gossiping about it, effectively ruining Noah’s reputation, ethnic standing, and authority as a father figure. In the

Narrative, Shem and Japheth were blessed for coming to the defense of their dad’s honor. Instead of joining Ham in
his boasting, they reverently covered their father’s shame.281
189. Exodus 20:26–The Priest’s nakedness was not to be exposed because it would create dissonance
between his social function, in which he was to be seen as sexually neutral, and his biological standing as a sexual being.
The Priest’s costume represented his societal function; to be exposed in that context would be inappropriate and
Rita Poretsky writes: “Personhood, first sexual energy, and physical nakedness might be either in
synchrony with societal associations or in disharmony. . . . Nakedness is a nakedness of self in a societal context, not only
a nakedness of body.” 283 On the flip side, it was quite suitable for David to dance basically nude in public
to celebrate the return of the Ark of the Covenant (II Samuel 6:14-23).
190. Leviticus 18:6-19–Here and throughout the Old Testament and Torah, the expression “uncover the
nakedness of” (as it is literally translated in the King James Version) is a euphemism for “have sexual relations
with.” The prohibitions usually do not refer to nudity per se.
191. I Samuel 19:23-24–Jewish prophets were commonly naked–so commonly that when Saul stripped off
his clothes and prophesied, no one considered his nakedness remarkable, but everyone immediately assumed that he
must be a prophet also.
192. II Samuel 6:14-23–King David danced almost naked in the City of David to celebrate the return of the
ark, in full view of all of the citizens of the city. Michal criticized his public nudity and was rebuffed.
King David wasn’t strictly nude–he wore a “linen ephod,” a kind of short apron or close fitting, armless,
outer vest, extending at the most down to the hips. Ephods were part of the vestments worn by Jewish priests. They
hid nothing.285
193. Isaiah 20:2-3–God directly commanded Isaiah to loose the sackcloth from his hips, and he went nude
and barefoot for three years. The prophet Micah may have done the same thing (see Micah 1:8).
194. Song of Solomon repeatedly expresses thanks for the nude body.
195. Every Biblical association of nakedness with shame is in reference to a sin already committed. One
cannot conceal from God behind literal or figurative clothes. All stand naked before God.286
196. Nakedness cannot automatically be equated with sexual sin.
Linking nudity with sexual sin, to the exclusion of all else, makes as much sense as insisting that fire can
Simply be linked to the destruction of property and life, and is therefore immoral. Sin comes not from nakedness,
but from the way the state of nakedness is used. Ian Barbour writes: “No part of man is evil in itself, but just in its
Abuse. The inherent good of the material order, in which man’s being completely participates, is, as we shall see, a
corollary of the doctrine of development.” 287
Pope John Paul II concurs that nudity, in and of itself, isn’t sinful. “The human body in itself consistently has its
own inalienable human dignity,” he says. It’s only obscene when it is reduced to “an item of ‘enjoyment,’ meant
for the gratification of concupiscence itself.” 288
197. Nakedness cannot automatically be associated with http://nudism.name/nudist-video/family-nudism-blogs.php .
It is not practical to cover the apples in the marketplace only because someone might may be tempted by
gluttony, nor is it necessary to prohibit money because someone might be overcome by greed. Nor is it realistic to ban
nudity, just because someone might be tempted to lust. Additionally, respect for the attractiveness of a member
of the other sex, nude or otherwise, cannot be equated automatically with lust. Just if desire is added does
Thanks become lust, and thus sin. Even then, it is the one who lusts, not the object of lust, who has sinned.
Bathesheba was never rebuked for bathing, but David for lusting (II Samuel 11:2-12:12). Pope John Paul II writes:
“There are circumstances in which nakedness isn’t immodest. If a person takes advantage of such an occasion to

treat the individual as an object of enjoyment (even if his action is solely internal) it is just he who is guilty of
shamelessness . . . not the other.” 289 Margaret Miles observes that “Nakedness and sexuality or lust were infrequently
Related in patristic writings.” 290
198. Many historical church leaders have disassociated nudity with sexual immodesty. St. Thomas
Aquinus, for example, defined an immodest action as one done with a lustful goal.291 Consequently, someone who
disrobes for the sole purpose of bathing or recreating cannot be accused of immodesty.
Pope John Paul II writes: “Sexual modesty cannot then in any simple way be identified with the use of
clothing, nor shamelessness with the absence of clothing and total or partial nakedness. . . . Immodesty is present