Nudism

[Eph. 3:20]

Some further clarification on nakedness and God's attitude towards it.

Leviticus chaters 18 and 20, lists of various people one is not to uncover.

Exodus 20:26. One should not even so much as accidentally expose ones covered nakedness on the steps to an altar.

Exodus 28:42. An undergarment so that their nakedness is not exposed even accidentally in the temple.

Concerning the Lev./Ex. passages and nudity:

Here's my two cents...I believe to fully grasp the prohibitions placed on early Israel pertaining to nudity, we must take into consideration the full historical context of those passages and what was transpiring in that time period.

Israel as a nation, was to be set apart, that is a Holy nation. They are moving into the land previously inhabited by the Canaanites. A vile people with ritualistic worship and, as history aptly demonstrates, sex was involved within those worship ceremonies. These Scriptures are set in a culture of a people surrounded by nations that customarily made sex a part of religious excersize. (Many argue that it was this kind of sexual idol worship, that is specifically spoken of in Lev.18. and is prohibited and some equate that to the prohibition on homosexuality, clearly a different subject for a different thread.)

To protect against all such corruption of their religious ritual, as well as remove anything that might distract from worship, as would be the case with a preist sexual exposure, God ordained these types of precautions. It is interesting to note that no such precaution is ever made for other situations. For example, Moses climbed Mt. Sinai twice to obtain God's Law. If going up in the presence of Israel would expose a man's private parts, why not the prohibition here, if God's intrest was solely to keep genitalia from observation?

When God commanded the Israelites to go outside the camp and have a bowel movement and to bury it with a shovel, why did He not warn them that no one should see their genitals? Why did God never make such a requirement in any other circumstance than this one that related to a preist's ministry in Israel presence? It was because of the pagan use of sexual practice in their worship.

God was very careful to eliminate any practice that might lead Israel to consider including sex as part of worship to Him. Wearing an undergarment was an unusual request of God to make of the preist. That they had to be specifically instructed to wear "underwear" means that they normally wouldn't wear such items. Wearing underwear was not common in the Isarilte culture, nor was it common in the cultures around them. If carefully covering one's genital's is important to God, we would expect to read a command as such, addressed to all men and women applicable to all circumstances. But of course it is not the case. It is we who attach shame to our sexual organs and make such undergarments necessary.

In a more famous incident, God demonstrates His acceptance of human nakedness even displayed before members of the opposite sex. David, wearing a linen ephod, dance so enthusiastically before returning the arc of the covenant, that he became "uncovered," exposing himself to the "maidens" (2 Sam. 6:20) It's apparent that through his dancing his genitals were visible to the men and women who thronged the street to watch the parade. Verse 14 tells us that he wore a ephod and it makes no mention of any underwear. Wearing undergarmets is a modern invention. As he danced, he either intentionally threw off his ephod and dance naked, or it flapped open exposing his genitals. Nude dancing was well established in all cultures of that day. Women and young girls danced naked in public parades and celebrations. Israel stripped and danced naked around the golden calf (Ex. 32 6, 25) (God's displeasure with them on this occasion, related not to their nakedness per se, nor even to sexual activity, but to their worship of an idol, Aaron's golden calf. Isaiah was commanded by God to walk naked and barefoot through Jerusalem for three years (Isa. 20:1-4). Nakedness in general was not as evil to Israel and surrounding nations as it is to us.

David was suffeciently exposed to invoke his wife's anger and contempt. The words "shamelessly" and "uncovered" are translated from a Hebrew word meaning to "denude" (Strong's 1540).

Notice these translations:

"..exposed himself to the girls along the street like a common pervert" (The Living Bible)

"...exposing himself before women, as any loose fellow would expose himself indecently" (Moffatt)

".uncovering himself this day to be ogled by the female servants..as some worthless fellow would strip himself." (Modern Language Version)

So whatever he did, his sexuality was exposed and it was reprehensible to Michal (his wife). She objected in jealousy to the fact that women on the street had seen his genitals. Rather than being shamed, notice his reply, "It was an act of celebration and worship to God and I am even willing to go further than this. When I do I may humble myself, but the maidens of whom you are jealous will hold me in high esteem." (2 Sam. 6: 21,22).

If God was repelled at this public display, then why do we not have even a hint of displeasure? It astounds us moderns to think that God accepted his abandoned, uninhibited worship. The fact that God blessed David and cursed Michalbecause of her reproach of David's "exposed" dancing, proves that God did not find David's exposure either sinful or distasteful.

Our struggles arise from the mistaken notion that our attitudes towards sex must necessarily be the same as God's attitudes. We are in a culture where most of us are reluctant to even talk about sex (except anonymously on a message board), we cannot imagine that the godly men and women of Scripture could be so free, unashamed and natural about nudity and sex, regarding both it's functions and pleasures, as the Bible shows them to be.

Much more could be said, and needs to be said. But let me know if you want to get into any specifics, and I'll do the best I can to add clarity.


Eph. 3:20

 

[The Bellman]

Concerning the Lev./Ex. passages and nudity:

Here's my two cents...I believe to fully grasp the prohibitions placed on early Israel pertaining to nudity, we must take into consideration the full historical context of those passages and what was transpiring in that time period.

Israel as a nation, was to be set apart, that is a Holy nation. They are moving into the land previously inhabited by the Canaanites. A vile people with ritualistic worship and, as history aptly demonstrates, sex was involved within those worship ceremonies. These Scriptures are set in a culture of a people surrounded by nations that customarily made sex a part of religious excersize. (Many argue that it was this kind of sexual idol worship, that is specifically spoken of in Lev.18. and is prohibited and some equate that to the prohibition on homosexuality, clearly a different subject for a different thread.)

To protect against all such corruption of their religious ritual, as well as remove anything that might distract from worship, as would be the case with a preist sexual exposure, God ordained these types of precautions. It is interesting to note that no such precaution is ever made for other situations. For example, Moses climbed Mt. Sinai twice to obtain God's Law. If going up in the presence of Israel would expose a man's private parts, why not the prohibition here, if God's intrest was solely to keep genitalia from observation?

When God commanded the Israelites to go outside the camp and have a bowel movement and to bury it with a shovel, why did He not warn them that no one should see their genitals? Why did God never make such a requirement in any other circumstance than this one that related to a preist's ministry in Israel presence? It was because of the pagan use of sexual practice in their worship.

God was very careful to eliminate any practice that might lead Israel to consider including sex as part of worship to Him. Wearing an undergarment was an unusual request of God to make of the preist. That they had to be specifically instructed to wear "underwear" means that they normally wouldn't wear such items. Wearing underwear was not common in the Isarilte culture, nor was it common in the cultures around them. If carefully covering one's genital's is important to God, we would expect to read a command as such, addressed to all men and women applicable to all circumstances. But of course it is not the case. It is we who attach shame to our sexual organs and make such undergarments necessary.

In a more famous incident, God demonstrates His acceptance of human nakedness even displayed before members of the opposite sex. David, wearing a linen ephod, dance so enthusiastically before returning the arc of the covenant, that he became "uncovered," exposing himself to the "maidens" (2 Sam. 6:20) It's apparent that through his dancing his genitals were visible to the men and women who thronged the street to watch the parade. Verse 14 tells us that he wore a ephod and it makes no mention of any underwear. Wearing undergarmets is a modern invention. As he danced, he either intentionally threw off his ephod and dance naked, or it flapped open exposing his genitals. Nude dancing was well established in all cultures of that day. Women and young girls danced naked in public parades and celebrations. Israel stripped and danced naked around the golden calf (Ex. 32 6, 25) (God's displeasure with them on this occasion, related not to their nakedness per se, nor even to sexual activity, but to their worship of an idol, Aaron's golden calf. Isaiah was commanded by God to walk naked and barefoot through Jerusalem for three years (Isa. 20:1-4). Nakedness in general was not as evil to Israel and surrounding nations as it is to us.

David was suffeciently exposed to invoke his wife's anger and contempt. The words "shamelessly" and "uncovered" are translated from a Hebrew word meaning to "denude" (Strong's 1540).

Notice these translations:

"..exposed himself to the girls along the street like a common pervert" (The Living Bible)

"...exposing himself before women, as any loose fellow would expose himself indecently" (Moffatt)

".uncovering himself this day to be ogled by the female servants..as some worthless fellow would strip himself." (Modern Language Version)

So whatever he did, his sexuality was exposed and it was reprehensible to Michal (his wife). She objected in jealousy to the fact that women on the street had seen his genitals. Rather than being shamed, notice his reply, "It was an act of celebration and worship to God and I am even willing to go further than this. When I do I may humble myself, but the maidens of whom you are jealous will hold me in high esteem." (2 Sam. 6: 21,22).

If God was repelled at this public display, then why do we not have even a hint of displeasure? It astounds us moderns to think that God accepted his abandoned, uninhibited worship. The fact that God blessed David and cursed Michalbecause of her reproach of David's "exposed" dancing, proves that God did not find David's exposure either sinful or distasteful.

Our struggles arise from the mistaken notion that our attitudes towards sex must necessarily be the same as God's attitudes. We are in a culture where most of us are reluctant to even talk about sex (except anonymously on a message board), we cannot imagine that the godly men and women of Scripture could be so free, unashamed and natural about nudity and sex, regarding both it's functions and pleasures, as the Bible shows them to be.

Much more could be said, and needs to be said. But let me know if you want to get into any specifics, and I'll do the best I can to add clarity.


Eph. 3:20

Excellent and informative post. It supports my contention that the idea of nudity per se being sinful or wrong in God's eyes is NOT biblical.

 

[Shane Roach]

Concerning the Lev./Ex. passages and nudity:

Here's my two cents...I believe to fully grasp the prohibitions placed on early Israel pertaining to nudity, we must take into consideration the full historical context of those passages and what was transpiring in that time period.

Israel as a nation, was to be set apart, that is a Holy nation. They are moving into the land previously inhabited by the Canaanites. A vile people with ritualistic worship and, as history aptly demonstrates, sex was involved within those worship ceremonies. These Scriptures are set in a culture of a people surrounded by nations that customarily made sex a part of religious excersize. (Many argue that it was this kind of sexual idol worship, that is specifically spoken of in Lev.18. and is prohibited and some equate that to the prohibition on homosexuality, clearly a different subject for a different thread.)

To protect against all such corruption of their religious ritual, as well as remove anything that might distract from worship, as would be the case with a preist sexual exposure, God ordained these types of precautions. It is interesting to note that no such precaution is ever made for other situations. For example, Moses climbed Mt. Sinai twice to obtain God's Law. If going up in the presence of Israel would expose a man's private parts, why not the prohibition here, if God's intrest was solely to keep genitalia from observation?

When God commanded the Israelites to go outside the camp and have a bowel movement and to bury it with a shovel, why did He not warn them that no one should see their genitals? Why did God never make such a requirement in any other circumstance than this one that related to a preist's ministry in Israel presence? It was because of the pagan use of sexual practice in their worship.

God was very careful to eliminate any practice that might lead Israel to consider including sex as part of worship to Him. Wearing an undergarment was an unusual request of God to make of the preist. That they had to be specifically instructed to wear "underwear" means that they normally wouldn't wear such items. Wearing underwear was not common in the Isarilte culture, nor was it common in the cultures around them. If carefully covering one's genital's is important to God, we would expect to read a command as such, addressed to all men and women applicable to all circumstances. But of course it is not the case. It is we who attach shame to our sexual organs and make such undergarments necessary.

In a more famous incident, God demonstrates His acceptance of human nakedness even displayed before members of the opposite sex. David, wearing a linen ephod, dance so enthusiastically before returning the arc of the covenant, that he became "uncovered," exposing himself to the "maidens" (2 Sam. 6:20) It's apparent that through his dancing his genitals were visible to the men and women who thronged the street to watch the parade. Verse 14 tells us that he wore a ephod and it makes no mention of any underwear. Wearing undergarmets is a modern invention. As he danced, he either intentionally threw off his ephod and dance naked, or it flapped open exposing his genitals. Nude dancing was well established in all cultures of that day. Women and young girls danced naked in public parades and celebrations. Israel stripped and danced naked around the golden calf (Ex. 32 6, 25) (God's displeasure with them on this occasion, related not to their nakedness per se, nor even to sexual activity, but to their worship of an idol, Aaron's golden calf. Isaiah was commanded by God to walk naked and barefoot through Jerusalem for three years (Isa. 20:1-4). Nakedness in general was not as evil to Israel and surrounding nations as it is to us.

David was suffeciently exposed to invoke his wife's anger and contempt. The words "shamelessly" and "uncovered" are translated from a Hebrew word meaning to "denude" (Strong's 1540).

Notice these translations:

"..exposed himself to the girls along the street like a common pervert" (The Living Bible)

"...exposing himself before women, as any loose fellow would expose himself indecently" (Moffatt)

".uncovering himself this day to be ogled by the female servants..as some worthless fellow would strip himself." (Modern Language Version)

So whatever he did, his sexuality was exposed and it was reprehensible to Michal (his wife). She objected in jealousy to the fact that women on the street had seen his genitals. Rather than being shamed, notice his reply, "It was an act of celebration and worship to God and I am even willing to go further than this. When I do I may humble myself, but the maidens of whom you are jealous will hold me in high esteem." (2 Sam. 6: 21,22).

If God was repelled at this public display, then why do we not have even a hint of displeasure? It astounds us moderns to think that God accepted his abandoned, uninhibited worship. The fact that God blessed David and cursed Michalbecause of her reproach of David's "exposed" dancing, proves that God did not find David's exposure either sinful or distasteful.

Our struggles arise from the mistaken notion that our attitudes towards sex must necessarily be the same as God's attitudes. We are in a culture where most of us are reluctant to even talk about sex (except anonymously on a message board), we cannot imagine that the godly men and women of Scripture could be so free, unashamed and natural about nudity and sex, regarding both it's functions and pleasures, as the Bible shows them to be.

Much more could be said, and needs to be said. But let me know if you want to get into any specifics, and I'll do the best I can to add clarity.


Eph. 3:20

There is absolutely no evidence that David exposed his genitils in the story being quoted. Never once is it mentioned. It specifically says he was girded with a linen ephod. What Michal said would be the same even if he went through the streets partially nude, and the very fact she found it disgusting speaks volumes about what the expectations were. She was thinking of status while he was rejoicing in the Lord, that's the point, not that it is a good thing to expose ones self nude in public. When Noah was seen nude by his very own son, it was considered an act of disrespect.

Your use of Isaiah is particularly unfortunate to your cause, as it specifically mentions the shame of having ones buttocks uncovered. Hardly a call for more public nudity.......

I'm deeply dissapointed in this. I had gained such a high regard for you after that post about marriage and divorce! This is just sloppy.

I find no references for any of these assumptions, only a stringing together of ideas. The ideas are, no doubt, attractive to Bellman, but they don't even pass the most minimal inspection in context.

 

[Shane Roach]

If Biblical evidence does not support nudism:

There IS a dark western Judeo-Christian OBSESSION with sex. It's not terribly secret, however. Just look at the debates on these pages...how many of them are concerned with sex and sexual matters? Christianity - actually, monotheistic religion - has long had an obsession with sex.

If Biblical evidence does seem to support nudism:

Excellent and informative post. It supports my contention that the idea of nudity per se being sinful or wrong in God's eyes is NOT biblical.

I only give you a hard time because you take this so desperately seriously, to prove that the west has sexual hangups almost to the exclusion of any sort of evidence either way. It is definitely a no win situation with you on this particular subject. You have your mind made up and now there is all the time in the world to fish around for the facts to back your opinion.

 

[The Bellman]

I only give you a hard time because you take this so desperately seriously, to prove that the west has sexual hangups almost to the exclusion of any sort of evidence either way. It is definitely a no win situation with you on this particular subject. You have your mind made up and now there is all the time in the world to fish around for the facts to back your opinion.

It is desperately serious. The western obsession with sex (christian church-driven) has done immeasurable harm to our society. The fact that you don't want to admit that other societies have different nudity taboos is merely one of the symptoms. Meanwhile, the most natural activity in the world is "forbidden" and the most beautiful things in the world - our own bodies - are made "evil". But hey, you keep on believing that your society is the only "right" one, and that wearing clothes is perfectly natural and what god intended, despite there being nowhere in the bible where he directed such.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Excellent and informative post. It supports my contention that the idea of nudity per se being sinful or wrong in God's eyes is NOT biblical.

God Himself took on the form of man and He covered Himself. Maybe not when he was bathing or sleeping, but I'm pretty sure when He was doing his carpentry work and preaching the good news that He was covered. What more evidence do you need?

My goodness can you imagine what His mother would have thought if we wanted to run around naked?

Michelle

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Which implies you think laws concerning public nudity are unjust, and you are using racism and mass genocide as your corallary examples..................................................................................................................................

Believe it or not, we are not absolutely blind to our own positions here.

Okay, posting the Ten Commandments in a courtroom is illegal. Are you saying to do so is sinful?

Laws are partly ethical constructs, partly moral constructs, partly cultural constructs. Women go to church today in clothes that even the most daring 19th century prostitute wouldn't wear in public. The law changed from 1900 to 2000. The morality changed first, thus making the legal change possible.

Now, if it was immoral to dress one way in 1900 but not the same way in 2000, does that imply there is a hard and fast moral dress code for all time or that the morality of modesty hinges on the time and culture?

(That's not voiced in a challenging manner, just to open a new line of reasoning.)

 

[Shane Roach]

It is desperately serious. The western obsession with sex (christian church-driven) has done immeasurable harm to our society. The fact that you don't want to admit that other societies have different nudity taboos is merely one of the symptoms. Meanwhile, the most natural activity in the world is "forbidden" and the most beautiful things in the world - our own bodies - are made "evil". But hey, you keep on believing that your society is the only "right" one, and that wearing clothes is perfectly natural and what god intended, despite there being nowhere in the bible where he directed such.

I'm not sure how, after all that has been posted, you can say it is not directed in the Bible. Still... I am going to have to let this go for a while. When racism and genocide were brought up earlier, it really deeply disturbed me. If a few people want to believe that the west has some sort of deep seated sexual hangup that other nations with similar habits towards sex and staying dressed in public supposedly don't, I can live with that. But comparing a belief that the Bible encourages us to keep our clothes on with racism or genocide was a little more than I could let pass.

Take care.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Okay, posting the Ten Commandments in a courtroom is illegal. Are you saying to do so is sinful?

Laws are partly ethical constructs, partly moral constructs, partly cultural constructs. Women go to church today in clothes that even the most daring 19th century prostitute wouldn't wear in public. The law changed from 1900 to 2000. The morality changed first, thus making the legal change possible.

Now, if it was immoral to dress one way in 1900 but not the same way in 2000, does that imply there is a hard and fast moral dress code for all time or that the morality of modesty hinges on the time and culture?

(That's not voiced in a challenging manner, just to open a new line of reasoning.)

Morality does not change. People have become less moral.

Michelle

 

[Shane Roach]

Okay, posting the Ten Commandments in a courtroom is illegal. Are you saying to do so is sinful?

Laws are partly ethical constructs, partly moral constructs, partly cultural constructs. Women go to church today in clothes that even the most daring 19th century prostitute wouldn't wear in public. The law changed from 1900 to 2000. The morality changed first, thus making the legal change possible.

Now, if it was immoral to dress one way in 1900 but not the same way in 2000, does that imply there is a hard and fast moral dress code for all time or that the morality of modesty hinges on the time and culture?

(That's not voiced in a challenging manner, just to open a new line of reasoning.)

What society chooses to allow and what a Christian ought to do are often not exactly the same thing. There is a lot of question still floating around about whether the ten commandments should be removed from all public buildings, so putting that aside, I will just say, for example, even though an anti-abortionist believes they are saving literal lives by killing one person, I don't think that's the correct way to go about dealing with that, for example. It shows a total disregard for authority. I have my doubts as to whether or not many of the people Rome often executed really deserved it, but that didn't even make a blip on Jesus' radar at the time. The point was that in those situations where clothing is required, it is then by definition something a Christian ought to respect. It is not one of these laws that is a wild violation of civil rights or human rights.

If a Christian lives in an immoral society, they are called to be salt and light, which means they are then to live to a higher standard, not to drop their standards to those of the society around them. I can't spell out where that line is, but I can tell you I have more respect for women who err on the side of caution these days when the pressure is to remove more and more, and cover less and less.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

funny funny story ... lol , but in another sense of nudity ... I would say anything that leads to lust is definitally nudity ... so it just depends really ... but then theres alot more than I know...lol so don't attack me ..haha

Here's an interesting trivia bit: In Shogunate Japan the most erotic part of a woman's body was considered to be the nape of her neck because one had to obtain a certain degree of intimacy in order to see it closely.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Morality does not change. People have become less moral.

Michelle

Okay. Now, not being snarky here, but do you always dress the way a 19th century woman of good moral standing would dress? For that matter, do you dress the way a woman of good moral standing in First Century Judea would dress? (Obviously I mean in terms of what is covered, not in the exact styles.)

 

[Shane Roach]

nite all. sleep well

 

[The Bellman]

God Himself took on the form of man and He covered Himself. Maybe not when he was bathing or sleeping, but I'm pretty sure when He was doing his carpentry work and preaching the good news that He was covered. What more evidence do you need?

My goodness can you imagine what His mother would have thought if we wanted to run around naked?

Michelle

A LOT more evidence. Jesus didn't run around in a tuxedo, did he? Or a business suit? No, he ran around dressed as was customary in the society he was in. That demonstrates nothing about what god wants as far as whether or not we should be clothed.

 

[The Bellman]

...comparing a belief that the Bible encourages us to keep our clothes on with racism or genocide was a little more than I could let pass.

Except that nobody did that.

 

[The Bellman]

Morality does not change. People have become less moral.

Michelle

Morality changes all the time.

People have become LESS moral? Yes, now we disapprove of slavery, disapprove of racial prejudice, disapprove of sexual discrimination...wow, how "less moral" we have become.

What you mean, of course, is that society has moved in directions that, in part, don't agree with what YOU think is moral.

 

[The Bellman]

...I have more respect for women who err on the side of caution these days when the pressure is to remove more and more, and cover less and less.

I have more respect for women who dress as they feel comfortable, with no regard to what others say is "moral".

 

[crashedman]

I have more respect for women who dress as they feel comfortable, with no regard to what others say is "moral".

I have more respect for women who clothe themselves with humility, kindness, tolerance, patience, gentleness, and the righteousness of Christ.

If only more women were to do this rather than waste their money on clothes, or use their nakedness to do nasty things.


Crashedman

 

[Eudaimonist]

I have more respect for women who dress as they feel comfortable, with no regard to what others say is "moral".

Personally, I think women should dress themselves in a way that shows self-respect (as part of a comprehensive policy of self-respect), though I imagine that could include going nude in some circumstances.

Lady Godiva could be an example of the latter situation. The following webpage is worth reading.

http://www.abacom.com/~jkrause/godiva.html

 

[Miss Shelby]

Morality changes all the time.

People have become LESS moral? Yes, now we disapprove of slavery, disapprove of racial prejudice, disapprove of sexual discrimination...wow, how "less moral" we have become.

What you mean, of course, is that society has moved in directions that, in part, don't agree with what YOU think is moral.

Allow me to rephrase. I knew this would be the response but didn't have time to edit my post yesterday.

Morality remains constant, people don't listen and never have in many cases to what God considers moral.

Please do not give me Old Testament examples of slavery because, with the exception of the Israelites, it was not the same thing as slavery in the United States before the civil war.

Michelle