Thanks for that well-researched post!
I did not know about Clement's writings.
I scanned some of his works, though, and I have to say that I don't believe he is a credible source. He takes a LOT of unusual position... including the notion that men should not shave or even comb their hair... presuming that such actions were efforts to appear effeminate and/or to attract sexual attention from women or other men.
Clement's presumption with "licentiousness" in
everyone leads him to say awful things like the passage you posted, where a woman's very form is to be considered a danger to men. This is more like Gnosticism (spirit good, body bad) than it is true biblical theology.
Clement was also at odds with other early church fathers.
It is not well known today, but even in Clement's time, the baptism ritual in the church was performed with the one being baptized fully naked. This is documented in a the writings of a contemporary of Clement, Hippolytus of Rome, who described the rite of baptism in detail in his work,
Apostolic Tradition.
In 21:2-3 he writes: "When they come to the water [for baptism]... Then they shall take off all their clothes." In the verses that follow, it's clear that men, women, and children are all baptized in the same place and time (at one baptism event). Then in verse 11, after some renunciations of Satan and before the profession of belief (vss 12-18), it says this:
"Then, after these things, the bishop passes each of them on nude to the elder who stands at the water. They shall stand in the water naked. A deacon, likewise, will go down with them into the water."
I searched through Clement's writings to try to find anything that described the actual rite of baptism, but could find none.
There are other strong indications that early church baptism was performed nude. The early church adopted the Jewish practice of baptism--called the
mikveh--which has always (and to this day) required complete nudity in order to be considered valid. Also, if you look at early Christian artwork, the more ancient the artwork, the more likely it will be depicting those being baptized as completely unclothed. There are many such depictions of Jesus' baptism with Jesus completely unclothed.
So, I do not give any credence to Clement's commentary about "modesty"... they simply do not have any foundation in God's word and they are literally in opposition to the historical fact that the early church baptized people unclothed.
Furthermore, the Gymnasiums (from the Greek
gumnas, "naked") were right there during the time of Christ and the Apostles. So were the public baths. Even Jerusalem had them (Maccabees mentions it in 1 Maccabees 1:14). Not only did Jesus AND the NT writers neglect to EVER condemn the public nudity in those places (which
everyone knew about), they never once forbade Christians from attending them.
And... Paul used imagery in his writings that alluded
directly to the activities engaged in
within the gymnasiums. This included running, boxing, wrestling... all athletic activities performed while nude. The writer of Hebrews also invokes the imagery of an Olympic foot race in Hebrews 12:1. Finally, Paul references "exercise" (bodily discipline) as having some value in 1 Timothy 4:8, and the word he used for "exercise" is literally the word "gumnadzo"... based on the Greek word describing naked exercise.
There's simply no explanation for why Jesus and the NT writers failed to address such public nudity except the simple fact that there was no moral need to speak against the exposed human form... and it was fully exposed at every Christian baptism. Our bodies and their shapes are
not the problem... our
hearts are the problem when it comes to lust.
THAT is what the bible teaches about lust... the bible never teaches "covering the body" as a solution to lust... so... that can't be what Paul meant.