was the Adamites; a very interesting name that they took. It was basically a pagan group, it practiced nudism in fact it staged nude sit-ins and demonstrations and marches in the big cities of Europe, before the time of the Reformation; it believed in sexual communism, and in communism of property and of money, it was a very popular group, and there is a very direct line of descent from those Adamites to the modern leftist movements and modern day communism.
There is also a very definite link between the Adamites and the nudists of today. All these groups hold that clothing is a provocative factor, and that men will return to innocence as they return to nakedness. In effect, they say that the fall was due to clothing; get rid of clothing and you get rid of sin and all of man’s problems. And they hold that health and peace of mind, and fraternity and equality and a great deal many other virtues may return with nudism.
Unfortunately, this idea now has a great deal of support from many psychologists, psychiatrists, and sociologists. The current issue of Psychology Today is a very interesting bit of evidence of this fact. It has some articles dedicated to this thesis. One such statement by the editor of Psychology Today calls such beliefs in nudism as a “gentler humanism.” In other words, the return to paradise and innocence is an article of faith; it is a humanistic religion.
One of the articles in psychology today, the June 1969 issue is written by psychologist Leonard Blank of Rectors. It is interesting in that it is not critical, and yet it does present in the course of its analysis some very interesting evidence against nudism. He admits that nudists present, and I quote: “Greater personality deviations, sexual conflicts, and inhibitions and distortions of body images than non-nudists.” A very interesting fact; nudists are more inhibited than non-nudists, and they have more distortions of body images than non-nudists. That takes some doing.
His study also showed that membership is always a man’s decision, and he says and I quote: “Never did a wife want to go more than the husband.” The title of Dr. Blanks article is very interesting, and I quote the title in full: Nudity as a Quest For Life the Way it Was Before the Apple. Now, as he summarizes the evidence, his statement is I think of interest, and I quote it in full: ‘Clothes help identify our position in society, and nudity removes an important piece of sign equipment. Nudists claim that they can associate with others without being categorized by clothing. Although nudists may idealize this claim somewhat, the nudist camp does effectively break down patterns found on the outside. Sex, class, and power are less relevant in a nude society, and suspension of these artificial barriers increases togetherness. But even in the nudist camp there are personality clashes, cliques, and inter-group disagreements. Not everyone finds utopia there. 30% of the respondents would be little if at all effected if the camp closed. 26% would be somewhat affected, and only 43% would be very affected. Asked to list their 3 best friends, 49% did not list a single nudist. Several blue collar workers said that nudism allowed their families to associate with a better class of people, without being classified by their uniforms or customary clothing. We lessen status striving when we remove one of the major props of impression management. In nudist camps, status takes other forms. The pale skin of the sporadic visitor is looked down upon. The cotton tail, or the person with tanned body and white buttocks commands less prestige, but draws interested looks.”
Now in spite of Dr. Blanks very careful attention to being as fair as possible to the nudists, the thing that does emerge is that in spite of all their desire to get rid of class and status and so on by divesting themselves of clothes, some people are elected to office and some are not. So there is class. Some people are popular, and others are not; and when they choose up sides for volleyball, some people never get chosen, so there are hurt feelings. And all the problems of society reintroduce themselves. So, alas, it isn’t instant paradise by divesting themselves of clothes.
Another interesting article in this issue is by Hollywood Psychologist Paul Bindrim, together with Doctor William E. Hartonan of the California State College at Long Beach. These men held nude marathons as therapy for troubled people; and the claims they make for the healing through these nude or grope therapy groups is very interesting; Bindrim’s title for his article is and I quote: Nudity as a Quick Grab for Intimacy in Group Therapy.
And it is amazing what he claims for his therapy. He claims to have cured, at least temporarily, frigidity, male impotence, exhibitionism, arthritis, suicidal tendencies, psychosis, and a great many other things, and revitalize marriages. He feels, in other words, he is on the brink of a great breakthrough, and maybe if he is right, doctors will soon be obsolete; that is, the usual M.D. doctors.
The sad fact is however is that as psychologists develop a new theory, they regularly cure a large number of people who a year later need curing at the hands of some new remedy.
But basic to all these articles and others like them is the belief that somehow by divesting oneself of clothing there will be a return to paradise. That with clothing illnesses, psychological problems, social problems, will disappear. That somehow, progress means getting rid of clothing and everything that clothing represents. And what do clothes represent? Why, civilization. Class lines, distinctions, discriminations.
Now, what must we say to these things, apart from the obvious smile and the laughter that it does really stimulate. First of all we must say that this is not, obviously, a Biblical hope. The Garden of Eden was free from sin, but it was still the primitive society, man’s beginning, not the end. The goal is the developed kingdom of God, the New Jerusalem, a world order under God. So that, the garden of Eden represents for those who believe in the Bible, not a goal for society, but the primitive beginning.
Second, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that nakedness was a basic condition of paradise or essential to it. Because the whole point on this verse was not the nakedness, but that, naked or not, there was no sense of shame in paradise.
Now we know from an analysis of the text that some time was spent by Adam and Eve in Eden. This is obvious in view of what Adam accomplished there. He tilled and dressed the gardens, he pruned the trees, he cared for them. He classified the animals, giving them a rough classification, but none the less classified and knew the animal creation; which took perhaps a good many years.
In view of the work he had to do, he obviously developed some tools; so there was some progress in that direction. Obvious too, he needed some kind of shelter. So that we can assume that Adam, very quickly developed some kind of housing. Obviously, with the conditions of the world, before the flood, where the world was nightly watered by a heavy mist, it was not very good to sleep on the ground. And we can be sure that if Adam was not already a man who had developed housing before Eve came along, she very quickly persuaded him that she had no intention of sleeping on a wet, grassy floor.
We can also be sure that they had developed some kind of foot wear. The first morning that Eve stepped out on the wet grass, cold and somewhat dewy, she undoubtedly demanded some kind of foot wear. So we can be sure that there was some progress in that direction. When the evenings were cold, they obviously wanted some bed covers, and Eve being a woman made sure that something in that direction was developed; and no doubt nudged and nagged Eve until it was.
So we can be sure there was some kind of arts and crafts; remember what they did when they sinned. They heard the voice of God, calling them: “Adam, where art thou?” And what did they do very quickly? They sewed together leaves to make aprons or a skirt or a covering, that is the word. Now, that is a significant passage, in other words they already knew how to sew! So even in haste when they were out among the trees they could very quickly stitch together some kind of covering. So, the ability to make garments or covering, or clothing, had already been learned.
Thus, some form of clothing may have been already in existence prior to that time, and almost certainly was. They knew how to sew. And then we can add, Adam and Eve were alone in paradise. They were the only inhabitants thereof. So that there was no need at all times to be clothed since it was just the two of them.
The faith of nudism and of humanism in a cure all in nudity is absurd. The Bible does not present a return to primitivism as answer to man’s problems. Nor does it say that the desire to abolish inequalities and differences is good; quite the contrary. The progress of history, according to the word of God, is the progressive discrimination and line of division between good and evil, between what is good and what is better, as well as between what is good and bad. So that progress involves a progressive line of division, discrimination, a higher and higher awareness of that which is good.
The law is not oriented to the past, the law of God is oriented to the future. Whereas, nudism is oriented to a return to an imagined past and to primitivism.
As a result, we must say that the primitivism which today infects not only the nudists but our revolutionists who want a return to equality and primitivism is a pathetic philosophy, and suicidal as well. Already in Eden there was marked development. There was a growing discrimination, there were signs of the developments of arts and of crafts, the knowledge of sewing. History must move forward, or man perishes.
The goal of history is not the Garden of Eden, it is the true community, the kingdom of God. Let us pray.
Almighty God our heavenly Father, we give thanks unto Thee for Thy word. And we thank Thee our Father that in a world today when men dream of a return to paradise, and in that process are creating hell on earth, Thou hast given us a law word whereby we can have progress. Thou hast given us a lively hope in which we can trust. Make us therefore our Father ever diligent in Thy service, that we might establish that law order which is thy purpose for us, and dwell therein in peace, in safety, and in progress. Grant us this we beseech Thee, in Jesus name, amen.
Are there any questions now, first of all with reference to our lesson? Yes?
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] The, yes, the trend towards internationalism is a part of this desire to eliminate all differences, to say that the idea of having different cultures, different standards, different languages is altogether wrong, and so we must eliminate them, return men to supposedly their original one condition, a common language, a common culture, everyone the same; and at the same time we must abolish all differences. It is for this reason that the U.N. Charter declares that it is determined to save men, from what? From all inequalities and distinctions, and so it says that there must be no discrimination with respect to race, color, or creed. In other words, all religions must be abolished, as well as all races. And so the idea is of course a return to paradise.
Any other questions?
Yes?
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] Yes, yes; the question is, what was the meaning of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Now first of all, there was an actual tree, what kind we don’t know. They were forbidden to eat thereof because God said they should not do so. And the whole point was, it was a test; it was an actual tree, and it was a test. And the question involved was, in terms of whose word should they live. In terms of whose knowledge or determination of good and evil. Is good and evil that which God declares it to be, or is it that which man says? And of course the whole point of Satan’s temptation was that “God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God’s, knowing good and evil.”
Now, the Hebrew word ‘knowing’ and knowledge has the sense of determining. Thus it means: “Then you shall determine for yourself what is good and evil.’ In other words: “There shall be no law over you saying thou shalt not, no absolute good and evil, but good and evil as what you say it is. So, rebel against God, be your own god. Determine from yourself what constitutes good and evil. Do not believe that there is an absolute law.”
This is of course the essence of what relativism, pragmatism, experimentalism, existentialism, and various other contemporary philosophies hold to. Theirs is therefore the essence of Satan’s philosophy, every man his own God, determining for himself what constitutes good and evil.
Yes?
[Audience Member] Was Eve created on the 6th day?
[Rushdoony] No, Eve was created some time thereafter. Now, in principle, mankind, male and female was created on the 6th day when Adam was created, because He says: “Male and female he created them.” that is, in principle they were created to be male and female, but Eve was created sometime, possibly a good many years thereafter.
Someone raised the question, and I will take this and then will take your question, after the meeting last week, with regard to the fact: ‘Does God command anything, but not give us the power to fulfill it?” and the answer is definitely not. When God commands something or holds forth a standard, He does so in the expectation that man is to fulfill it. Therefore, the prayer: “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done” is not just a prayer, it is to be our lively hope and goal, that God’s kingdom come.
There is a very beautiful passage of Saint Paul’s that holds forth this fact in Ephesians 1:9-10. And in Philips paraphrase I think the point is brought out clearly; I don’t always care for Philips, but I think this is a beautiful rendering: “For God has allowed us to know the secret of His plan, and it is this: He purposes in His sovereign will that all human history be consummated in Christ. That everything that exists in heaven or earth shall find its perfection and fulfillment in Him.
Now, the question that was also raised: “Well, what about the commandment: “Walk Thou before me and by thou perfect.” when we are told that we are not going to be sinless in this life, only in heaven? Isn’t that then a contradiction?”
And the answer is no. Because in the Bible the word perfect and perfection does not refer to sinlessness. For example, in Genesis 6:9 we are told that Noah was perfect in all his ways, and more than once if you go through the concordance and check the use of perfect in scripture, you find it is used to describe people who obviously were not sinless. The Hebrew word perfect means not sinlessness, but complete, prepared, whole. It has reference to integrity, it means accurate, diligent, mature, or finished. It means to fit thoroughly. In other words, it has reference to that frame of mind where a person is fully happy and mature in Gods service.
Thus, if what you love, what you enjoy, what you delight in, is in God’s righteousness, you are then perfect in the sight of God, you are mature. It is in recent years that even our English word perfect has gained the idea of sinlessness, it did not always meant that. Because the preamble of the constitution says: “to form a more perfect union” a more fitting, a more mature union than the Articles of Confederation. Now, if it meant sinlessness, of course, then it would be grammatically incorrect, would it not? To speak of a more perfect union. Now, it is grammatically incorrect in view of the present usage of the word perfect to speak of something being more perfect. But in terms of the older meaning of more mature, it was entirely correct. Yes?
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] Yes, what it means is that the process of death will begin to work in you, and you shall be spiritually dead, the sinner is in the sight of God dead. You are no longer alive to the meaning of history, to the goal, the kingdom of God. Now this does not mean that there was no death before the fall, because there could have been physical death for the animals. But the point is that there is now death in the sense of separation from God. Now man dies, he may be alive, but the meaning of history is gone; so it is death in that radical sense that is meant, but physical and spiritual, but essentially spiritual. Man no longer sees, he no longer has a sense of direction. He no longer knows the goal of history.
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] He must now what?
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] Yes, Adam and Eve were in their will holy good before the fall, now man, unredeemed man is wholly evil in his will in that all that he does is tainted by the fact that he is separate from God and he chooses contrary to God, and does not see the meaning and direction of history.
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] No, they were not meant to live forever because God certainly decreed the fall.
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] Yes.
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] Yes, after the fall, the law which was given before the fall, they knew what was to obey God and what was to disobey Him, was given to Adam and Eve orally. And there are evidences of this that creep up continually in the law. We shall deal with this next Sunday; one aspect of the law as it appears, but is not written, it is finally given in full written form in Moses, but the law is clearly in evidence before, having been given in oral form. Yes?
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] Yes, because they were sinners.
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] No, well, first of all the number of occasions where such sins occurred were not as many as you would think. When you go through and find the occasions, they are not very many.
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] Yes, we will be coming to that in the next few weeks. But first, the Bible tells the whole truth about people which modern history does not. So it is a much more candid account. Second, in many cases as with Ammon, he was not a believer, he was reprobate thoroughly, with David, yes, a great man, and yet he did sin. None of us are exempt from sin, and yet of course, David in spite of that is spoken of as one of God’s greatest servants, and as very dearly loved of God, and as a friend of God.
Someone… yes?
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] A very good question: Was it possible for Adam to communicate with the animals before the fall? There are a great many traditions, and lets speak of them very plainly as traditions, that before the fall animals could speak. And that this is why there was no surprise because of the talking serpent, and that this knowledge that animals once spoke is common to many cultures. Now, one very prominent scientist has called attention to the fact that it is a serious error to assume that animals have no intelligence. They are very intelligent. They have surprising intelligence sometimes. But they do not have, what he says, is understanding. This is why they have no history. But anyone who has ever had pets knows how intelligent they can be, and sometimes very clever in outfoxing their mistress, or working her. I am putting it in the feminine gender.
But, they do not have understanding. The reflective ability. They do have intelligence. So there is no reason to assume that animals at one time could not speak. Certainly today some students have been able to find that there is extensive evidence of communication among animals. For example, they found that in the jungle monkeys accurately communicate certain types of information. ‘A stranger is approaching.’ Or, ‘there is water ahead’ or ‘there are bananas ahead’ or some such knowledge. They found that the communication is very definitely transmitted in their chatter. And they have found also with wolves and other such animals there is very definitely some kind of communication, something is transmitted. So that, we don’t serve God by demeaning the animals. They are animals, they are on a lower level, but they are certainly wonderfully made as everything in creation is. Yes?
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] Yes, a very good question. Now, that is in Romans 8. And Calvin, in his commentary on Romans 8 said that the whole animal creation is waiting earnestly and expectantly for the glorious end, the new creation, because then they too will have a part in it. In other words, the animals will live too in the new creation. Yes?
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] I don’t know where that came from. No, there is no ground for that whatsoever in scripture. There are a great many myths that have arisen concerning the creation story, and perhaps that is one of them, but I am not familiar with that, and there is no ground for that in scripture.
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] Yes.
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] The word literally is: “From the red earth” the topsoil. And Adam is the same word really, as red. In Hebrew. Yes?
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] Titus…
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] Titus 1 what? 1:1.
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] I can’t hear you?
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] Titus 1:1?
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] “Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;”
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] Yes, but the truth is not only Jesus Christ, the righteousness of God, the nature of God. Jesus Christ is the revelation of that, but He is also manifest in His law, His righteousness, His truth, His nature.
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] Yes.
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] Well, this; in terms of the Biblical doctrine, truth and godliness are not separate things. For example, in the modern academic community, because it follows the Greek tradition, truth is something that is in isolation from godliness, holiness, morality. And so the pursuit of truth, they feel, may often lead them into strange byways, and they have no obligation to be moral or to be concerned with morality. But in terms of scripture, because there is a unity of everything in God, the truth, and that which is Godly, that which holy and that which is moral, are all interlocked. So that, you cannot have a truth which is contrary to godliness or which is contrary to morality. Now, Paul speaking to Greece who isolated the truth from that which was moral, this was an important point to make. Yes?
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] No, a product. No, it is a product of it. In other words…
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] Well, in a sense, yes; in that, those who are Godly are those who grow in truth. “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you. Those who therefore begin with the premise of God, then are closer to the truth, closer to Godliness, closer to morality.
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] No, they are more than synonyms, they are related facts but they are not identical facts. Yes?
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] Well, let us look at Philips paraphrase, how he renders it: “The truth which is after Godliness, in the knowledge that comes from a God-fearing life.” Now, that is not entirely accurate, but it does point in the right direction. Yes?
[Audience Member] …?...
[Rushdoony] Yes, that is true, but then there is this that must be remembered, and our time is just about up; the usual definition of freedom is altogether wrong, because it assumes an absolutistic definition of freedom. Wherever you have these controversies about free will, they are talking really about the free will of God rather than of man, because man does not have an absolute free will. The free will of man is his freedom to be himself, whatever he may be. Man is not absolutely free. We cannot, for example, defy the law of gravity by saying: “I am going to rise up right now and ascend to the top there.” We can’t do that. We are not free to be born in the future or to say: ‘I want to go back in time’ We weren’t free to choose our parents or our race, or our intelligence. We are what we are because of things with which we had nothing to do; but we are free to be ourselves. In other words, we are as creatures a secondary cause, and ours is a secondary freedom. Only God has absolute freedom. And this is where most people who talk about free will and most college philosophy classes are ridiculous. They talk about absolute freedom, and as a result they end up either making man into a God, or saying that man has no freedom. Man’s freedom is the secondary freedom of the secondary cause. Of a creature.
With that our time is up, and we stand adjourned.