The Doctrine Of Clothing

The Doctrine Of Clothing

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, March 12, 2026 (Donate)

Introduction

One of my favorite discussions with unbelievers is about clothing. Those who don’t follow Christ’s Word (e.g., secular humanists, naturalists, Eastern mystics, pagans, spiritualists, etc.) still wear clothes. But why?

You need to understand that clothing is a Christian doctrine that comes from a literal Genesis 3! From a Christian perspective, we expect people all around the world to wear clothing because this doctrine has been passed down from Adam and Eve through the Flood with Noah and then to the whole world as people were scattered at Babel. So, the reality is that other worldviews and religions borrow this doctrine from the Bible whether they realize it or not.

Good! My kiddos are wearing their clothes! 

Let’s go back to the beginning of clothing—because when God made man, they were not ashamed and were made in pure innocence without apparel.

Origin of Clothing

In the beginning, Adam and Eve were created in a perfect world (Genesis 1:31, Deuteronomy 32:4) and were originally unclothed without shame. This is what makes illustrations of Adam and Eve so difficult in today’s culture—to be accurate, we have to have an amazing use of vegetation!

Genesis 2:25 (NKJV) states,

“And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

Their nakedness reflected God’s innocence in their own creation—being made int eh image of an innocent God. The world was absence of sin. However, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, their moral condition changed immediately. They committed treason against God and His Word and their innocence was no more.

Genesis 3:7 (NKJV) explains the first human response to sin:

“Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.”

This first attempt at clothing came from human effort as a result of their minds’ broken effect from sin. The coverings of fig leaves, which are scratchy and causes a bad rash, show they were in a hurry to hide their nakedness. But their effort was inadequate.  

Close up edge of a fig leaf to show how it is scratchy

They now had shame and wanted to cover that shame. It also shows the insufficiency of man’s attempt to correct the new path of sin they were now drowning in.

Only God was in a position to rescue man. God Himself provided the first “proper” clothing. Genesis 3:21 (NKJV) declares,

“Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.”

These tunics or coats of skins reveal that death was now part of the creation. God warned that their disobedience by eating would lead to death (Genesis 2:17). And it happened just as God predicted. The punish for sin was death, so the solution had to involve death.

Plants are not living in a biblical sense (in our modern biological sense we say they are) but plants have no soulish life like man or animals. Man is further distinct from animals in that we have an eternal soul that is made in the image of our eternal God.

But because animals have soulish life (nephesh chayyah in Hebrew), this allows God to provide a substitute for man—albeit, it was only a temporary covering because animals are not eternal and not equal to God. This is why animals sacrifices from Genesis 3 forward could not truly satisfy the eternal and infinite wrath of God on sin.

This first sacrifice, therefore, shows God’s mercy toward fallen humanity. Also, it has the death of an animal, which is the foundation for the concept of sacrifice and substitution. The shedding of blood begins the sacrificial system (outlined in great detail in the Law of Moses) and ultimately points to Christ, the Lamb of God, who would die to satisfy the full punishment of the sin of mankind.

Thus, the doctrine of clothing in Genesis 3 teaches that clothing exists because of the Fall and the reality of man’s sin and shame. Wearing clothes is a covering for human nakedness and points to the need for atonement.

One has to be clever in our depictions of Adam and Eve; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

God Himself established clothing as the proper response to fallen man’s sinful condition, It also reveals that modest covering of the body is part of living in a post-Fall world—hence again, the clever use of vegetation in illustrations of Adam and Eve! In this way, clothing is both a practical and theological matter. We use it to point back to the seriousness of sin and forward to God’s substitution of Christ on our behalf unto salvation and redemption.

Clothing In Discussions With Materialists And Eastern Spiritualists

See why this is a great topic to discuss with unbelieving persons? Within their own worldviews, they can’t make sense of why they wear clothes! And yet, there they are wearing clothes.

Materialistic Worldview

For example, in a materialistic, naturalistic worldview where there was an alleged big bang form nothing, and millions of years of time when man supposedly evolved from animals—why wear clothes? If man is no different from ants or squirrels, why wear clothes? They don’t get up in the morning and put on clothes.

I’ve had some argue that they wear clothes because it was cold out—but these same people wear clothes when it is warm out! This shows the inconsistency in their argument.

Some materialists argue that animals, like squirrels, have hair to keep to warm—but we have hair too all over our bodies!

Eastern Gray Squirrel; Photo by Bodie Hodge

They might respond that if we didn’t wear clothes we would die in the cold—at which time you can remind them that in the materialistic, naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, that that means you should die and get out of way for superior creatures to take your place—this is what survival of the fittest is all about in an evolutionary worldview!

Other materialists might argue that they use their intelligence to fight against the effects of survival of the fittest and so they wear clothes. Then one can simply ask what is mass of intelligence—which is conceptual shouldn’t exist if they were consistent with their professed materialistic worldview!

As you can see, these arguments fall tragically short! This is because within their own professed religion, they really can’t make sense of clothing and the truth is that they are merely borrowing this doctrine from a Christian worldview.

Eastern Mystical Spiritual Worldview

The spirit-only worldviews of Eastern Mystics fare no better! In Eastern religions, they argue that all is one and all is spirit. This is called “monism”.

They argue that nothing physical exists but that we are all deceived into thinking that physical things exist. Thus, they claim, in Hinduism for example, that we are in the world of maya (i.e., the world of illusion) and that the physical world doesn’t exist.

So why wear clothes if clothes don’t really exist? Why spend money, which doesn’t really exist, on clothes, that don’t really exist? See the massive inconsistency? Thus, it is false; and they are borrowing the doctrine of clothing from a biblical understanding whether they realize it or not.

I hope these two examples, give you a taste of how powerful it can be when talking to people about clothing!

Modest Dress And Types Of Clothing From A Biblical Perspective

Scripture teaches that clothing should reflect modesty, humility, and godly character. This helps us avoid things like enticing lust, pride, or sensuality. The apostle Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:9-10 (NKJV),

“In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.”

In other words, there is no need to overdo it! This doesn’t just pertain to external garments and garnishings but really it is to affect the heart and a humble attitude expressed by how we dress.

My modest dress here included a riding helmet—guess what I was doing! Photo by Bodie Hodge

Modesty in the Bible obviously involves covering the body appropriately and avoiding clothing intended to provoke lust or draw excessive attention. Since clothing originated as a covering for shame after the Fall, we should continue to dress modestly. This helps us have a kind and humble dignity and respect for our bodies as God’s creation.

The Bible also acknowledges distinctions in clothing between men and women. Deuteronomy 22:5 (NKJV) says,

“A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.”

This passage affirms that clothing should reflect the God-designed distinction between male and female. Sadly, in our secularized culture, even this aspect of the doctrine of clothing has come under attack.

Conclusion

At the same time, the Bible does not prescribe a single universal style of clothing—so there is plenty of freedom and various cultures often reflect that liberty. Throughout Scripture people wore tunics, robes, cloaks, belts, sandals, and head coverings depending on culture and climate. The biblical concern is not fashion but principles. Clothing should be modest, honorable, and consistent with one’s identity as a man or woman created in God’s image.

Therefore, from a biblical perspective, proper clothing serves hosts of purposes: covering nakedness, maintaining modesty, expressing humility, and we can even preserve the distinction between male and female while allowing cultural flexibility in specific garments.

So much more could be said about clothing, and I want to encourage you to visit your local church if you have specific questions regarding this beautiful doctrine.

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist defending 6-day creation and opposing evolution since 1998. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Mr. Hodge earned a Bachelor and Master of Science degrees from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC). Then he taught at SIUC for a couple of years as a Visiting Instructor teaching all levels of undergraduate engineering and running a materials lab and a CAD lab. He did research on advanced ceramic materials to develop a new method of production of titanium diboride with a grant from Lockheed Martin. He worked as a Test Engineer for Caterpillar, Inc., prior to entering full-time ministry.

His love of science was coupled with a love of history, philosophy, and theology. For about one year of his life, Bodie was editing and updating a theological, historical, and scientific dictionary/encyclopedia for AI use and training. Mr. Hodge has over 25 years of experience in writing, speaking and researching in these fields.

 

Noah, A Global Flood, And The Case Against Racism

Feedback: Noah, A Global Flood, And The Case Against Racism

Bodie Hodge and Dr. Tommy Mitchell

Biblical Authority Ministries, March 10, 2026 (Donate) 

[Editor’s note: Here is an old feedback article I co-authored with a dear friend who I miss, who passed into glory years ago; all verses NKJV] 

Letter unedited: 

The Bible does not say that all races came from Noah and his three sons. Noah was white, he was perfect in his generation, he was a direct descendant of Adam. In Hebrew Adam literally means white man blood in the face red. Adam is the father of the white race, no other. Noah's flood was local. If everybody came from Noah than why did God condemn interracial relations and marriage. It shouldn't make a difference. Ask a doctor if you can receive a blood transfusion from a black man. He will say no because the blood types are not related. You could get very sick and die. All the races made it through the flood. This is an archeological, anthropological, and historical fact. Noah was a white man, and his sons were white. They cannot produce black children, asian children, or children of any other race.

T.G., U.S.A 

Response:

Thank you for contacting the ministry. We often receive correspondence such as this, and we are taking the opportunity to respond to this one in kindness to help correct the false theology in this letter.

The Bible does not say that all races came from Noah and his three sons.

There are two things wrong right off the start. First, the Bible doesn’t lump people into multiple “races.”

Second, the Bible does teach that people throughout the entire earth are descendants of Noah.

Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated (Genesis 9:18-19).

The Bible indicates that all people came through Noah and his sons since all other humans and land animals died in the Flood (Genesis 7:21-23). But let’s back up even further. On the sixth day of creation, God made the land animals and man. Thus, Adam and the Woman were made on that day. Genesis 3:20 says,

“And Adam called his wife Eve; because she was mother of all the living.”

Adam and Eve were likely middle brown in skin tone; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Note that Scripture indicates that Eve was mother of all, not some, of the living. Obviously, this is referring to humans; otherwise, other so-called races of humans weren’t living! Therefore, all humans trace their ancestry back to these two people, Adam and Eve.

Different people groups developed after the Flood from the descendants of Noah. After the Flood, all people spoke the same language. Genesis 11 explains that God confused their languages at the Tower of Babel to force them to scatter over the earth. This scattering isolated portions of the human gene pool geographically.

The physical characteristics of various ethnic groups developed in these isolated groups due to the sorting and isolation of genetic information already present in man’s DNA. The information in that DNA had originally been present in Adam’s DNA and has just been shuffled and sorted. Therefore, the development of so-called races has nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution. All people groups are still humans, descended from one original human. The book of Acts confirms that humans are all related:

"And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings (Acts 17:26).

All men are related and of “one blood” through Noah and, ultimately, Adam and Eve. Even secular scientists are finally realizing that all the so called “races” are, indeed, one blood.[1]

Noah was white,

The Bible does not say that Noah was “white”. In fact no one is “white”, we are all brownish in tone—some more some less. The Bible never describes Noah’s physical appearance. He could have just as easily had a variety of features. To make such a dogmatic claim without a Scriptural basis would imply that you are omnipresent and omniscient.

National Geographic lined up a bunch of girls to show that skin tone was largely based on a brownish pigment called melanin; Adam and Eve were likely in the middle; Credit: National Geographic's "Skin Information and Facts"

he was perfect in his generation, he was a direct descendant of Adam.

Everyone, including Noah, was a direct descendent of Adam, but that didn’t make them perfect in their generation. Everyone, including Noah and Adam, was a sinner. Noah was called perfect in his generations because he found grace in the eyes of the Lord (Genesis 6:8-9). Hebrews 11:7 explains that Noah’s righteousness was by faith. In other words, like all people in his generation, Noah was a sinner.

But unlike the other people, Noah trusted in God’s forgiving grace. As a result, as Genesis 6:9 says, Noah walked with God. Noah was even a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5). Noah escaped death in the worldwide Flood because of his faith in God’s grace, not because he was a white man, directly descended from Adam.

In Hebrew Adam literally means white man blood in the face red.

Strong’s Concordance says that Adam’s name in Hebrew means “to show blood in the face, red, ruddy, rosy, a human being.” This Hebrew word has nothing to do with being white.

According to the Bible, the life of the flesh is in the blood. When God breathed life into Adam, Adam became a living soul. Perhaps the association of life with blood explains God’s name for Adam. Some have tried to make the assertion that Adam was red-skinned or red haired, but there is no reason to think his name referred to these features over the red life-blood. God’s name for the first man implied nothing about white skin.

Adam is the father of the white race, no other.

What do you mean by “white”? Irish? Russians? The claim that Adam was “white” is pure conjecture and totally unsupportable. Nothing in Scripture suggests that Adam was “white” or that Adam was the father of only “white” people.

Adam and Eve, and later Noah and his wife, probably had skin tones closer to middle brown. Adam’s DNA had to contain information for a wide variety of skin tones. Only in this way could human DNA possess the genetic variability to produce the many skin tones we now see. Shuffling and sorting of this genetic information produces a variety of skin tones.

Potential style of Babel; Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

After the scattering of people from the Tower of Babel, genetic information was sorted and isolated into many geographic areas. Certain groups lost the ability to produce children of other skin shades because the genetic information for those skin shades was not present in their population group.

Noah's flood was local.

Noah’s flood was global, not local. But don’t take our word for it; let's see what the Bible has to say.

The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered (Genesis 7:18-20).

Image from Presentation Library

Additionally, there are many problems with the claim that Noah’s Flood was local. For instance:

1. Why did God tell Noah to build an Ark? If the Flood had been only local, Noah and his family could have just moved to higher ground or over the mountain to avoid the flood waters.
2. The wicked people that the Flood was intended to destroy could have escaped God’s judgment in the same manner.
3. Why take all the birds on the Ark when they could have flown over the hill!
4. If the Flood were local, then God would be a liar, for God promised in Genesis 9:11 never to send a Flood to destroy the earth again. Yet the world has seen many local floods.

Over the years, we have found that there are primarily two groups of people who promote a local flood for Noah’s day:

1. Those who believe that the geologic layers represent millions of years instead of a global Flood.
2. Those that are “racist” and insist that people of a particular shade of skin are not Adam and Noah’s kin, and survived outside the Ark.

Why take such preconceived beliefs to the Bible to try to twist Genesis 6-9? I want to encourage readers to read these passages and then ask: how, biblically, can people get a local flood out of these chapters? The Bible should be starting point, not an afterthought for our theology.

If everybody came from Noah than why did God condemn interracial relations and marriage. It shouldn't make a difference.

Where did God condemn “interracial” marriage? He doesn’t. God doesn’t lump people into multiple “races” anyway. The concept of “races” is a man-made idea.

Since there is only one race of humans, “interracial relations” makes no difference from a biological point of view.[2] However, from a spiritual point of view, marriages make a huge difference. God told the children of Israel not to intermarry with people from other cultures who were not godly (Deuteronomy 7:3–4). These were pagan cultures with their own customs and their own gods and would lead people astray. God knew that intermarrying with these people would soon lead them away from the worship of the one true God.

One only need look to the life of Solomon, who far exceeded others in wisdom (1 Kings 4:29-32), to see the effect that taking strange wives had on his life and his descendants. To maintain Israel as a peculiar people, God wanted separation from pagan cultures, but not by “racial” division. After all, Rahab (Canaanite) and Ruth (Moabite), who were not Israelites, were incorporated when they changed to serve the true God.

In the Bible, there is only one type of marriage that is forbidden. That is a marriage between a saved and an unsaved person:

Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14).

Again, this mimicked the command to the Israelites to not marry people who are not seeking after God and would lead both the person and their children astray.

Ask a doctor if you can receive a blood transfusion from a black man. He will say no because the blood types are not related. You could get very sick and die.

I (Dr. Tommy Mitchell, a medical internist) don’t have to ask a doctor. I am a doctor. What you state is absolutely incorrect. Blood is not typed on the basis of race. It is typed on the basis of antigens found on the red blood cells. It is ultimately more complicated than this. This is the basis for the ABO blood grouping and the Rh antigen typing classifications. When one needs a blood transfusion, the donor blood is checked for these various antigens to determine if it is compatible with the recipient’s immune system.

A transfusion of improperly matched blood can lead to a serious reaction (and sometimes even death) to the person receiving the blood. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with “race.” In fact, it is common in transplant medicine to find the closest tissue match from someone from another “race” as was the case in Blood brothers.

All the races made it through the flood. This is an archeological, anthropological, and historical fact. Noah was a white man, and his sons were white.

I agree that all the “races”, if such a term could even be used, made it through the Flood, but not at the sake of forsaking Genesis 6-9 as a local Flood. The authors’ term here would be “people groups”, not “races” anyway. All people groups are the descendants of Noah and his family. These eight people ultimately gave rise to all people groups on earth. Thus, we would agree that it is an anthropological and historical fact.

But we will go one step further. Archaeologically and anthropologically, most of the people in Africa are descendants of Cush, Mizraim, and Phut, three of Noah’s great grandsons. Mizraim is still the Hebrew name for Egypt. Parts of modern day Libya and Morocco is the land of Phut and was Libya was renamed for one of Mizraim’s sons named Lybyos (Lehabites). Ethiopians still calls themselves Cushites today! The indigenous African continent is primarily inhabited by people who go back to Noah’s son Ham outside some places on Mediterranean coast. This has rarely been disputed in history, and even Josephus, writing nearly 2000 years ago confirms this.[3] In fact, Noah’s descendants’ names can be found in many parts of the world, if one takes the time to look. The following chart shows a few:

	Early Descendant of Noah	What is it?[4]
Aramaic	Aram	This language came out of Babel and still survives, likely with changes down the ages. Some short parts of the Bible are written in Aramaic. Jesus spoke it on the cross when He said: “ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” (Mark 15:34)
Cush	Cush	Ancient name of Ethiopia. In fact, people of Ethiopia still call themselves Cushites.
Medes	Madai	People group often associated with the Persians
Ashkenaz	Ashkenaz	This is still the Hebrew name for Germany
Galacia, Gaul, and Galicia	Gomer	These regions are the old names for an area in modern Turkey, France, and Northwestern Spain respectively, where Gomer was said to have lived. His family lines continued to spread about across southern Europe. The book of Galatians by Paul was written to the church at Galatia.
Gomeraeg	Gomer	This is the old name for the Welsh language on the British Isles from their ancestor, Gomer, whose ancestors began to populate the Isle from the mainland.
Javan	Javan	This is still the Hebrew name for Greece. His sons, Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim (Chittim), and Dodanim still have reference to places in Greece. For example, Paul, the author who penned much of the New Testament, was from the region of Tarshish (Acts 21:39) and a city called Tarsus. Jeremiah mentions Kittim in Jeremiah 2:10 and is modern day Cyprus (and other nearby ancient regions that now have varied names such as Cethim, Citius, Cethima Cilicia). The Greeks worshiped Jupiter Dodanaeus from Japheth/Dodanim. The Elysians, were ancient Greek people.
Meshech/ Moscow	Mechech	Mechech is the old name for Moscow, Russia, and one region called the Mechech Lowland still holds the original name today as does a state park.
Canaan	Canaan	The region of Palestine that God removed from the Canaanites for their sin and gave as an inheritance to the Israelites beginning with the conquest of Joshua. It is often termed the Holy Land and is where modern-day Israel resides.
Elamites	Elam	This was the old name for the Persians prior to Cyrus.
Assyria	Asshur	Asshur is still the Hebrew name for Assyria.
Hebrew	Eber	This people group and language was named for Eber. Abraham was a Hebrew, and the bulk of the Old Testament is written in Hebrew.
Libya	Lybyos	Mizraim’s son and modern-day Libya, the same region is also known as the land of Phut, one of Noah’s grandsons
Taurus/Toros	Tarshish	A mountain range in Turkey
Tanais	Tarshish	The old name of the Don River flowing into the Black Sea.
Mizraim	Mizraim	This is still the Hebrew name for Egypt.

 

They cannot produce black children, asian children, or children of any other race.

Since the sorting of genetic material that has occurred after the Tower of Babel, many darker skinned peoples have lost the ability to have light skinned children. By the same token, many light skinned peoples have lost the variability needed to produce darker-skinned offspring.[5]

Perhaps you did not know what the Bible teaches, or perhaps you have been taught these beliefs and didn’t test them against the Scriptures. I pray that you would consider what is written here in response and be like the Bereans who “searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11).

In kindness with Christ,

Dr. Tommy Mitchell and Bodie Hodge

Originally at Answers in Genesis; Edited; Republished by permission. 

---

[1] “Dr. Venter (head of the Celera Genomics Corporation, Rockville, MD) and scientists at the National Institutes of Health recently announced that they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome, and the researchers had unanimously declared, there is only one race-the human race.” (Natalie Angier, Do races differ? Not Really, DNA shows, New York Times, Aug. 22, 2000.)

[2] In Leviticus 18, God forbade marriage between close relations. He knew, as one reason, that at that point due to mutations in the gene pool, the risk of birth defects would be greatly increased. Even though we all still marry a relative (as we all are related as descendants of Adam and Eve), a union between more distantly related people would be less likely to produce problems in offspring. This instruction from God has nothing to do with race.

[3] Josephus, The Antiquity of the Jews, 1st Century A.D. in: William Whiston, The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, 1987, pp. 36-37.

[4] Josephus, The Antiquity of the Jews, 1st Century A.D. in: William Whiston, The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, 1987, pp. 36-37; Bill Cooper, After the Flood, New Wine Press, 1995, pp. 170-208; Harold Hunt with Russell Grigg, The sixteen grandsons of Noah, Creation 20(4), September 1998, pages 22-25; there are many other references to these as well ,but this should suffice to get you started including James Anderson’s Royal Genealogies. 

[5] This is assuming they marry within their own ethnic/people group and little genetic material that had been lost is reintroduced into the gene pool.