Q. Is it a sin for a woman to go bare-breasted in public? Where in the Scriptures does it say that she must always be covered? Did missionaries and colonial administrators have the right to impose Western clothing values on the indigenous peoples of Africa, India, Polynesia, North and South America and elsewhere to stop going around topless? What should our attitude be today towards those cultures that still permit toplessness in rural communities or those egalitarian activists who campaign for the right of Western women to go topless in urban areas? Should we allow women the freedom to clothe or unclothe themselves above the waist in public? Just what are the boundaries of our biblical freedoms in the matter or clothing? What is your view of nudist colonies? And finally, how did the Israelites dress historically?

A. The answers to your questions, or to similar questions asked by others, will, in part, depend on what motivates those questions and it's as well to start there. While some things may not be a sin in the general sense, they can become a sin if our reasons for doing them are wrong. Our Heavenly Father has, broadly-speaking, divided behaviours into two categories: those which are permitted (lawful) and those which are not, those which are pure and those which are sinful. Thus something which in the general sense is lawful may become sinful in the specific sense if it leads to idolatry, i.e. when our love for something takes first place instead of Elohim (God) Himself.

Some things are neutral and whether they become sinful or not from a Gospel perspective depends on what you do with them. For instance, from a biblical perspective, sex (like money) is regarded neutrally. It's what you do with it that makes it either godly (within marriage) or ungodly (outside of marriage). Eating meat specifically in front of a Christian vegetarian or vegan with a weak conscience becomes a sin if we deliberately and willfully cause our weaker brother to stumble and fall whereas eating meat in the general sense is not a sin (Rom.14:1-3).

In the New Covenant we are called to a higher standard of love than in the Old that requires us to sacrifice lawful things for the sake our weaker brother or sister. Scripture specifically says that fobidding someone from eating meat is a sin, like forced celibacy (1 Tim.4:3). We are free to choose whether we eat meat or whether we remain single or not. Likewise, forbidding someone to be a vegan or vegetarian is a sin. At the same time, giving assent to the eating of non-kosher food is a sin because Yahweh defines anything that is not kosher to not be food for humans. Pork is not food and may not therefore be consumed. But in the menu of what's permitted (i.e. what's kosher), you can freely pick and choose. What you cannot do is forbid or guilt someone for eating something kosher that you do not approve of.

Nudity was the normal state of affairs in the Garden of Eden because the first couple were innocent and 'lust' had not entered the world because of the Fall. But what do we mean by 'lust'? Here you have to be careful because the meaning of words changes over time. Today the word 'lust' not only has negative connotations but is usually (at least in Christian circles) typically applied exclusively to sexuality. To lust in modern English is to desire something or someone sexually that you're not entitled to. Yet in the 17th century, when Jacobean English was spoken and when the first edition of the King James Version of the Bible (KJV) was published, the word 'lust' simply meant to 'eagerly desire' something or someone. Thus in the same breath you would have been able to tell someone to "lust after righteousness" and "we should not lust after (eagerly desire) evil things [as opposed to lusting after good things]" (1 Cor.10:6, KJV) or not to lust after (eagerly desire) unkosher meat (e.g. Dt.12:15,20-21; 14:26; Ps.78:29-31, KJV) but a man be instructed most emphatically not to lust after (eagerly desire) a married woman. Both instructions may be found in the KJV. This means I would be perfectly entitled to lust either after (eagerly desire) holiness or a sinmgle woman with a view to marying her. So you have to be careful with language because its meaning changes over time. Eagerly desiring anything that is ungodly in the general sense is a sin (e.g. Mk.4:19).

Thus how we phrase this question of bare-breastedness, what we mean by our question and what our motives for asking this question are all important things to consider even before we ask what the Bible says on the subject or what historically the clothing customs were in biblical times. To answer your question in the general sense, no, the Bible nowhere say that going bare-breasted is a sin. No punishment is anywhere assigned for dressing in this manner. However, if a woman going bare-breasted is likely to cause a brother to stumble then being an instrument in deliberately causing a brother to sin is itself a sin. No sin is imputed by the letter-of-the-law to a woman exposing herself but if in so doing she knowingly (an this is the key word here) causes a man to desire her sexually, particularly if she is a married woman, then she becomes guilty of a different sin altogether - of laying temptation before a weaker brother. But if she is in the company of men and women, as is true in many cultures in, for instance, Africa, where going around topless causes no sexual arousal, then she is perfectly entitled to undress above the waiste as she pleases. But, to give a radical example, were she to walk topless into a church in a culture such as that of a Western city, where to do so would both distract the eye of man and arouse the passions, then she potentially would be guilty of sin if she knew what she was doing would cause men to stumble. If the whole culture is at fault (and Western culture, as we know, is now highly and abnormally sexualised), then great care should be exercised in even raising this subject. Just exposing cleavage is enough arouse most men where bare-breastedness is is both not a part of the indigenous culture as well as being regarded as wicked. If nothing else, use common sense. Be mature. For a Christian, more than 'letter-of-the-law' is to be considered here. Blaming the weaker party for being weak or deliberately trying to stir up contention out of a sense of mischief does not demonstrate love, care or consideration.

So let's make a detailed study of this subject and make sure there are no misunderstandings. We'll start by examining the historical evidence. Does the Bible command women to cover their breasts in public? May any man see her naked breasts or only her husband in private? The short answer is, no, there is no such restriction, and no punishment exists in Scripture for exposure in this manner. From the point of the scriptural letter-of-the-law, she may go around bare-breasted if she so wishes and this is certainly the sense gleaned from reading the Song of Solomon since commenting matter-of-factly on a woman's breasts was not considered unusual or abnormal. There they are likened to "gazelles" (Song 4:5; 7:3) in the same way a neck is likened to an "ivory tower" or eyes to "pools of water" (Song 7:4) showing that they were visible to all and permissable for poets to comment on, even in Scripture. Therefore breast exposure must have been a matter-of-fact. Note also that exposure of the genitalia is not matter-of-fact and is never commented on in Scripture. No writer in the poetic literature of the Bible ever speaks of genetalia (male or female) in the same way as breasts, necks, eyes and other visible parts of the body as this would be been regarded as totally inappropriate. The genetalia were regarded as completely private, not for the public gaze, and therefore appear in no biblical poetry like the Song of Solomon. They were a matter for married people alone...in private.

A case is usually made by Western Christians from Genesis 3:21 for a woman covering up above and below the waist in consequence of the Fall. Did not our first parents, Adam and Eve, cover up all of what we, in the West, would in polite circles call their 'private parts'? Does this covering or clothing include the top of the body or only the area around the waist?

"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons (chagowr)" (Gen.3:7, KJV - also see RSV & NKJV).

"Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realised they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings (chagowr) for themselves" (Gen.3:7, NIV).

Almost all modern English translations, conservative as well as liberal, reflecting an almost universally held concensus amongst scholars, use "loincloths" (ESV, NRSV, JB, NEB) or "loin-coverings" (NASB, ISRV) - the loin being defined as "the part of the body on both sides of the spine between the false ribs and hip-bones" [1], i.e. 'the region of the sexual organs regarded as the source or erotic or procreative power' or 'the portion of the body below the rib cage and just above the pelvis'. Paraphrases likewise reflect this meaning:

"So they strung fig leaves together around their hips to cover themslves" (NLT, cp. LB).

Adam and Eve covered their genital areas. Eve did not cover her breasts. Accordingly, what the first couple became ashamed of once their 'eyes were open' after they had sinned, was their procreative organs, not the woman's breasts. Accordingly it is right that in public the genetalia of both men and women should always be covered - there is no question about that, something traditional African culture, where covering the top part of the body was unheard of before the arrival of Europeans, totally agrees with. Any embarrassment or shame provoked by the exposure of the breasts is therefore a product or nurture (education and societal pressure) and not nature. And whilst we must respect, in their own cultures, those whose consciences are weak because of upbringing, we cannot take the next step and claim bare-breastedness is in any way a biblical sin. It isn't.

However, with that said, it must be pointed out that whilst the Hebrew word chagowr used in Genesis 3:7 literally means a 'belt for the waist' it is also used later in the Bible more generally for armour that would include the breast and it's here, over this one word, that a dispute sometimes arises amongst conservatives. Is just the waist being here spoken of or does this include the upper part of the body in the area of the ribcage? For a soldier wearing armour most certainly would have his vulnerable lower parts covered in addition to his chest. But you would be hard pushed in claiming Adam and Eve were wearing armour even if the word chagowr would later evolve to include that meaning. Fig leaves are not, in any case, military armour; nor for that matter are animal skins which Father Yahweh made for our first parents to replace the improvised fig-leaf 'clothing'.

Moreover, considering the warm climate of Eden where fig trees could grow, the earlier, original translation of it referring to the covering of the top part of the body as well as the lower does seem rather awkward, does it not? In cultures where a prejudice against a woman having her chest exposed in public (as in the West) does not exist, particilarly in the Middle East, you will not find any ancient paintings or mosaics in which Eve is seen to have covered up her breasts after the fall. It was taken for granted, because of the customs of those geographical areas which we'll look into in more detail in a moment, that many women went around fully or partially bare-breasted, in public, as a matter of convenience. And as in rural parts of Africa today, anciently as well as now, the breast was not regarded as a sexual object.

The extent to which scholarship has, in the past, been influenced by cultural bias is no better illustrated than in the case of ancient Minoan dress on the Greek island of Crete where women not only went bare-breasted but deliberately paraded their breasts as symbols of female elegance and beauty (much as they do their lips and eyelashes elsewhere) as well as to indicate the culture's great respect and reverence for the nurturing qualities of motherhood. The Minoan women were Israel's maritime neighbours to the north-west so we can make some useful comparisons of a general nature at least as far as there being no shame or implied sexual suggestiveness in breast exposure. It is well known now that breast exposure was common throughout Minoan society. But amongst the conservative scholars in Western society, heavily biased by the Victorian culture in particular, they deliberately sought to limit such exposure to the priestess class and to those Minoans directly involved in goddess-worship, whereas other scholars more true to the scientific method of following the evidence where it leads, understood this reverence of the breasts displayed in public fashion and clothing generally to be purely an art form stemming from myth. A third group of scholars, incorporating both points-of-view (which I believe to be the correct one), interpreted this custom as reflecting both religious and standard everyday fashionable attire, just like modern clergy attire that includes stoles and chasubles (in Roman Catholicism and the older Protestant denominations), reflecting the cultural attire of ancient Rome. The latter is the most natural interpretation. The Hellenic Museum has compiled all the available evidence to give us a detailed and accurate representation of what Minoan fashion consisted of in reality [2]. If this interpretation is true, is there any Biblical, or extra Biblical Jewish tradition, that would indicate the ancient Israelites dressed differently than their neighbours, be they the ancient Minoans, Assyrians, Babylonians or Egyptians?

I do not believe, nor do I claim, that the ancient Israelites were either fashion-conscious or dressed in exactly the same way as the Minoans, at least not before the Greek period. What we do know is that in most hot environments toplessness was common when women worked outside and this would not have been viewed as provocative, erotic or immodest [3]. In the wider ancient Greek culture the chiton, a finely woven, lightweight, translucent dress, was worn by both sophisticated women and in simpler format by the less wealthy:

The ancient inhabitants of Crete, that included the Minoans, had similar dress patterns:

The same was true of Israel's immediate southern Egyptian (with whom it shared a common border), Libyan, Cushite and Ethiopian neighbours :

and of Israel neighbours to the north and east - the Sumerians, Babylonians and Assyrians:

The same pattern of bare-breastedness is repeated elsewhere in hot climates, in Asia, Polynesia and the Americas, indicating that toplessness was principally for comfort and convenience. In colder climates, save in the warmer seasons, toplessness was impractical and both men and women covered up. Exposure above the loins in every culture was never regarded as indecent and no one would have batted a moral eyelid or averted their gaze because of sexual arousal. Indeed, in parts of the Americas total nudity was regarded as normal, and still is in remote Amazonian settlements.

The priest, Las Casas, who traveled with Columbus, wrote:

"...on the whole, Indian men and women look upon total nakedness with as much casualness as we look upon a man's head or at his hands."

The answer to that question is Yes and No. Yes, it is a matter of culture. A tribesman living in a remote area of the Amazonian rain forest thinks nothing of the total nudity of the woman in his tribe because he has not been culturally conditioned to view nakedness as immodest. A Westerner, however, coming across such a people might very well be sexually aroused. We 'see', therefore, in different ways. A Western conservative would claim that, since the Fall of mankind, Yahweh has imposed clothing as an essential part of humanity for the sons of Adam. This, they say, is an imposition placed upon humanity by righteous judgment. It is not a 'cultural choice'. To recognise (and submit to) such matters is an integral part of genuine repentance.

The problem with this argument is that it cannot reasonably be made for the period before the Flood. What the conservative here claims is certainly true from the time of Moses onwards, and arguably from the time of Abraham since we are told that Abraham, like Moses, observed laws, statutes, etc. without our being told what they were (Gen.26:5). We know, for instance, that even before the flood, Noah was aware what the difference between 'clean' and 'unclean' was...which comes only of consciousness of a rule linked to some kind of Torah observance. Did he have a written Torah of some sort (like the one Moses restored) or was it purely oral? The consensus, based on not unreasoanble assumptions, is that from Genesis to the Sinai meeting in Exodus the Torah pre-existed Moses in some sort of oral form. It's not an unreasonable assumption even if it cannot be proved. Because the pre-flood history narrative is only sketchy in the Bible, we are entitled to, and indeed must, make such assumptions to fill in the 'missing gaps'. The only question that remains, then, is this: does the modesty of dress that Yahweh requires include a woman covering up her breasts?

Today, in the bush of Sierra Leone, West Africa, women strip to the waist at the community laundry, which is essentially a wide spot in a stream, and the youngsters, both boys and girls, are with them. When groups of men come upon them, neither group is uncomfortable...unless it's American or European missionaries, in the experience of many! So who, if anyone, is at fault here? The Westerner will argue: "Adam and Eve were ashamed after they transgressed. Now, we should all be ashamed. This is a matter of repentance, regarding the purpose of humanity and the righteousness of Elohim (God)."

We have heard this preached so often from the pulpit or read it in the commentaries of books books that most never think to check what the scripture actually says:

"Then the man and his wife heard the sound of Yahweh-Elohim as He was walking in the garden [of Eden] in the cool of the day, and they hid from Yahweh-Elohim among the trees of the garden. But Yahweh-Elohim called to the man, 'Where are you?' He answered, 'I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid'" (Gen.3:8-9, NIV).

The first point is Adam was not 'ashamed' but 'afraid' because of his nakedness. It was perfectly natural and normal to be unclothed. Indeed, what did Father ask Adam immediately afterwards?

"And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" (Gen.3:11, NIV).

Before we go into the matter of the two aprons Yahweh made Adam and Eve from animal skins (implying one or two animals had been killed in order to obtain their hides, meaning that death was by now in the world) let's consider a more immediate question and argument which has already appeared a number of times. So let me rephrase that earlier question and put a little more meat onto it. Going back to our skyclad Amazonian tribe, the conservative will express legitimate concern over the idea of the existence some kind of idyllic paradise where natives go bare and and are (supposedly) 'innocent'. He will claim that such a concept of 'innocence' undermines the truth of Adam's transgression and the truth of inherited sin. "This 'innocence' is a myth," he will insist, "it's not real." And he's right...in one sense. These are not people who know Yahweh. They are living in sin in the general, overall sense, at least prior to authentic conversion.

Back to the Genesis text:

"Yahweh-Elohim made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them" (Gen.3:21-22, NIV).

My point is we don't have a whole lot of data to go on with, which means we should not rush presumptuously in our conclusion-making. The only thing we know for sure is that whenever it was Father clothed then - immediately or later - it only covered their loins. As we see, cultural standards vary in the world today...which is the reality we must deal with since whatever conditions obtained in Eden or immediately ater the Fall are long gone. I'll not say whether the naked Amazonian tribe is 'innocent', as far as nakedness is concerned, in the same sense Adam and Eve were in the Garden. It could be yes or no. I don't know. They are certainly 'innocent' in once sense (through ignorance of Yahweh's clothing standard) yet are fallen beings in another. What we don't want to do is go needless 'shaming' people as European and American missionariies have certainly done in the past - let Yahweh do that through the conviction of the Ruach (Spirit), not Western prudery.

In many places in the world where women go topless it is highly inappropriate not to have shin-length skirts. Even Western-Anglo culture has oddities. What's acceptable at the beach is very inappropriate anywhere else (for both women and men) unless you happen to be living in a very hot climate like Florida or California, even in the cities where women wearing bikinis in town is regarded as normal. A miniskirt is seen as much more sexy than shorts of the same or even shorter length. Some mothers breastfeed in private, others in public. And there can still be sin in all this for the reasons I gave at the beginning, but not necessarily or automatically so. But there doesn't have to be. Both propositions would appear to be true. In a tropical agrarian society women's toplessness doesn't have to be erotic and generally hasn't been around the world over the millennia. Modern 20th and 21st century hyper-sexualised Westerners are the 'odd balls', in that respect.

This brings us to the next question. What is meant by the apostolic injunction to 'dress modestly'? To begin with, the New Testament basically affirms the Old in terms of what is, and what is not, presentable in public without naming the covered or exposed parts in question because knowledge of what was right and wrong was generally assumed:

"The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I don't need you!' And the head cannot say to the feet, 'I don't need you!' On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honourable we treat with special honour. And the parts that are unpresentable [in public] are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment" (1 Cor.12:21-24, NIV).

Those parts which are unpresentable in public are indisputably men and women's genetalia. Notice no shaming is going on here - Paul isn't telling the Corinthians that the male and female procreative organs are 'dirty' or 'sinful'. On the contrary, they are described as "honourable" (i.e. not base) but their presentation is reserved exclusively to husbands and wives alone. Paul describes these bodily parts as 'weaker' meaning that they are more vulnerable and therefore in need of extra protection. That may be one of two reasons Father made thick, robust animal hides for Adam and Eve to wear over their loins - for protection against the elements and against wild beasts.

Knowing of the tendency of carnal women to seductively 'dress to [metaphorically] kill' (seduce) the opposite sex, Paul has some words for them about modesty too viâ Timothy but in this case gives some examples:

"I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety..." (1 Tim.2:9, NIV)

The issue Paul has is contextually Greco-Roman pagan culture about which I shared information on dress standards earlier which from the biblical perspective were not regarded as immodest. The issue here is not, in any case, physical exposure but of excessive ornamentation that would draw unwanted and unnecessary attention:

"I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, [in other words,] not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship Elohim (God)" (1 Tim.2:9-10, NIV)

I ought to add at this juncture something on the buttocks:

"Then Yahweh said, 'Just as my servant Isaiah has gone stripped ('naked' - most other versions) and barefoot for three years, as a sign and portent against Egypt and Cush, so the king of Assyria will lead away stripped ('naked') and barefoot the Egyptian captives and Cushite exiles, young and old, with buttocks bared -- to Egypt's shame (Heb. buwsh). Those who trusted in Cush (Heb. Kuwsh) and boasted in Egypt (Mitzrayim) will be afraid and put to shame (buwsh)" (Is.20:3-6, NIV).

Two points need to be made here:

• 1. Exposed, bare or naked buttocks, through specifically referenceing Egypt, is a "shame". This is consistent with what we certainly know about ancient Egyptian dress standards, namely, that the exposure of the breast/breasts was not considered immodest but exposure of the genetalia was. Front and back, then - genitals and buttocks, are apparently to be treated alike, i.e. as private and not for public display, the public exposure of the buttocks being shameful and humiliating; and

• 2. The nevi'im (prophets), like Isaiah and Ezekiel (for three years in the case of Isaiah), were instructed, on occasion, to strip naked as a prophetic sign of shame and humiliation of a nation that is to follow because of disobedience. It may be argued that this stripping is only down to the loincloth or underwear though this would have been less shocking and shameful as a prophetic sign. Notice that the navi (prophet) is "barefoot" as well as naked (cp. Micah 1:8) which could suggest therefore that there are different 'degrees' of nakedness. So the jury is still out on that one.

Paul wants women to dress simply and to draw attention to their good deeds and behaviour, in other words, to the invisible qualities within, i.e. the righteous woman in Christ. These are the things we're supposed to publically admire in women, not their clothing, jewellry or hairdo's. Christian Modesty is therefore a combination of:

• 1. Not exposing what may not be exposed at any time (the genetalia or reproductive organs-cum-buttocks);
• 2. Not exposing what might cause offense to those weak in the faith in certain cultures untrained in biblical ways (e.g. cleavage, breasts, shoulders, arms, back, thighs, etc.);
• 3. Not over-dressing or showing off wealth and thereby detracting from the spirit of holiness which ought to be the exclusive focus and force of attraction between between those not married.

Let's be clear: the problem is with the way Western values have evolved differently from biblical ones. Tracing the roots of these problems is not difficult and can be laid at the feet, for the most part, of Catholicism and in particlar those theological teachers (like Augustine), influenced and guilted by their own licentious, pagan pasts, whose views became synonymous with Christendom as it evolved. We must not forget climatic factors as well, especially the further north in Europe you went. By the time Christianity reached the more remote parts of northern Europe like Scandinavia, where in the summer months at least women commonly went bare-breasted, as elsewhere in the world, it was already Catholicised. These Catholic values were in turn imbibed by other cultures like the later Islamic one.

Western values have travelled the globe since trade routes were opened. We live more-or-less in a global village now, for good and evil. As the West has become progressively more and more dechristianised and hedonistic, so values have changed too. People have become less modest and nudity is commonly flouted in a sexually aggressive and harmful way, particularly by sexual minorities. There is a world of difference between, say, the toplessness of women in rural African cultures and the toplessness and even outright nudity in parts of Western cities, nevermind pornography. They are universes apart and cannot be compared. One is clean and the other unclean, one kosher and the other unkosher because of the motives involved. Even within the West itself, there are obvious differences in behaviour, some of which is outright perverse.

According to one survey 5 to 10 per cent of the population in the USA now identifies as gay, bisexual or trans. When I was a boy at school, or a young man in the army, or older working in a lab, or in swimming pool changing rooms, men showered naked with other men, women showered naked with other women and no one thought anything of it because homosexuality was culturally stigmatised and not out in the open, and did not wield the kind of political clout that it does today. Every time someone undresses in front of the same sex today in segregated public places, are they now sinning by causing possible lust to occur in those who experience same-sex attraction? Certainly, no question of it. And in many 'Pride' parades men are openly and publically not only fully displaying themselves from head to toe but are engaging in full sexual acts that children are not prevented from seeing and who as a result become sexualised far too early. And the women are doing the same thing too. Even in some Western city parks and on beaches, sexual intercourse is engaged in openly.

As believers we are absolutely commanded to be separate from such places and people. It is our duty to shelter our children from both from such immodesty as well as perversion and indecent behaviour and so preserve their innocense. Gathering out of cities, except to witness and (where no alternative exists) to commute to in order to work, should by now be the glaringly obvious thing to do. We should not be living in these places, some of which may shortly be destroyed by either warfare or natural disaster.

Back in the 1990's my family vaccationed in Denmark a couple of times. There toplessness and even complete nudity on beaches was common. Around then some European cities even allowed public toplessness with some, like Berlin, having a tradition stretching back even before the war. Toplessness in public swimming pools was on the rise. In Norway where I lived, toplessness was common in city parks and here in Sweden it was commonly seen in nature. After a while no one thought anything of it as it started through a process of natural evolution to become part of the culture. One generation was enough. No longer. Today, with fundamentalist Islam on the rise and starting to take over some European cities, and with the horrific rise of rapes and murders, it is no longer safe for people to do this and the practice has diminished. Indeed some countries like Denmark started making public nudity illegal out of safety concerns.

Tribal women in Africa, South America and Papua New Guinea have gone around with bare breasts for thousands of years as once north European women did in the warmer seasons. When Christian missionaries arrived they convinced the women to cover their breasts. What arguments did they use to achieve this? And what pushback did the Europeans get and for what reasons? As we have seen, there is nothing in the Bible about Elohim (God) commanding women to cover their breasts and it isn't until we arrive at the New Testament that we are given express instruction not to set stumbling blocks before those weaker in the faith.

For the African, South American and other tribal women induced by Christian missionaries to wear full clothing, the result was often cultural confusion but not necessarily for the reasons a Western might suppose. For these people markings were commonly used on the skin to indicate a person's position in society, including marital status. The clothing brought by missionaries covered most of the body, and therefore covered all of those traditional social indicators. In some cases this brought about an effect opposite to the 'modesty' and 'chastity' that the missionaries intended and in one particularly African culture, where bare-breastedness indicated chastity and the covering of breasts was the practice and tradition of prostitues, being clothed was what brought shame to both the women as well as their husbands! However, women do love their clothing and adornment in every culture and native Africans, South Americans, Polynesians and Papua-New Guineans became culturally acclimatised to the Western ways in the end. All of this, however, is but a commentary on what some call cultural tradition imperialism and receives no biblical authority beyond what the New Testament teaches about not setting stumbling blocks before those weak in the faith. As we have seen the only biblical commandment to publically 'cover up' concerns the genetalia and buttocks...and women's heads when they are praying and prophesying in assemblies with other believers with the husbands being commanded not to cover their heads contrary to the practice of conservative rabbinical Judaism where both are expected to.

So, I repeat, there are no explicit instructions in the Bible forbidding the natural exposure of breasts in public. References to modesty and nakedness in Christendom therefore tend to be of human and not divine origin. Moreover, there is considerable variety of interpretation in particular times and places with even a period in 17th and 18th century Europe where partial exposure of the women's breasts was commonplace and part of the culture, a trend reversed by the Victorians. Why has all this happened? Because the assumption has been made that there are no explicit verses covering the topic contrary to what we have seen with some even making claims on Christian 'liberty'. Both conservatives and liberals are guilty of this set of traditional values by failing to let Scripture be the final authority on the matter. Christians, it has always been assumed, must therefore interpret instructions of modesty subjectively on their own initiative for their own particular cultures. This has been accomplished in a wide variety of ways throughout history. Contemporary women's clothing would be have been considered horrifyingly indecent centuries ago, but they are commonly worn by Christians today.

For a little over a century now feminists have been fighting for the right of women to go bare-breasted in public against the unscriptural 'conservative' consensus. At the same time 'Christian' feminists, following the example of their secular counterparts, have fought for the right of women not to wear headcoverings in church (and in the wider culture) and to be given an authority in the messianic community (church) equal to men. In consequence of this many denominations now ordain women as priests and ministers contrary to biblical teaching (1 Tim.3:1-12; Tit.1:6). Heavily borrowing from the anti-religion egalitarianism of the French Revolution, they have also secured for coheadship in marriage, again contrary to Scripture (Eph.5:23), and in the home too, overthrowing what they regard as 'evil patriarchy'. How have they managed to accomplish this given that the Bible is expressly opposed to all of these moves (except for bare-breastedness)? By claiming that all of these things fall within the undefined (and undefinable) sphere of culturalism.

The agenda of secular feminism (even before it infiltrated the churches) has always been to undermine (and ultimately destroy) Christianity as a whole and has led to the chaos that is the deconstructivism that is the contemporary 'postmodern' and 'woke' culture. It's origin is atheistic Marxism/Communism. Resisting and rolling this destructive spirit back, as the true Remnant must, means undoing most of what feminists have achieved in the Messianic Community (Church) along with the whole notion that the Bible must be reinterpreted in every age in order to make the Gospel align with the prevailing culture instead of the other way round. Arguably the battle began with Paul's instructions on headcovering in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Many contemporary Christians interpret that instruction to be specific to the Corinthian congregation he was speaking to due to the context of their time and place, as also with the references to gold, pearls, circumcision, marriage and divorce, and remaining silent in meetings. And yet Paul positively affirms that ALL his rulings are for all believers everywhere and not just one here in a particular cultural context:

"This is the rule I lay down in ALL the assemblies (churches)" (1 Cor 7:17, NIV).

Please don't get me wrong. I am not making a blanket attack on Western Christinity. Far from it. The debt owed by Africans, Asians and others to Western Christianity is immeasurable. Huge sacrifices were made by missionaries to make the Gospel global. Without them the world would have been a far worse place. We must never forget or underrate their achievement or faithfulness. However, this does not mean Africans and Asians should give carte blanche to every detail of Western teaching. That ought to be common sense given the diversity of competing and sometimes contradictory denominational traditions. Catholics, the thousands of different Protestant denominations, and more recently Adventists and Messianics alike have spread their own confusion aided by biased Bible translations. Christianity has spawned many cults and is still doing so. There can be, and undoubtedly were, many reasons why Western missionaries wanted African and Polynesian women converts to cover up their breasts but one of them may have been due distorted Western spiritual and psychological issues. Not all the missionaries immediately compelled the women to cover up and many grew accustomed to bare-breastedness. It was only as sex-starved secularised Europeans arrived that they encouraged the women to conceal their breasts for their sakes but also, no doubt, to protect the women from the predatory activity of foreigners with sexual issues. Western women would have had had a battery of other reasons for wanting African and Asian women to cover up.

This is one reason I strongly favour raising up local missionaries as quickly as possible who know their own people better than foreigners ever possible could without the latter necessarily spending a lifetime there to get to know their traditions properly. That's not to say that locals don't have their own cultural issues too (witchcraft and female genital mutilation immediately spring to mind to name but two, something that local missionaries and ministers tend to compromise on), so we need both insiders with intimate knowledge of the indigenous culture and outsiders with both perspective in order to raise a pure Remnant, a reason end-time apostles will be needed once again who are once more teaching a pure gospel. Each have their blind spots and need each other.

All our societies are rapidly evolving and sadly for the worse. Being topless is still considered non-discreet by our society. Not so the Bible. However, that is changing, but not for the better, because the drive for ever more toplessness and nudity is not purity but sexual immorality because what lies behind it is the desire for promiscuous sex, i.e. to fornication and adultery about which the Bible does not mince words.

This is nothing new. Scripture like Ezekiel 23 make that clear, a prophetic allegory that makes the point as well as being one often abused by those claiming the Bible teaches women must be covered from the wasite upwards:

"The word of Yahweh came to me (Ezekiel): Mortal [man], there were two women, the daughters of one mother; they played the whore (harlot, prostitute) in Egypt; their breasts were caressed there, and their virgin bosoms (nipples) were fondled..." (Ezek.23:1-3, NRSV).

Notice the the female genetalia are not mentioned because everyone knew these were out-of-bounds to all but their husbands. Additionally, there was a strict 'no touching' of women-by-men rule in biblical culture except by close male relatives of a non-sexual nature. It is made clear in the Bible that physical, sensual touching of the breasts is only for their husbands where "may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love" was proverbial (Prov.5:19, NIV). This may surprise even conservative Christians who in the matter of close physical contact such as hugging and touching was forbidden all men save close relatives. The one exception to this rule in New Covenant times was the mouth-to-mouth "holy kiss" (Rom.16:16; 1 Cor.16:20; 2 Cor.13:12; 1 Thes.5:26) which because of impurity and subsequent abuse was (rightly) soon discontinued in the immediate post-apostolic period.

What drives the West now is clearly wicked. For the collective majority of Westerners have "lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more" (Eph.4:19, NIV). Paul said this to the decadent Ephesians 2,000 years ago. It seems nothing much has changed. Might a return to this lawlessness have been prevented? Absolutely. The reasons why are numerous to be sure but contributing to this malaise is undoubtedly an unhealthy and unscriptural attitude towards marital sex, love, plural marriage, dress standards, too much physical contact, and many other things besides. But history cannot be undone, we are where we are, and we must deal with present realities.

What causes postmodernist, feminist Westerners and compromised liberal Christians to press for toplessness and nudity is not, in any case, purity but ungodly lust and sexual immorality. What drives the degenerate West (and indeed elsewhere globally in other cultures too) is clearly wicked. The world has become a moral cesspit. For the collective of Westerners (and indeed throughout the industrialised world and certain degenerate religions) have "lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more" (Eph.4:19, NIV). Paul said this to the hedonistic, decadent Ephesians 2,000 years ago. He could equally well have said it to today's grooming gangs procuring young women for prostitition for the wealthy élites. It seems nothing much has changed.

Might a return to this lawlessness in our time have been prevented? Absolutely. The reasons are too numerous to list but included in this bag of reforms must include changes in attitude to unhealthy and unscriptural views on marrital sex, love, plural marriage, dress standards and many other things besides. But history cannot be undone, we are where we are and we must deal with present realities. The world has become so degenerate that it is going to take divine intervention to be put to rights. I speak of the Judgment and Second Coming. Therefore public toplessness is rightly a no-no for Christians and Messianics today in the hedonistic West and in Western-type cities ouside of Europe and the Anglosphere where western culture now predominates. The moral fabric of modern converts from these places is simply too weak and fragile to allow for public breast exposure. But at the same time we cannot condemn anyone going around topless if they want to by claiming the Bible forbids such because it doesn't... but... this does not mean we cannot expose the ungodly motives of those who are pressing for exposure. And we are under obligation to protect our women and children from sexual predators. Motive determines the spirit of the deed, and the spirit is of primary importance. This is why we, as Messianic Evangelicals, have strict dress standards in public and in our homes when non-family are present.

On his first trip as a Western missionary-cum-pastor to the West African nation of Sierra Leone the local African elder assigned to him to guide and assist him in evangelism balked when asked by the Westerner to instruct all the ladies present to cover up before he started preaching to them. As I mentioned earlier, they had arrived at a waterhole where topless women were doing their laundry. The African brother was quite rightly deeply pained and confused by this request for these women were completely innocent of any impropriety. The Westerner was passing unrighteous judgment on them. In truth, he had a problem with lust that he could not handle, effectively disqualifying him from serving there in that culture. He was insensitive and judgmental, guided as he was by a false biblical interpretation of toplessness which he used to justify protecting against his own sexual weakness.

Now I don't want to be too harsh on this American pastor. If you have been raised to read scripture through a particular cultural lens, as Westerners have, it's going to be hard for you to underdstand what's going on. Let me give you an example. Perhaps the pastor had this scripture in mind, an allegory concerning the redemption of fallen Jerusalem given to the navi (prophet) Ezekiel:

"The word of Yahweh came to me: 'Son of man, confront Jerusalem with her detestable practices and say, 'This is what the Yahweh-Elohim says to Jerusalem: Your ancestry and birth were in the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. On the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to make you clean, nor were you rubbed with salt or wrapped in cloths. No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born you were despised.

"'Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, 'Live!' I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare.

"'Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares Yahweh-Elohim, and you became mine'" (Ezek.16:1-8, NIV)

Here Yahweh recounts Jerusalem's pagan origins as Jebus, a fusion of west Semitic Amorite and the non-Semitic Hittite, describing the city as an outcast and exposed foundling about to perish from neglect (cp. Dt.26:5). The 'female child' (Jebus) is rescued by a passer-by (Yahweh, through David) and thanks to his care grows up into a naked, full-breasted and stately young woman. The language, as you can see, lacks any sort of reticence, because this is our Heavenly Father Yahweh speaking, and He is always open and direct. There is none of your Victorian prudery here, as elsewhere when westerners are confronted by the stark imagery the Song of Solomon, for example. Then, in verse 8, comes the part that interests us in our discussion here. The passer-by (Yahweh) spreads his "skirt" over the girl, plights his troth (makes a solemn oath) and enters into a marriage contract (the marriage covenant). Yahweh then goes on to say:

"'I bathed you with water and washed the blood from you and put ointments on you. I clothed you with an embroidered dress and put leather sandals on you. I dressed you in fine linen and covered you with costly garments. I adorned you with jewelry: I put bracelets on your arms and a necklace around your neck, and I put a ring on your nose, earrings on your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. So you were adorned with gold and silver; your clothes were of fine linen and costly fabric and embroidered cloth. Your food was fine flour, honey and olive oil. You became very beautiful and rose to be a queen. And your fame spread among the nations on account of your beauty, because the splendour I had given you made your beauty perfect, declares Yahweh-Elohim" (Ezek.16:9-14, NIV).

This is not, of course, everyday dress but a full wedding garment with all the finery expected of a Middle Eastern wedding of that time. The important part is verse 8 which shows the basic, minimal covering that is put on a young woman when she comes of age. This is the same action that Boaz performs on Ruth (Ruth 3:10). She is being given a spiritual covering, here represented by a physical dress, and declared the prized possession of her Husband who, in the case of Jerusalem, is Yahweh Himself as an allegorical Bridegroom equivalent to the allegorical Bridegroom who is Christ in the Book of Revelation. The word for 'skirt' or 'garment' in verse 8 is kanaph which is what is draped around the waiste covering the loins with buttocks and genetalia and legs just as a woman's skirt (as opposed to a full dress) does. In other words, the woman's nakedness is removed by having the lower half of her body covered.

I can perfectly well understand how that Western Pastor, had he had this passage in mind, depending on which Bible version he used and how much Hebrew he knew, might well have concluded that the 'skirt' (or the less clear 'garment' in some translations) indicated a total covering of upper and lower parts of the body. Now verses 9 onwards do indeed indicate a total covering but this is specifically a wedding garment that is added to the skirt along with all the jewellry which would never have been worn in everyday life. When Paul complained about the gentiles overdressing with jewels and braided hair he was not, obviously, talking about wedding attire but daily clothing. He was talking about the basics. Women should dress in simplicity so as not to draw attention to themselves, whether covered in their upper half or not as that would be up to them and their husbands. The point being that the necessary covering of a woman is the lower half of her body, and specifically the genetalia and buttocks. Less dress was not to be permitted or tolerated in public and more dress was optional. If the husband prefered she wear more, that was his privilege.

I have heard Ezekiel 16:1-14 abused many times because of a failure to make a clear distinction between the two segments. No woman goes around in full bridal attire. If our cultural upbringing is to clothe women top and bottom then it is more than likely men will be unable to look at naked breasts without being provoked to lust. That's common sense. It takes at least a generation to change cultural habits. Fallen human beings are...fallen human beings...and we need to understand how we 'work'. If every woman were to cover her wrists and expose her breasts, it would the wrists that would in time become the objects of desire. It is our moral and spiritual responsibility to take this into consideration when deciding on a dress code. Now obviously not every Western man is going to react with ungodly desire if he sees a topless woman for the first time but how are you going to distinguish between those who are provoked to ungodly lust and those who are not? Not unless you know them well.

You must also remember that in literal translations of the Bible like the King James Version (KJV) 'uncovering the nakedness' of someone is an idiom that occurs mostly in Leviticus 18 and 20, where it is a euphemism for having sexual relations with a woman, and by extension, dishonoring the husband or family relations of that woman by committing adultery. It occurs a few times in the Prophets, where it refers to the humiliation of a people or nation. It does not mean merely being naked. But if you have a modern version, you're unlikely to encounter the literal words. This is why having a literal translation (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESB) along with a conceptual, dynamic-equivalent one (like the NIV) and a paraphrase (NLT, LB) is really important if you want to understand issues such as toplessness because the dynamic-equivalents and paraphrases 'interpret' far more than literal ones and often obscure or even distort the original meaning. If, for example, you're basing all your theology on the New International Version (NIV) you're going to have trouble at some point.

Let us return one last time to the interesting history of the Minoans and toplessness. Simcha Jacobovici was a Canadian-Israeli filmmaker and journalist who was very interested in Israelite-Aegean connections. Tel Kabri is located in the western Galilee region of Israel. It is a Canaanite site and features rare finds from the Middle Bronze Age i.e., 2100 - 1500 BC. Quite recently, archaeologists found the remains of a palace and a Minoan style fresco in the palace - I mentioned them earlier as you will recall the women of that culture deliberately showed off their breasts in much the same way women show off their hair, lips, legs and other parts of their bodies today. But what, you may wonder, were Minoans doing in Israel some 3,500 years ago? It has actually been suggested by some scholars that modern day Jews, some of whom are the descendants of the Biblical Israelites, are also the last of the ancient Aegeans - the Minoans and the Mycenaeans of Greece. If that sounds far-fetched it's only because we think of the Middle East and the Aegean (including modern day Greece) as two different worlds - studied by two different departments in universities. But once you realise that in ancient times the cultures of the Aegean and the Middle East overlapped, many mysteries are solved.

It may surprise people but the island of Crete, the center of Minoan civilization, is mentioned many times in the Bible. In scripture, Crete is called "Caphtor" as in Genesis 10:13-14, where a connection is made between Caphtor and the Philistines.

Now it is widely acknowledged that the Philistines originally came from the Aegean and settled on the coast of modern day Israel and Gaza. The Book of Exodus refers to "the way of the Philistines" (Exodus 13:17) i.e., the coastline road between Egypt and Israel. According to scholars, the Philistines arrived in the area around 1200 BC. From this perspective, the Biblical Exodus must have happened around that time, or else the Bible would not be mentioning the Philistines. But I believe that the archaeological evidence points to an earlier date for the Exodus - around 1500 BC. What this means is the Philistines must have arrived on the scene 300 years earlier than we thought. How can that be? Well, at the beginning, the "Philistines" may not have been a specific people. The term may have been a generic name for Aegeans. The people that the Bible calls Philistines may have arrived in 1200 BCE, but their predecessors, the Minoans, may have been in the Middle East long before that. In fact, the latest archaeology suggests that there was an Aegean presence in Israel as early as 1600 BC! Besides the recent findings at Tel Kabri, Minoan wall paintings have been found all along the coast from the Egyptian Delta to Qatna in Syria, to Alalakh in Turkey. What this means is that there were Minoans in the area and they seem to have had a "road" or "way" that ran along the coast. This is perfect synchronicity between the Biblical text and the Minoan archaeology.

Once we realise that we can look in the Aegean for Biblical archaeology, previously unnoticed evidence for the Biblical narrative suddenly comes to light. For example, a Minoan wall painting was found in Santorini on the Greek island of Thera that depicts a magical city on a kind of man-made island in the Nile. This image perfectly fits with ancient Avaris - the city of the Ivri or Hebrews - discovered in the Egyptian Delta and dating to the time of the Exodus.

The evidence keeps mounting and it throws new light on the Book of Exodus. For example, when the Bible says that a "mixed multitude" (Exodus 12:38) followed Moses out of Egypt into the desert and eventually into Canaan, we now realise based on the new findings that some of this "multitude" must have been Aegean, specifically Minoans, one of the seven known ethnic divisions of that country.

Right after the Exodus, the Mycenaeans show up in the Aegean. Who are these people? They called themselves Danoi. Many years ago, the legendary Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin suggested a connection between the Danoi and the Israelite tribe of Dan. Both were sea-farers (see The Song of Deborah in Judges 5:17), both lived along the coast of the Mediterranean and the only place other than Mycenae that Aegean shaft graves have been found is Tel Dan in northern Israel. In other words, Minoans might have joined the Israelites on the Biblical Exodus while some Danites might have settled Greece right after that same event. Not all Israelites followed Moses. The Danoi and the 'Danites' may have been intimately related, a connection not made until now.

Once you realise the intimate contact between the Aegean and the Middle East at the time of the Biblical Exodus, you also start realising that the great competitors to the Israelites in terms of religion were not the Egyptians but the Aegeans. For example, the golden calf, traditionally identified as the Egyptian bull-god 'Apis', may have been part of a 'bull jumping' ceremony depicted on Minoan wall paintings. As another example, the Egyptians wore set-apart, holy fringes or tassels (tzitzit in Hebrew) that had a red thread among them, representing the blood of the goddess Isis. In contrast, the Minoans wore blue fringes - just as the Torah commands (Numbers 15:37-41) and religious Jews wear to this day! All of this shows that there was cultural exchange going on though in which direction is always open to debate. Who borrowed from who? Liberals, determined to show the Bible borrowed from the pagans to justify their pagan lifestyles, nearly always assume its only in one direction [5].

This is a very large subject indeed and one that has fascinated me for years in my search for the ten lost tribes of Israel. Elsewhere I have written about those Israelites who did not leave Egypt with Moses but who went their own way, including some Danites and Judahites who emigrated to Ireland and Scotland. It is not at all inconceivable that some of these settled elsewhere too at that time, including the Aegean. About all we can be certain of is there are defininte Aegean connections and that the Danites and the Danoi, the Philistines and the Minoans, the mixed multitude of Israelites 'exodusing' Egypt, all inhabited the same Bronze Age world. That's common sense really. And when we examine that world, we notice that some Danoi from Greece come across through time as the most Israelite of the pagans, and the Danites of Israel come across as the most pagan of the Israelites, for you will know the tribe of Dan apostacised quite soon after relocating from the territory assigned them by Joshua next to the Phillistines. In order to escape their predations, they went to the northern tip of the country, conquering the relatively isolated pagan city of Laish (Judg.18:7,14,27-29).

In the Book of Maccabees, it states that the Spartans of Greece were related to the Judeans (1 Maccabees 12:1-23). Ancient Sparta is no more, but Jerusalem stands. Unlike Simcha Jacobovici, though, I do not believe the oversimplistic assertion that the last of the Minoans are the Jews of today or the very liberal and fanciful assertion that they still carry ancient Aegean traditions that found their way into the Torah. This notion comes from a 19th centiury fabrication of some sort of linear connection between ancient Jews and modern Israelis, thus contradicting logic and all the historical knowledge we have. We must be careful with such fanciful claims. Rather, ancient Israelites found their way into the Aegean - whether by migration or through trade, and at various times in history, and even latterly as a result of the Assyrian explusions - and played a rôle in Sparta, Troy and Mycaenia. Neither is this to suggest that these Danoi introduced bare-breastedness into Israel or anything as fanciful as that as we have already established that toplessness was common to all cultures in the Mediterranean and indeed to all nations globally before the advent of Catholicism and later Islam. But might Mycaenean art (which was highly developped), including fashion, have found its way into Israel too? Given the evidence for the presence of Minoan copper mining in ancient America along with even a Hebrew presence, all of this seems that more probable. If you want to pursue this line of research, see Turning Right at The Burning Bush by Roger L. Williamson.

You may wonder why I have made this deviation into Minoan affairs. The reason is simple. To show not only that bare-breastedness was common throughout the ancient Eastern Mediterannean in both Israel and surrounding pagan nations and that Yahweh nowhere attempted to prevent this shared public reality as He did in the matter of religious customs, kosher food laws, and so on, where the separation was very strict in order to prevent spiritual contamination, but bare-breastedness was, in additional to being incidental for convenience and comfort in hot climates, also celebrated by at least some Israelites adopting and adapting Minoan dress fashions. The ease and frequency with which bare-breastedness is discussed in, for example, the Song of Solomon, alongside other human features admired by the human eye and celebrated as part of the glorious handiwork of Elohim (God), whereas the genetalia and buttocks never are, clearly demonstrates that breasts were regarded as part of the natural, non-sexual realm, as they still are in large areas of rural Africa (the Zulus and Swazis being perhaps the best known tribes who still accept this practice) and elsewhere around the world. When Adam and Eve fell they hid and Father Yahweh made skins to conceal their genetalia, not their tops.

This does not mean, as I have been at pains to point out in this essay, that Christian women should rush out and go bare-breasted in public. Why not? Because the climate of innocence and purity has all but completely disappeared. We live in a cesspool of vice and filth in the world system. Before bare-breasedness can possibly ever be allowed in public again with divine approbation, there must first be a total cleansing and that will almost certainly not happen until all the wicked either repent and convert or are judged and removed at the Second Coming or before. In the present extreme immoral climate therefore, toplessness is simply too risky and dangerous for women, and out of consideration for their safety and spiritual wellbeing we cannot recommend it. At the same time, though, Western and other Christians are clearly wrong to condemn those who practice bare-breastedness in cultures where this is normal and non-sexual. Western missionaries and others were wrong to order natives to cover up because of their own spiritual issues and human traditions. Where toplessness is still normal and accepted by the vast majority of a culture, the people living this way should be left alone and not be falsely guilted into imitating alien cultures such as our own when they convert to the Gospel. Such innocence is rather to be praised, not condemned. Everywhere else, though, Christians and Messianics should cover up fully so as not to attract the evil eye of ungodly lust and the spirit of rape.

At the same time, believers need to start teaching the biblical truth about this subject and to stop imposing Victorian standards on the biblical text for this innocence will undoubtedly return once again in the future Millennium. Though it will take at least a generation to ease humanity back to the ancient paths (and in not just this area), it will happen. Will the Edenic innocence of complete nakedness ever return to the world? Almost certainly not. The Torah way will prevail in the Millennium, according to Scripture, and that does not allow for complete nakedness in open society. Whether such an Edenic condition will return in a post-Millennial world is presently unknown and far too distant in any case to be of any concern of ours. My own view is that if it does, it will only be in the highest glory (what Paul calls the glory like that of the sun - 1 Cor.15:41; cp. Is.60:19; Rev.21:23) and our clothing will be of pure light which only the completely pure-in-heart will be able to see past. In other words, this would be the natural state in a post-millennial, first resurrection world but not in any natural world like our own or in a second resurrection world. In the meantime we are not to make of something a sin that Yahweh nowhere condemns as sin, nor assigns a Torah-penalty for committing it.

Finally, remember also we are not to set stumbling blocks before the weak in faith and those not acculturated to a topless society as they are in certain parts of the world. Does that mean that if, for example, a Westerner weak in the faith is visiting, say, a Swazi Reed Dance where there is mass toplessness, for whom seeing naked breasts would be a temptation to lust and immorality, should he expect the Swazis to cover up for him? No, it means he should not attend such an event! He should proactively avoid temptation at all costs! What if a Swazi lady accustomed to bare-breastedness visited the West or a Western-type Christian congregation where toplessness is regarded as taboo? She should cover up, of course! This is common sense and in line with Paul's clear teachings. And to answer your question on nudist colonies, I would only point out that full public nudity is not allowed of Christians and that such places tend to be infiltrated by pedophiles. Be wise, don't force your values or traditions on others, recognise where people are in their spiritual walk. They must grow and mature in their own time and at their own pace. There are, after all, far more important pressing issues than toplessness that need to be urgently addressed in our society. Why have I, then, written such a long article on this topic? Because you asked me to, and to be thorough as I always try to be. This was not, in any case, written for voyeurs and others demonised by the spirits of fornication and lust. They shouldn't even be reading this. This has been to set the biblial record straight and to trace the history of toplessness, at least in outline. I hope, then, that this has answered your questions satisfactorily.

Endnotes

[1] The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Oxford University Press, Oxford: 1978)
[2] See the video documentary, Haute Couture in Ancient Greece: The Spectacular Costumes of Ariadne & Helen of Troy. This should not be shown to, or viewed by, men with a weak conscience who might be sexually aroused by the sight of naked breasts.
[3] See The Wikipedia History of Nudity
[4] See Simcha Jacobovici, Last of the Minoans
[5] As, for example, with the global flood narratives found in nearly every ancient culture - did the Bible borrow from the Mesoptamian Epic of Gilgamesh or the other way round? Liberals and atheists assume the former because it suits (and therefore justifies) their chosen lifestyles.
[6] Courtesy Eric H. Cline & the Tel Kabri Excavation Project

Further Reading

[1] Did Women in Biblical Times Always Cover Their Upper Bodies in Public?