If they are not ashamed to be with each other naked, then why/how do we, as a church, develop a doctrine of modesty (covered skin) from this passage, knowing that God looks at our heart? You are right, neither you, nor I, could possibly imagine going from a innocent state to a fallen nature.

The interesting thing about Peter’s situation is he’s naked on the boat with a bunch of other fishermen (and possibly, but, unlikely, women.) When he recognizes Jesus on the shore, he puts on his clothes and dives in. The modesty argument doesn’t fit (if he’s worried about modesty, wouldn’t he wear his clothes on the boat as well, since he’s within sight, sound, and swimming distance from the shore.) My best guess is that he wanted to protect his clothes from theft or loss. (Recall that a cloak could be used as collateral for a loan Ex 22:26.) I’ve been to a few 3rd world countries and while the poor will bathe in streams, it is necessary to keep track of personal belongings, including clothes.

I didn’t include Christ’s or anyone’s crucifixion, since the nakedness is forced by those performing the crucifixion. I also am not advocating forced nakedness as a result of capture, since both of these situations of public nakedness are forced upon the ‘victim’. In early America, criminals were thrown in stocks for public humiliation, usually they were fully clothed, but not always.

We’ve discussed before the ‘modest’ which Paul is using is not related to how much skin is exposed, but to not stand out displaying riches (the belief at the time was the wealthy were more righteous – Job)

I admit, the passage in I Cor 12 is a little confusing. I don’t know which part of the church should be covered or hidden because they are uncomely. Should we hide the mentally retarded? psychiatric patients? the handicapped? children? women? men? Paul doesn’t specify which part of the church is shameful, nor does he specify which body parts need to be covered. It could be internal organs just as well as genitalia.

I found it interesting of the insistence of circumcision in both the Old and New Testament. I wonder how the Jews were able to tell who was circumcised and who wasn’t, if we are assuming the same/similar level of required skin coverage we have today.

I’m not sure that Adam and Eve were ashamed to show their naked body parts to each other. I do know that they were ashamed that they were naked and sought to cover. Why go together? Had they ever done anything that wasn’t together? We don’t know the full effect of sin at the time on their mind.

Another interesting story is that of Peter in the latter chapters of John– after the resurrection. He’s out fishing, sans clothing, and when the Lord calls and He knew it was him, he didn’t just dive in the water and come ashore, he threw on some clothing to come see him. Why? Obviously Peter had been around the Lord for 3 years. So why was he clothing himself if he could be modest without clothing.

The other question is why you avoided Christ’s crucifixion when listing all of your “when it was okay for the Savior to be naked” questions earlier? I mean, the Romans were obviously keyed into something when they chose to crucify all of their convicts in the nude, and I doubt it was because they were practical about burial or wanted the clothing. I’m sure it was for the shame of appearing naked in public.

Again, you’ve failed to respond to why Paul’s command to Timothy was to wear “modest apparel” and not “no apparel will suffice.”

Here’s another one for you: 1 Corinthians 12:23 I’ve linked to the concordance option.

In this passage, Paul is comparing the body of Christ to the human body. Pray tell, what are the “uncomely” and “less honorable” parts upon whom we bestow honor? Matthew Henry states:

Those parts which are not fit, like the rest, to be exposed to view, which are either deformed or shameful, we most carefully clothe and cover; whereas the comely parts have no such need.

What parts would be shameful, and Henry believes “most carefully cover”? What parts are “shameful”?

Please reference Ezekiel 23:29. This particular verse uses 3 different words for naked (`eryah H6181, `eyrom H5903, and `ervah H6172). In this verse H6181 and H5903 are used in parallel. Other Biblical uses of H5903 indicate a sense of shame as if one has been duped or ‘had’ or enslaved.

Using the sense of shame from being duped follows the serpent being described as crafty. Also note that A&E maintained their fig leaf aprons until just before the garden expulsion, when God provided them animal skins. A potential practical reason for why God provided them animal skins is found in Adam’s curse (thorns and thistles).

So if A&E are ashamed to have their body parts seen by each other, why do they go together to make their fig leaf aprons and hide? This doesn’t make sense.

I would not argue all or never, since one exception invalidates the argument. I would argue some gardening in the Old Testament was done without clothes and it was common enough for Mary not to be shocked. There is no record of Jesus adorning apparel after the resurrection, but his grave clothes remained in the tomb (so he didn’t have those on.) Knowing that clothing had a good deal more monetary value than it does today (Mt 5:40, Mt 25:43, Jn 21:7), I’m doubtful he had anything on.

While I am not a part, I can find no issue with this general theologygeneral theology, biblically, historically, or logically.

As far as the resurrection, we know that Mary thought that He was the gardener (John 20:15). Why would Mary think Jesus was the gardener if He was naked– unless you’re now making the argument that all gardening in the New Testament times was done without clothing?

Nowhere in the Bible is a lack of clothes used to show anything but desolation or shame– I think I’ve made that argument pretty clearly.

BTW, we agree a streaker (one who is purposefully naked to draw attention to him or herself) is immodest. It is all about the intent, though, not about the clothes or lack thereof.

Gen 9: Noah was drunk and uncovered in his tent. There is nothing in the text to suggest that he’s anything more than naked, for we read in Gen 9:24 that Noah didn’t even know what transpired, for he awoke and then knew what his youngest son had done. How did he know? Furthermore, we know that it was nakedness and not more than that for Shem and Japheth entered with the backs turned so as not to see their father’s nakedness. As far as the Hebrew words go, you have not made the argument that nakedness does not mean shame. Furthermore, “uncovered” in verse 21 is literally uncovered in the Hebrew is uncovered, revealed, or stripped. There’s nothing untoward mentioned there.

A Christian slave was to obey his master. That’s correct. However, there’s nothing in there to state that this was public nudity, and I would say that, in fact, the slave did not have a choice in the matter. Clearly, Paul’s command in 1 Timothy for the woman to be covered in modest apparel would not apply to that person that did not have a choice.

As far as Saul in 1 Sam 19:23, we know that the Holy Spirit over took him and he went into a trance. Now, was this parading publicly in the nude? No. He had prophesied with the prophets before (1 Sam 10) this time with his clothing intact. In fact, what we do know is that because he was naked and in a trance he was not in any condition to do what he was trying to do– namely capture and kill David. Hardly a passage to take as something defending nudity in public, this one states how God prevented a King– who would have been humiliated in public to be without his clothing– to accomplish his evil intent towards God’s chosen.

I have not argued that nudity may or may not have been necessary for bathing. Obviously if one is to be cleaned, one needs to be naked. However, taking one’s clothing off to bathe is different than walking around in the nude. One can easily be submersed in water while bathing. In the case of David and Bathsheba, where was Bathsheba having her bath? In public, or on the roof of her house, where only the king (in a taller house) would be able to see her? Obviously, there was a sense of modesty– not of people parading around naked.

As far as Paul advising Timothy to exercise, the only reference Paul makes toward bodily training, or encouraging it, is in 1 Tim 4:8, which states that bodily training is of some value– but godliness better value. Which is interesting, in that it’s the same argument that Paul’s making when he says that women should wear modest apparel. Same as Peter talking about women putting on sobriety and godliness. Not that they shouldn’t wear clothing, but that their clothing should be godly. And what clothing shows godliness? Both Paul and Peter agree that it’s modest clothing, humble clothing. Clothing that doesn’t draw attention to oneself. None of this fits public nudity. Oh, and 1 Tim 4:8 doesn’t use the word gymnasia but gumnasia meaning exercise or discipline. Paul is far from telling Timothy to exercise in a gym naked.

As far as your other links about mixed gender baptism, these are external to the Bible, and for all we know it is something that the secular society imposed from without. And even if it weren’t you’d be hard pressed to prove that the body was not completely covered in the water, and that clothing was not worn before going into the water and used to dry off after coming out– I mean, think of how cold that would have been!

And public toilets may not be private– however, neither are many of our modern toilets (for the men, anyway), but this is far from being naked in public. And the article you linked doesn’t state that people were naked to use the toilet, just that there was offered no privacy.

You’ve provided nothing from the Bible that supports your case. Your strongest argument, Saul, is weak because it’s a great way to keep Saul from chasing and killing David, and it’s not something that Saul chose to do. You have failed to explain the many cases in the prophets where nakedness = destitution and shame. You’ve not taken into account how nakedness is used to indicate ruin in the Bible, nor why a God that didn’t mind the nakedness in the Garden of Eden chose to cloth his creations after the fall and that from the beginning of life after the fall, Adam and Eve knew that they were naked and were ashamed and afraid.