Bathsheba Tempted Nobody!

I'm sure you've heard the story about how Bathsheba was bathing on her roof, was seen by King David, and because of that she and David had an adulterous relationship, and Uriah (Bathsheba's wife) was murdered as part of a cover up.  And had Bathsheba not been bathing on the roof, David would have never seen her naked and never would have lusted after her and acted on that lust.  It's the classic story of what happens when a woman doesn't sufficiently cover herself.

Except that's not what happened.  And the interpretation of the events is completely wrong!  First off, Bathsheba was not bathing on her roof.  It was King David who was on his roof!  Bathsheba was likely bathing in a river, which would be the normal place to find someone bathing back then.  And it wouldn't matter even if she was bathing on the roof, because she is not the one who sinned!  Read 2 Samuel 12:1-4 very carefully.  Bathsheba is likened to an innocent lamb that was needlessly slaughtered.  This goes well with Deuteronomy 22:25-27, where God likens raping another man's wife to murder.  In other words, Bathsheba wasn't willing.  She was forced!  And all of the blame goes squarely on King David, who forced her, and then murdered her husband.

So, what if Bathsheba was bathing on the roof?  Why doesn't she get blamed for anything?  Because that's not how lust works!  Ignoring the fact that a river (the typical place to bathe back then) is a public area where many people could be bathing together at the same time without any gender or age segregation, lust is simply desiring to have something (or someone) that does not belong to you.  It is on each person to control their own desires.  And "immodesty" does not cause lust, as demonstrated by the numerous examples in the Bible of men getting into trouble concerning women without the woman's clothing (or lack thereof) ever being brought up.  For example, in Genesis 34.  But why let facts get in the way of doctrine?

You might object, saying "didn't David commit adultery with Bathsheba because he saw that she was beautiful to look at?"  Obviously the answer is yes, but her lack of clothing in this one instance still changes nothing.  And the fact that both men and women were made in the Image of God, without any clothing whatsoever (Genesis 2:25), and that God called everything he made "very good" (Genesis 1:31), it's pretty clear that women are designed to be beautiful in the eyes of men, regardless of their clothing or lack thereof.  Likewise, God designed men to find women beautiful to look at, with or without clothing.  So it is not sinful for a man to look upon a woman and find her beautiful, even if she has no clothes on.  What is sinful however, is for the man to desire to have his neighbor's wife as his own wife, or to desire to have sexual relationships with his neighbor's wife.  It's also sinful for a man to actually have sexual relationships with his neighbor's wife.  And it is sinful for the woman to be willing to have the adulterous relationship.

What about the issue of temptation then?  If Genesis 3 is anything to go by, it is wrong to deliberately cause someone to sin.  But temptation to commit sexual sin at the mere sight of an unclothed female body is a modern day conditioning of society, as already pointed out here and elsewhere.  And it all starts with the incorrect view of the human body, which is the view that the human body is obscene and not fit to be looked at.  It ends with a realistic, Biblical view of the human body, that it is the very good image of God, which is designed to be seen.

The Truth About the Image of God

What does it mean to be made in the image of God?  You've probably been told that it means we have some of God's qualities and attributes.  But if you recall what Genesis 1:26 says, you will notice that we are made in the image and likeness of God.  What you've been told is God's image is actually the definition for God's likeness.  You've also probably been told that because of the fall, the image of God was lost (or marred).  And that because of Jesus, the image of God has been restored.  The verse used to support the teaching that we lost the image of God at the fall is Genesis 5:1-3, where it once again says that man was made in the likeness of God.  But that passage also says that Adam had a son in his own image and likeness.  Of course, there are no other passages that support this doctrine, nor are there any passages that support the doctrine that the image of God was restored through the Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus).  Also, Genesis 1 states ten times that living things were made to reproduce after their kind!  Genesis 5 makes it pretty clear that man is reproducing after his kind, just like all the other creatures.  Yet you are told that the description of Adam having a son in his own image and likeness "proves" that the image of God was lost.

So if the image of God is conflated with the likeness of God, what does it really mean to be made in the image of God?  The Hebrew word for "image" is "selem", which is invariably used to describe a physical object made to look like something else.  The reason given for the exception when it comes to the image of God is that "God is a spirit" [John 4:24] and "spirits don't have flesh" [Luke 24:39].  Without going too far off topic, the Greek word translated as "spirit" is "pneuma", which literally means "wind".  In Hebrew culture (which is the culture that wrote the Gospels), things are often described by their function.  The function of wind is that it is not seen, but the effects of wind are seen.  And a closer study of Scripture will reveal that there are different types of "spirits" (winds).  Some types of "spirits" have physical form, others do not.  Ironically, some of the same teachers that use this to say that the image of God cannot be literal will acknowledge elsewhere how broad the use of the word "spirit" is in the Bible.  If you really want to be literal, then John 4:24 should be translated to "God is a wind".  Have fun trying to explain that away!

Is there any other evidence in Scripture that the image of God should not be taken literally?  No.  With the exception of a couple of out-of-context verses, there is no verse in Scripture that, in context, states or implies that the image of God is anything but literal.  Remember, the Bible says that we are made in both the image and likeness of God.  The likeness of God means that we share some of God's qualities and attributes.  The image of God means that we look like God.  The two should not be conflated.

The Bible reiterates man being made in God's image in Genesis 9:6, where it is given as the reason murderers are to be put to death.  When Paul was addressing the issue of head coverings, he used the fact that man is the image of God as the reason for saying that men should not wear them (1 Corinthians 11:7).  There is no indication anywhere that this is anything but literal.  A few other things to point out:  in John 14:9, Jesus said "if you have seen me, you have seen the father".  And in Colossians 1:15, Paul described Jesus as "the image of the invisible God".  He also describes Jesus as the image of God in 2 Corinthians 4:4.  God being described as a wind in John 4:24 has nothing to do with whether God has a physical form.  And if God did not have a physical form, Jesus would not be able to say "if you have seen me, you have seen the father".  And Paul would also not be able to describe Jesus as being the image of that which is invisible.

Let's reiterate what Genesis says about human beings:

26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. [Genesis 1:26-27; NKJV]

This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. [Genesis 5:1; NKJV]

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. [Genesis 2:25; NKJV]

Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. [Genesis 1:31; NKJV]

Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. [Genesis 9:6; NKJV]

So the Bible says that human beings are made to look like God, and that this is very good.  The Bible also says that human beings are made to share God's qualities and attributes, and that this too is very good.  But the Church conflates the former with the latter, then outright denies the former; replacing it with heretical doctrines about "lust" and "modesty" based on what is clearly an unbiblical, heretical view of human beings.  A view that, as some have pointed out, is directly responsible for the pornography industry!  And a view that has to invent "commands of God" where there are none, under the pretense of avoiding sexual sin.

The Lie of Dressing Modestly

So, the Bible has a lot to say about modesty, right?  Well, according to some teachers, the answer is yes.  But according to our English translations of the Bible, it's just two verses.  Which don't say anything concerning what the Church says concerning modesty.  And there's a mistranslation in one of them.

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. [1 Timothy 2:9-10; KJV]

The word translated as "modest" in this passage is the Greek word "kosmios".  It appears twice in the New Testament, both times in 1 Timothy.  Here's the other instance:

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; [1 Timothy 3:2; KJV]

If we just go by how this word is translated, we see that there is one standard for men, and a different standard for women.  For men, it's just about behavior.  For women, it's about behavior and choice of clothing.  God calls those who have such double standards abominations! [Deuteronomy 25:13-16]  So it's either the case that Paul is setting two different standards (one for men and another for women), or there is something that is being missed.

Turns out, it's the latter.  The word "kosmios" literally means "orderly".  It's derived from the Greek word "kosmos", which means "orderly array".  Knowing this solves most of the apparent double-standard, as it means that the same standard is being applied to both men and women.  But why is it specifically women who are told to dress in "orderly apparel"?  If you take a look at what Paul said they should not be wearing, then you have your answer.  The women that Paul is addressing here are wealthy women who love showing off their wealth through expensive clothing and hair styles.  Some have suggested that they were competing against each other for bragging rights on most elaborate clothing.  Such behavior and clothing is obviously disorderly.

Let's assume though, that "modest" is the correct translation.  The issue of modesty in the above passage is not whether the women are wearing enough, but whether they're wearing too much.  The former is a cultural norm that is read into the text based on a grossly-incorrect understanding of Scripture, especially in the area of "lust", which has nothing to do with a woman's clothing (or lack thereof).  The definition of modest that Paul gives is to not wear expensive clothing, jewelry, or hair styles.  That is it.

But the word is not "modest", the word is "orderly".  If you read the passage carefully, you will notice that what is defined as orderly is one's behavior and character.  Shamefacedness means humility, and viewing yourself less highly than others.  Sobriety means self-control.  In other words, this passage is all about behavior, and has nothing to do with physical clothing.  The same rule holds true for any other passage in the New Testament that is misinterpreted as addressing the issue of modesty.

In fact, the Church's rules concerning modesty not only are in direct violation of Deuteronomy 24:16, since the woman is held responsible for the sin of the man, it is also a direct violation of Deuteronomy 12:32, since it adds to God's commandments.  Even Paul, in 1 Timothy 2:8 admitted that his rules concerning orderly apparel are his own rules, not God's commandments.  Again, it is sinful to blame the woman for the sin of the man, regardless of the reason she is being blamed.  It is also sinful to hold a cultural norm (the Church's vague rules concerning modesty) as equal to the Law of God.

Also, the Greek text of 1 Timothy 3:15 uses the phrase "house of God", which appears to be able to have either of the meanings I listed in a previous post about the word Church, but not both at the same time (The distinction I made is only in some English translations, not in the Greek text.  Oops!).  So it is possible that the rules that Paul gave before this verse only apply to the behavior expected within the Church setting (some argue exactly that point).  I have my doubts that this is the case, but if is, then the Church should not be applying its rules on modesty outside of the Church setting.

Even if the rules laid out prior to 1 Timothy 3:15 are meant to always apply (which I believe to be the case), the fact that the passage uses the word "orderly" instead of "modest" should be enough to prove that the setting determines what is or is not orderly.  But to leave this on a somewhat positive note:  The Church does have some concept of different settings calling for different standards of acceptable (or required) clothing.  And most will probably agree with me to a point that what is acceptable in one setting may be completely unacceptable in a different setting.  The problem here is that the Church is restricting what these standards can be on a perceived moral ground that does not exist in Scripture.

The Truth About Lust

Ever heard of the term "lust" before?  Chances are the answer is yes.  And chances are that nobody has given you a definition for the word "lust".  And when it is defined, it's rarely defined according to what the Bible says it means.  All it takes is a simple internet search to see that the Bible, while often used to explain the definition given, is not used as the source of the definition.  In fact, if you read the articles in the link carefully, you'll notice that each source gives a slightly different definition of lust.  And some of these sources are closer to the biblical definition than others.

So, which one is correct?  As it turns out, none of the definitions given on the first page in the above-linked search results are correct.  Some are close, but they all fall into the same trap:  Namely, associating lust with strong, sexual desire.  And I'm just talking about all of the Christian resources that appear in those search results.  They're all wrong to some degree, and all in the same way!

To understand why they're all wrong, we first need to understand some of the verses used to support the given definition of lust.  We'll start with Matthew 5:28:

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. [KJV]

It is admirable for people to try to get the definition from the biblical text.  But often, the text is mistranslated or not read carefully.  Or both.  And in this case, it's both.  Many Christians believe that merely looking at a woman is lusting after her, especially if she's wearing revealing or form-fitting cloths (or is entirely naked).  But if we read the passage carefully, we'll notice that it's not looking at a woman that is lust.  Instead, it's looking at her with lust, that's the problem.  Her clothing (or sometimes lack thereof) is completely irrelevant to whether the man is lusting after her.

So that clears-up some of the misunderstanding of the text, but it doesn't give a solid definition of what lust is.  It just tells you what lust is not.  The KJV actually does a good job of providing a definition in Romans 7:7:

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. [emphasis mine]

Lust is the same as coveting.  And coveting is a strong desire.  Notice that some of those search results listed above do give this definition, but with an emphasis on sexual desire, and stating that the desire is always sinful.  Let's take a look at what the Greek words translated as "lust" and "covet" mean.  The word in question is "epithymeo", which means "to desire" (usually a strong desire).  The KJV and other translations translate this word as "desire", "covet", or "lust" based on the context.  If the context is negative, it's translated as "lust" or "covet" depending on whether the translators believe the text is referring to a sexual desire.  If the context is positive or neutral, then it's translated as "desire".  But it's the same word.

By the way, the Law of God does not say "You shall not covet."  What Paul is doing here, by quoting part of the commandment, is invoking the entire commandment which he is assuming the reader knows.  Here's what the full commandment being invoked says:

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. [Exodus 20:17; NIV]

As you can see here, the command is not, "do not covet, period", but rather gives a list of things that you are not allowed to covet.  The things listed here are all things that you cannot legally obtain.  Notice that there are human beings on this list.  Namely, your neighbor's wife, and male and female servants.

And here's one of the misunderstandings about lust.  Lust is not a strong sexual desire.  Lust is when a man strongly-desires that a woman be his own wife.  It can also be when a man strongly-desires having sexual relationships with a woman.  So in this instance, part of the definition given is correct, especially if the source points out that the desire is a choice.  But the desire is not simply to derive sexual pleasure just by looking upon her.  The desire is to actually have sexual relationships with her.  And this is one of the main points where nearly everyone who defines lust gets it wrong.  That is not to say that the former is beneficial or good (it certainly is not, nor is it what God intended), it's just not what the word "lust" means.

Jesus' teachings against lust is actually him linking the 10th Commandment "you shall not covet your neighbor's wife" to the 7th Commandment "you shall not commit adultery".  That is, you shall not desire that your neighbor's wife be your own wife, nor shall you desire to have sexual relationships with her.  For if you do, then you have already committed adultery with her in your heart.

Note also that this means that one can lust after a woman who is not married to anyone and not be guilty of sin.  In other words.  Lust is only sinful in the context that acting upon it would be a case of adultery.  If a man acts upon his lust of an unmarried woman, he, by definition, is not guilty of adultery and therefore, not guilty of adultery in his heart.  If the woman is married, but the man does not know it, then when he finds out that she is married, he must stop desiring her immediately.  Because if he continues to desire her, knowing the truth, he then becomes guilty of having committed adultery with her in his heart.