Bible On Nudity (Part 2)--A Refutation Of Anti-Nudity Eisegesis

It's been months since I published the first part of this series [1], with the first installment detailing Bible verses which are undeniably pro-nudity and which contradict the evangelical notion that nudity is largely sinful outside of the context of a married couple engaging in it.  I talked there about how the Bible supports nudity, how nudity is not sexual in and of itself, how lust is not caused by seeing nudity, and how the idea that someone's spouse holds the exclusive moral right to see his or her nudity is a misguided product of legalism or jealousy, not logic or sound theology.  In this sequel post I will address some primary passages that people may appeal to in order to argue that the Bible condemns nudity.  Of course, more verses than these exist which are claimed to oppose nudity, but I have addressed some of them (1 Timothy 2:9-11 and Matthew 5:28, for example) and the affiliated arguments or similar ones elsewhere [2] and others can reduce down to the exact same basic types of verses that I will explain here.

God does not condemn nudity as shameful.  He created
humans naked (Genesis 2:25) and called it very good
(Genesis 1:31), allowed public nudity in Mosaic Law
(Exodus 22:26-27), never condemned nudity as immoral,
said in the Old Testament not to add to his moral commands
(Deuteronomy 4:2), and expressed deep anger in the New
Testament with people who ignored Mosaic Law while
inventing extra-Biblical moral obligations with a human and
not divine origin (Matthew 15:1-9).

Genesis 3:7, 21--"Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves . . . The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them."


Adam and Eve mistakenly believed that they could conceal themselves and their sin from God, and their design of primitive clothes did not accomplish this goal at all.  Never does Genesis 3 say that nudity has become sinful merely because sin exists; that would be like saying that marriage was good before the Fall but now it is sinful because of sin.  Because Adam and Eve's meager clothing could not erase their ontological guilt or the shame that resulted from violating a command of God, God replaced them with clothes of skin to demonstrate that he alone can offer a better covering for their sins--this, of course, foreshadows what God would later do through Christ.  Although conservative theologians fallaciously point to Genesis 3 as evidence or proof that God declared post-Fall nudity sinful except in very limited circumstances, their position is not supported by Genesis 3 or any other passage in the Bible.  There was no accompanying moral condemnation of public nudity; nudity did not suddenly become a sinful condition; Genesis 3 does not say that nudity is now an innately sexual thing.


Exodus 20:26--"And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it."


This verse only applied to those approaching the physical altar of God, as the clothing that the Jews wore at this time seems to have exposed the lower part of the body if the wearer was walking up steps.  It does not apply to any other class of people, nor does it signify that the Bible condemns public nudity.  To base an argument that nudity is sexual (which, even if true, does not automatically mean it is sinful!), shameful, or sinful around these verses is asinine and illogical, as the extremely narrow application context has nothing to do with non-priests or people who do not have access to or need for a physical altar for Yahweh.


Ezekiel 16 (and 23)


I will not reproduce Ezekiel 16 here because it is best if you read verses 1-42, which I do not feel like quoting all at once, in one sitting and then read this afterwards.

It may be easy for some to incorrectly assume that because in the allegory God covered the naked body of the woman (16:8) and because nudity was involved in the sexual sins mentioned in this passage public nudity itself is therefore sinful.  Not only is that unsound and not only does the fact that God clothed the woman directly imply that she lived in her community naked before that day, but in this case, if Christians want to claim that Ezekiel 16 condemns nudity because the villainous, promiscuous prostitute showed her nude body to her "lovers", they will find that in the same passage God himself authorizes that those punishing the adulterous and murderous prostitute strip her naked (16:39), meaning that if such information in the allegory is literal then God wants adulteresses stripped naked, which means that God is not opposed to all public nudity after all anyway.

Now, 1) Ezekiel 16 and 23 are allegories and do not reflect the legal practices that God revealed in Exodus and Deuteronomy; 2) nothing in Mosaic Law says that men or women were to be involuntarily stripped naked as part of the penalties for sexual sins (or any other crimes), as it simply says to execute them for sexual crimes such as adultery, rape, and bestiality; 3) Deuteronomy 25:3 universally condemns all punishments that degrade an offender, and the intent behind inflicting forced nudity on a criminal as part of a legal punishment is to humiliate, debase, and degrade the man or woman being stripped.  This is intrinsically evil.  Since the Bible never prescribes forced nudity and also condemns degrading punishments, we know for sure that, although the Bible uses forced nudity in an allegory about punishing a murderess and adulteress, Mosaic Law actually prohibits that practice.

However, though forced nudity is abusive and sinful, God does not condemn voluntary nudity in public or at home unless the intent is to cause another person to lust (as in Ezekiel 16).  Even then, the nudity is only sinful in that case because the man or woman who is naked is intentionally hoping to make another person lust, which is impossible (it is impossible to make someone else sin, I mean); it is a matter of motive, as the action itself is not objectively wrong.

The Bible is supportive of voluntary nudity, but forced nudity is a moral
abomination.  In the Bible there are examples of dominant warriors
 depriving captive men and women of their clothing (Isaiah 20:1-6) and
 of perverse, sadistic officers stripping criminals naked to torment them
 in the name of "justice" (Matthew 27:26-31, 35, John 21:23-24).
Forced nudity is violating and degrading and can amount to
 sexual abuse in some circumstances.

Ezekiel 18:5-7--"'Suppose there is a righteous man who does what is just and right.  He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel.  He does not defile his neighbor's wife or lie with a woman during her period.  He does not oppress anyone, but returns what he took in pledge for a loan.  He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked.'"


I have seen people argue from these verses that we should clothe the naked and thus it is immoral to participate in nudity.  These verses refer to righteous humans clothing those who re not fortunate enough to have sufficient clothing for warmth and protection from the elements, likely due to poverty.  Do they teach that nudity is always sexual, that it is immoral to choose to not wear clothing in at least some public contexts, and that God declares nudity to be sinful?  No!  Is it sinful to be naked due to such poverty that one cannot buy clothing and needs to rely on the generosity of others to even have any garments at all?  Is it sinful to see someone in this condition and give him or her clothes?  Of course not!  Interestingly, Exodus 22:26-27 explores the "pledge" procedure mentioned in Ezekiel 18 and says that if a person takes a man's or woman's garment (as Jews from that era wore a single article of clothing), he or she must return the cloak before the sun leaves the sky so that the man or woman will be warm that night.  God did not care that the man or woman would walk around in total nudity because 1) the man or woman consented to the pledge and 2) there is nothing immoral about public nudity in and of itself.


Conclusion

It is explicitly clear from reading Scripture that God does
not care if we are naked and that he actually seems to
prefer us that way since it was the condition he
intentionally created us in.

Passages that some have twisted into alleged condemnations of nudity, as I have established, do not oppose public nudity at all.  And understanding the Biblical position on nudity will affect your life.  The effects may be comparatively minor, like no longer avoiding looking at nude sculptures in art museums or thinking that nudity in a film or video game automatically makes that movie or game morally reprehensible.  Or they may be far more liberating and dramatic, like realizing that a longing to admire the beauty of nudity can be pure and that viewing nudity as inherently sexual or sinful is a monstrous error.  Some people remain entrapped by lust solely because they think that it is impossible to not see the human body exposed fully or to different degrees without sexualizing or objectifying the man or woman in question.  I hope that these people realize that the solution to such sins is not to avert their eyes from the human body God fashioned to reflect his beauty but to understand that to view it as inherently sexual is a great perversity in and of itself.

In a future post I want to explain the different benefits of nudity, but that steps outside the territory of Biblical ethics and theology, so it does not belong in this series.  However, I may write another part in this series refuting false understandings of more ostensibly "anti-nudity" passages later if needed.


[1].  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/bible-on-nudity-part-1.html

[2].  See here:
  A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-folly-of-modesty-part-1.html
  B.  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-folly-of-modesty-part-2.html