Christian Nudists

Dave-W said:

Those instructions applied ONLY to the priests.

Click to expand...

MyChainsAreGone said:

L2W,

Thanks for your response and use of Scriptures.

These were the passages that I too had always heard that taught us to "stay clothed."

But that's why I used the phrase "serious and honest" about studying this from the Scriptures... when studied seriously and truly honestly (being willing for the passages to NOT support our own presuppositions), I found that they failed to support any sort of nudity taboo.

Let me illustrate... by commenting on each of the scriptures you referenced.


This is a command that the passage itself limits to the Aaronic priestly line. Not all Israel had to follow it... not all the Levites, even. And interestingly, it only applied to the Aaronic priests when they were serving at the altar. That's clear from Exodus 28:1-4. It is reiterated in Exodus 28:40-43.

So... this is not a passage that teaches about clothing for all people at all time... it was just for the Aaronic priests and only while they were serving at the altar.


This one was more general (applied to everyone), but when you ask some "why?" questions, the purpose and meaning is more difficult to nail down.

If this were a particular rejection of any exposure of the body, then ALL steps should have been banned. Yet, it was only steps up to an altar. Why? The answer has to be something that is about the Altar and what's going on there.

And then, there's the meaning of the word "nakedness." Why would that word be used when the people weren't actually naked?

Let me address the second question first... The Hebrew word, ervah is the word translated here as "nakedness." I've thoroughly studied this word's usage throughout the OT... and the consistent usage of it is that it's not just "simple exposure" of body parts, but also the active usage of the exposed body parts... and that usage is usually sexual.

Now the first question... why was the "steps" prohibition only applied to an altar? I think the answer here lies in the fact that the nations around Israel at that time engaged in orgiastic idol worship. God gave Israel a number of laws designed to contrast their worship of YHWH with the false worship of their neighbors.

So, the most compelling answer to the "why" questions is that God did not want the worship by lay people (or the priests) to even hint at being like the orgiastic worship of their neighbors.

This means therefore that these passages are not about some sort of hostility that God holds towards the exposed human form, but about the purity of His people's worship.


First of all here, the word translated "unpresentable" doesn't actually mean that... the word is aschema which really just means "ugly" for all practical purposes (a = not or bad; schema = design or form). So... some body parts are not as visually attractive as others... we can all acknowledge that. And, to Paul's point, those "ugly" body parts have become all the more important to use because of their function.

But if you would suggest that this passage defends or commands the covering of those "ugly" body parts, then you'd also have to conclude that Paul is teaching that there are people in the body of Christ (the church) which also should be "hidden" and not acknowledged publicly. But that notion is exactly contrary to what Paul is teaching! He's actually suggesting that we bestow greater honor (and acknowledgement/visibility) on people who would not get it naturally as a result of their function within the church!

So... this passage cannot be teaching that certain body parts are "unpresentable" or must be covered.


The really odd thing about this passage is that rather than proving that public nudity is wrong, it actually proves that public nudity was pretty normal when Jesus spoke these words.

You see, people typically owned only a very few garments... many times, only one (and Jesus told people that if they had two, they should be willing to share with someone who had none). And in order to not soil that one garment they had, when working in the fields (as in Jesus' word picture here), they typically worked nude while doing the hot and sweaty work. That way, they could just jump into a stream or river at the end of their work day, air dry, and put their clean clothes back on.

It evidently was also common enough that they didn't even bother taking their clothes with them to the fields where they were working... or else Jesus' words would make no sense. Why would Jesus need to tell people to keep their clothes with them while in the field if it was not pretty common for people to be working in the field without them?

It's also worth noting that the translation you quoted is adding something to the text when it says "keeping his garments ON"... because the original text just says "keeping his garments"... meaning "keeping them close by" rather than back at the house where the thief is ransacking their belongings. Jesus was not telling them that they had to work clothed, but that it was wiser to have your clean clothes close by while working naked! It wasn't a problem to be "exposed," it was a problem to get caught unprepared by the thief (THE point Jesus was trying to make) and for that to be obvious to everyone else because you're stuck wandering around without any clothes when you were not working and when most everyone else was clothed. Jesus' point? Don't be unprepared. It was NOT a teaching about the morality of nudity.

I'm sorry for the long responses, but it so happens that these passages have been misused for so long to promote a nudity-taboo that it takes a bit more than "but that passage doesn't really mean what you think it means." to make the case.

Oddly enough, it wasn't just these four passages that fell apart under close scrutiny and failed to support a biblical "nudity-taboo," but EVERY passage ever used to promote a biblical "nudity-taboo" teaching fell apart in the same way when subjected to honest interpretational scrutiny.

And one more point... it's very important to go beyond just the English translations of the Scriptures and look at the original language words, because the English translations sometimes introduce a bias of what the translator thinks it means, rather than just what the original text says.

I've done a paper on the word ervah in Hebrew that you can review if you like... it deals more fully with both of the first 2 passages you mentioned.

Nakedness in the OT

I've also done a paper that deals with last two passages... it exposed how modern translations have great difficulty in transparently translating passages that have anything to do with nudity unless it seems to portray an antagonism towards it. It is interesting to observe that the KJV is a lot less squeamish than the more recent translations.

Squeamish Translating

Read them and see if you think I'm not being faithful the the actual meaning of the Scriptural texts. If you feel I'm in error, I'm happy to hear any correction.

David

Click to expand...

Dave-W said:

Those instructions applied ONLY to the priests.

Click to expand...

Lost4words said:

Still, we have naked priests saying mass in naked congregations!

Click to expand...

Lost4words said:

Still, we have naked priests saying mass in naked congregations!

Click to expand...

jacknife said:

You cook while nude? I mean maybe some foods but if you drop anything or some grease pops I imagine it would hurt.

Click to expand...

SkyWriting said:

Cooking aprons goes well with nudity I imagine.
I grill often.

Click to expand...

MyChainsAreGone said:

I've never cooked an apron while nude or otherwise... too stringy to eat...

(OK, I admit it... I misquoted him on purpose... for the laugh!)

Click to expand...

OBEY said:

This may be strange to most people, but I would almost always rather be completely nude, especially in nature. I'm 27 and I've been somewhat of a closet nudist for the last 10 years of my life. Theres nothing sexual about it for me, it just makes me feel happy and free. I'm never naked in front of anyone who is offended by it. It's usually just my wife and close friends who aren't bothered by nudity.

My question is, do you think there's something wrong with me? Is this sinful behavior, or do you find nothing wrong with it? Thanks.

Joel

Click to expand...

SkyWriting said:

Cooking aprons go well with nudity I imagine.
I grill often.

Click to expand...

MyChainsAreGone said:

No... shame is not "normal"... shame is never God's will for His children... ever.

Shame always indicates that something is wrong.

Click to expand...

blackhole said:

Per your understanding, what causes shame; how does it account for blushing, tarring and feathering, and Adam's reaction? Note: My own understanding comes from a paper that David Velleman wrote on the topic.

Click to expand...

• Satan wanted to be "like God."
  
• A&E were made "like God"... something Satan could never be or know. Interestingly enough, the only way in which A&E were like God and Satan was not is their physical bodies! Their bodies look like God (in His "image") in some way that Satan understood better than we do.
• So, it would have been the height of insult to God and the height of irony if Satan could induce embarrassment within A&E for the very thing that made them special as created in God's image!

MyChainsAreGone said:

Thanks for writing. Yes, I got your email.

Let me respond this way... (I may be restating things I've written before in this thread... but it's been a while since it was active, and so I don't remember what has been written before (and I didn't go review 50 pages of posts!).

First of all, the Bible never tells us that A&E felt "shame." The only mention of "shame" in the entire passage is that they were naked and UN-ashamed. To be sure, they acted ashamed, and it was probably part of the equation, but it's important to make this observation. Adam declared that he was "afraid," not "ashamed."

Second, it's very evident that God was very pleased with the naked A&E... since He made a special point of documenting the nakedness as part of the unspoiled state of mankind. In other words, Nakedness was/is literally part of God's perfect plan for humanity!!

Third, the ill-ease that A&E expressed because of their nudity was Satan's suggestion, not innate to A&E... even after they sinned. Why would nakedness suddenly be perceived as a bad thing by A&E when they had never seen ANY created being that was NOT "naked"... exactly as God created it? God's question to Adam after they sinned was "Who told you that you are naked?" A&E learned of their "nakedness" by the spoken word of some other entity... and the only one it could have been is Satan.

And since our theology tells us that A&E's "nature" was corrupted by their sin, you can imagine how susceptible they were to being misled at that first moment after its corruption. They didn't even realize yet that they shouldn't be listening to Satan... they didn't know yet that he was a liar! So, Satan tells them they are naked (he had to invent the word!) and they were so gullible that they fell for it, and they mistakenly treated their nakedness as if IT were the problem rather than their disobedience to God.

So... the REAL question is this... Why did Satan care?

And the answer to that is pretty simple, biblically, when you stop to think about it.

• Satan wanted to be "like God."
  
• A&E were made "like God"... something Satan could never be or know. Interestingly enough, the only way in which A&E were like God and Satan was not is their physical bodies! Their bodies look like God (in His "image") in some way that Satan understood better than we do.
• So, it would have been the height of insult to God and the height of irony if Satan could induce embarrassment within A&E for the very thing that made them special as created in God's image!

So, to answer your question, "shame" for our bodies is literally Satan's will, not God's.

David

Click to expand...

blackhole said:

1) As humanity stands now, after the fall, what causes shame? Not just in the Genesis account, but in everyday life.

Click to expand...

• Unloved and unlovable;
• Unaccepted and unacceptable;
• Unworthy and worthless.

• Think of a shy kid willing to jump off a cliff into the swimming hole while deathly afraid of doing so... after being bullied and called a "sissy."
• Think of the new gang member that will commit a crime in order to gain acceptance in the gang.
• Think of the employee that will work countless overtime hours to avoid a boss's public reprimand.
• Think of the child who spends their entire life trying to be "good enough" to please mom or dad.
• Think of Adam and Eve attempting to hide from God (what were they thinking???).

MyChainsAreGone said:

OK... let me give my perspective on shame.

The bible uses the term "shame" in a couple different ways. At times, it describes certain activities as shameful... as actions that are of disrepute and should be rejected... even though they sometimes are not. "...whose glory is in their shame" (Phillipians 3:19). Sometimes people do wicked things that are truly unacceptable (shameful) without any sense of shame emotionally at all.

But that's different than the human emotion of shame. So let's talk about that... I think that's the most helpful.

I define it this way:

Shame (noun) is a person feeling...

• Unloved and unlovable;
• Unaccepted and unacceptable;
• Unworthy and worthless.

Now, you can see from that definition that shame is never God's will for His children. And frankly, it's not His will for anyone. Christ came to completely blast these lies out of existence... for every single person!

So... is there any benefit to this emotion? Actually, no. "Guilt," yes, but "shame," no. A sense of guilt (knowledge that I have offended God) will actually drive me to the Father seeking forgiveness and reconciliation... but only if NOT accompanied also by shame! Shame's message is, "don't bother going to the Father... you are not worth forgiving, loving, or accepting."

Remember, it's His kindness that leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4)... and kindness always acts in opposition to the three points of shame!

It's also easy to see from this definition of shame that it's solely the tool of the enemy of our souls... because these three points are founded on lies! And to keep people from responding to God's loving, accepting, and worth-affirming grace, shame serves very well!

The "shame" that Adam and Eve felt (although not articulated in the text) is pretty clearly displayed in their actions. Why hide from God? Because they now felt unloved, unaccepted, and/or unworthy in His presence.

I have concluded that shame is perhaps the most powerful human motivation there is. People will do almost anything to assuage the sense of shame they feel.

• Think of a shy kid willing to jump off a cliff into the swimming hole while deathly afraid of doing so... after being bullied and called a "sissy."
• Think of the new gang member that will commit a crime in order to gain acceptance in the gang.
• Think of the employee that will work countless overtime hours to avoid a boss's public reprimand.
• Think of the child who spends their entire life trying to be "good enough" to please mom or dad.
• Think of Adam and Eve attempting to hide from God (what were they thinking???).

This is why people attempt to use shame to motivate others. It really works!

But... it's always cruel.

And it is never God's way.

So, no, I would not agree that shame is ever a good thing. "Godly sorrow" (appropriate guilt), yes, but not shame.

You can also see that there is some alignment between your suggestion that "shame" has to do with "self-presentation," but I think that it's not at its core about how one presents oneself, but rather what one believes about oneself.

Shame--as a verb-- is the effort to make someone else feel shame (unloved/unaccepted/worthless).

For the one who knows--truly knows--that they are loved, accepted, and valuable, they cannot be shamed... regardless of how others treat them or even what they think about them.

This, I believe, is what it meant when Hebrews says Jesus went to the Cross, "despising the shame" (Hebrews 12:2). I don't think it means that He felt shame, but that in spite of their best efforts to shame Him, He "endured the cross."

So... as you can probably tell, shame is a topic that I've thought about a great deal. I've even wondered if God might want me to write about book about it...

Shame is, for example, the driving force behind legalism. It motivates the adherents to "toe the line" and follow all the "rules" in order to prove that they really are acceptable. It motivates the makers of the rules because by making rules that they believe they themselves can follow, they assuage their own sense of shame. Legalism is all about how one is perceived by others. And if someone can act in a way to convince others that they themselves are really "OK" (loved/accepted/worthy), then they can suppress the sense of shame that still resides deep in their hearts... although it is still there. As soon as the "proof" that they are accepted/loved/worthy is taken away (even by no fault of their own), the shame comes raging back. (Example: the student whose worth and acceptance is bound up in their good grades... who then gets a "C"... suddenly the shame that was in hiding takes over their heart)

Hopefully, that makes sense!

Thanks for asking.

David

Click to expand...

blackhole said:

You suggested that it involves feeling unworthy, etc. and that it's never God's will for us to feel this way. What about:

A1) When Isaiah (Isa 20) walked naked as a sign of God's impending judgment, and the shame that the prisoners would feel? It seems that God wanted the prisoners to feel ashamed; that this shame was good. The thing that wasn't good was their behavior which led to this punishment.

Click to expand...

blackhole said:

A2) 1Co 11:14 speaks of nature showing us that it's shameful for men to have long hair, which indicates that there are non-sinful things we should feel ashamed about (cf. vow of nazarene). However, the word "shame" is used in the KJV but not the NKJV; you might challenge the translation.

Click to expand...

blackhole said:

A3) Joel 1:11 is similar to the Isaiah passage; it seems that God wants these people to feel ashamed.

Click to expand...

blackhole said:

A4) Luk 14:9 -- Isn't it good/proper for this man to feel shame, due to his ostentatiousness?

Click to expand...

blackhole said:

B) I have a different question too, one about clothing. Was clothing worn *under* sackcloth? It seems not. In passages like 2Ki 6:30, there would be a public transitional period in which the actor was totally naked, between tearing his clothing and putting on sackcloth. Unless clothing wasn't torn all the way, that is. Comments?

Click to expand...

MyChainsAreGone said:

Look at the Hebrew... the word "shame" is not there. It's literally the Hebrew word ervah which is typically translated "nakedness"... and it is never otherwise translated "shame."

I encourage you to read this article: Nakedness in the OT which deals specifically with the usage and meaning of the word ervah in the OT, particularly addressing the use found in Isaiah 20.

And yes, that's my own writing.

This is a difficult passage to be really certain about. Is this cultural, or is it universal? I'd say that the seeming contradiction between Paul's NT statements (to a Greek/Gentile audience) and the ancient Hebrew and OT instructions about the Nazarite vow would argue strongly for a position that Paul was speaking to the mores of a specific culture and not creating a trans-cultural moral requirement.

But beyond that, it's worth noting that the Greek word used here is not the typical word on the Greek NT for "shame"... but rather "dishonor." It might be worth doing a more thorough word study to really understand its meaning and the range of linguistic uses for which it is employed.

I think it's sufficient to note that this is not any sort of condoning of "shame."

The footnote on that verse in the NASB says that an alternative rendering is: "The farmers are ashamed, The vinedressers wail..." That sounds to me more like a description of what was happening than a command to "Be Ashamed"... sometimes translators apply their own interpretation to a passage in an honest attempt to make it seem more sensible... but that literally introduces cultural context/understanding to the passage that truly does not belong there.

Actually, that looks to me like the natural result of having exalted oneself (inappropriately) and having the truth come out in public. Was that God's will for the man? I would argue, No, it wasn't. Rather, it was the consequences of his pride. God does not generally protect us from the negative consequences of our own actions. And sometimes, the consequence is in how someone is perceived by others.

I would also argue that it was likely shame that drove the man to attempt to usurp the place of honor to start with... because--deep in his heart--he needed that social affirmation to be "OK" with himself. But when the true honored-guest arrived, that assuagement of his internal shame was stripped away and (like the student getting a "C"), the shame came raging to the forefront.

By contrast, Jesus encouraged his followers to be so secure in their identity before God and others (loved, accepted, valuable) that they need no affirmation before men. There's literally no need to seek it! So, when it's given, it's truly an honor... and (we all know) many times it's NOT given. Jesus admonition really is to say, "you don't need the affirmation of men!" Jesus is teaching His followers to live shame-free.

Clothing was perceived WAY differently in biblical times than we think of them today!

Imagine going to the bank and using your shirt as collateral for a loan (Exodus 22:25-26).

Or making a bet with someone where the loser of the bet was required to give clothing to the winner of the bet... and given used/soiled/dirty/sweaty clothes would be considered "payment in full" (Samson's bet with the 30 Philistines in Judges 14:12-19)

We today cannot imagine life with only one or two pieces of clothing... but before the mechanical weaving process, when every piece of cloth we meticulously woven by hand, having only one change of clothing was a luxury... and poor people might even reach the point that they would sell the shirt off their backs for food. This is why God's people were constantly reminded to "clothe the poor."

It's why people worked naked (like Peter fishing naked)... why would you ever work a sweaty smelly slimy wet job wearing the only clothes you have?? It's why the naked Risen Lord was mistaken for a gardener by Mary Magdalene... why would a gardener ever work the dirt while wearing his only clothes?

So... we approach the scriptures assuming that people had the same level of access to cloth and clothing as we have... and we get a totally bogus idea of what life was like for them, or how squeamish they were about nudity. We're just completely deluded in that regard.

ALL bathing was done at public waters.

EVERY mikveh (Jewish ritual baptism) required full nudity, and very few had private mikveh pools. Most people used the public mikveh pools found near the temple... the Pool of Siloam and the Pool of Bethesda are two such pools mentioned in the NT.

Every Jewish woman was required to pass through a mikveh to be cleansed of her period... now think about that! How often would people be able to see nude women in Jewish religious life, if every woman in the nation had to do so 12x per year?? There might have been hundreds every day!!

Uncircumcised men were not permitted into the Temple. Exactly how would they know if a stranger in Jerusalem was circumcised or not?? Perhaps they had to pass through the mikveh, too (before entering the temple)... and that would afford the presiding priest to make sure the man was circumcised... but maybe they just had men lift their robes to "prove" their Jewishness! (I think that's why Joseph called all his brothers to "come near" when they didn't really believe that this Egyptian Official was actually their brother... showing his circumcision would have been THE proof they needed!)

So... back to your question... did they wear loin cloths under their tunic/robe? Maybe. Maybe (likely) not. We can't imagine it any other way, but our imagination is no basis for interpreting Scripture!

I encourage you to read this article... (also my work).

The Biblical Purpose of Clothing

I hope that helps!

David

Click to expand...

blackhole said:

The interpretation of ervah as "shame" was quite a bold move by the translators, I'd say. I had no idea they did that. I'm not sure that changes the challenge, though; why were they forced into nakedness? What emotion or image did God intend to illicit through doing this?

Click to expand...

blackhole said:

I don't agree that the man sought the higher place because he was already ashamed, and then being brought low he was further shamed. I'd say that rather, it started as pride -- and also that pride is a separate emotion.

Click to expand...

blackhole said:

I suspect that we're not going to agree on what shame is, though I'll say that we have a fair amount in common regarding our understanding. This disagreement is okay, because there's a lot of other material to cover that doesn't hinge on the specifics of how shame is defined.

Click to expand...

blackhole said:

If the appeal in 1Co is a cultural one, how could Paul reference nature as a defense for his argument? That said, I don't think it's a reference to nature in the way that it's often taken. Many Christians would say: That man has hair that's a few inches long; that's long hair and it's shameful and against nature... No, rather: men should have hair that's obviously shorter than women's, however long women's hair is in that culture... As we both noted though, the translation may have been incorrect; I won't now push this point.

Click to expand...

blackhole said:

Yes, I was well aware that clothing was rare -- and that not just fishmen (e.g. Peter), but also gardeners worked while naked. By the way, do you have any reputable source to show that gardeners worked while naked? I found one for fishing, but not gardening.

Click to expand...

blackhole said:

I had often wondered basically the same thing about circumcision; how would someone be allowed or denied any Jewish-only benefits if their circumcision was hidden? And lepers: how would someone (even, gasp, a woman's) be declared clean or unclean if their skin wasn't inspected? The only good response I've thought of is just that: they must have visually confirmed. Your reference to those who were asked to come near to prove their jewishness -- that's sounds like a great one.

Click to expand...

blackhole said:

I'm an artist, and specifically, I do portraiture and I want to shoot non-suggestive environmental nudes.

A) This is jumping ahead, but let's say: We're right that there's no command against public nudity, but would my photography glorify God (1Co 10:31)? I can think of ways that it would, but I can also think of ways that it would be harmful. What's your input? This is probably a practical question more than a theological one, but in so much as possible, a theological response is preferred (not to the exclusion of a practical one).

Click to expand...

MyChainsAreGone said:

I think that Paul may have been using "nature" in a way that his particular audience used it... that is completely unknown to us. That's my best guess... and I have a vague recollection of hearing someone teach that sometime, but I have no documentation.

Here's another crazy thing to understand correctly... when the Bible says that someone was asked to "put your hand under my thigh, and swear to me...".... it wasn't the "thigh" that was being spoken of. Look it up. There's a real uniformity among scholars about what it really means.

David

Click to expand...