Can Christians view nudity?

Caillebotte_Gustave_Femme_Nue_Etendue_Sur_Un_Divan2

There are two extremes when it comes to Christians viewing nudity. One extreme says it is ok for all ages and all people to be naked at all times. The other extreme says that nudity is forbidden except in the case of parents with caring for children, adult children caring for parents, medical attention and of course marriage.

In this page I will present Biblical evidence for why I believe it is not always wrong for a Christian to view nudity. But let me be clear though, that this paper is not a defense of Christian nudism. The Bible says:

“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven”.

Ecclesiastes 3:1(KJV)

Shouldn’t we wear clothes so we won’t cause others to lust?

For most Christians the issue of lust would be the first concern with people being unclothed in front of strangers. They say that if everyone walked around naked then we would constantly be lusting after each other and the Bible clearly condemns lust.

Here is a great article about what Biblical lust is:

http://biblicalgenderroles.com/what-does-the-bible-say-about-lust/

In summary, Biblical lust is not simply being turned on by viewing a person’s body, whether fully clothed, partially clothed or completely nude. It is not even having a sexual fantasy or dream about that person. Biblical lust, is covetousness. To lust after someone, is to covet them, to fantasize about how you can possess that person.

There are two main Biblical passages that talk about lusting after someone (yes there are only two) and each one deals with a different kind of lust.

Lusting after a single woman

“I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?”

Job 31:1(KJV)

This passage from Job describes the first type of Biblical lust, which is lusting after a single woman. This is talking about a man looking at an unmarried woman (a virgin in most cases) and thinking about how he can entice her into having sex with him outside of marriage. In no way is this saying Job never looked at any single woman – that is a ridiculous assumption.

It is also equally ridiculous in my understanding of this passage, to say that Job was never turned on or sexually attracted to a young single woman (even after being married). He was simply saying he had made a covenant with his eyes not to look on a single woman and think about how he could get her into bed without marrying her, this is the plain and simple truth of this passage. But in no way does Job 31:1 condemn sexual arousal or sexual fantasy toward someone of the opposite sex that you are not married to. It can become wrong, if it becomes obsessive or affects relationships or leads to covetous (lustful) thoughts, but sexual arousal and the pleasure from enjoying the view of a single woman’s body is not sinful.

Lusting after a married woman

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Matthew 5:27-28(KJV)

This passage from Matthew 5 is from Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. This passage describes the second type of Biblical lust, lusting after a married woman. The context is clearly talking about a man looking at a married woman because the word adultery only applies to married women. The word fornication most of the time refers to unmarried people, but sometimes it can apply to married persons as well.

What Christ is saying here is that if a man looks on a woman and lusts after her that he has sinned. But again lust is here is covetousness, and covetousness is the desire to possess something in a sinful way.

When it comes to a married woman, it is not wrong for a man to look on her and appreciate her form. It is not wrong that her form and face give him pleasure, it not even wrong for him to have some sexual thought or fantasy about her. Where it becomes wrong is when his thoughts turn to covetousness (or lust), and he begins to think about how he can entice her into cheating on her husband, or leaving her husband.

Summary of the two types of Biblical Lust

So let me try and summarize how the two types of Biblical lust work. Say for instance that my neighbor has this cool classic car he has rebuilt. I love looking at that car through my front window. The simple fact that I love his car, or fantasize about driving it down the highway is not sin. The sin comes in when I think about how I may steal his car, how I can take it in an illegal or unethical way. But if I offer him a fair amount and purchase the car that would not be wrong. So I desired the car, I thought about the car, and then I purchased the car, no sin has been committed.

If the car symbolized a single woman, then the car’s owner would be her father. If I have thoughts and fantasizes about how I can entice a single girl into having sex with me without us first being married I am lusting after another man’s daughter. But if I were to date the man’s daughter, and then eventually ask for her hand in marriage and marry her – no sin has been committed. I looked at her, desired her, and married her.

If the car symbolized a married woman then the car’s owner would be her husband. If I have thoughts and fantasizes about how I can entice his wife to cheat on her husband, or leave him for me then I am lusting after another man’s wife. Unlike the single woman analogy, I can never have this married woman so that is why a little more caution needs to take place so that our normal sexual desire, and pleasure from appreciating the form of a married woman, does not turn into lust(covetousness).

But doesn’t the Bible say women should dress modestly?

I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I Timothy 2:8-12(KJV)

The context of this famous “modesty” passage is that of worship. It is talking about how people are to behave and act when they assemble for worship and instruction in the Word of God. Today when people hear “modest” they think of one of two things, either something small and simple (like a “modest salary”) or something not too revealing or sexy.

Paul’s meaning is probably a little of both. He is saying women should wear clothes that cover them appropriately and are not too costly when they came to worship together. Paul did not want the church turning into a fashion show. The Greek word that we translate in English as “apparel” is “Katastole”. Katastole actually comes from two Greek words, Kata and Stole which literally refers to a “complete stola”. A stola in New Testament times was a one piece robe with holes for the head and arms. Often times a strap would be worn around the middle below the breasts to give the stola some form around the body. Sometimes a stola had sleeves, other times it was sleeveless.

Keep in mind though, that the wealthier a roman was, the more clothing they wore. The poor men and women wore very simple stolas. These images will give you an idea of the clothing during the New Testament time. But the clothing depicted below would have been that of wealthier citizens. Poorer people or servants would have worn thinner and simpler clothing.

ClothingInAncientRome

The image above shows a lot of different dress styles for both men and women. Some of the men have more clothing than others, one of the women is wearing a short sleeve stola and the other a long sleeve.

Statue_of_a_young_Roman_woman

The statue above shows another stola

Roman_school

The picture above shows an ancient Roman school. Notice how the clothing these men are wearing is much simpler than what was shown of men above. This indicates people had more dressy clothing as simpler clothing just as we have dress clothing and simpler clothing today.

But women also wore less at times as illustrated in this ancient roman painting of women playing sports in their version of bikinis:

Ancient_Romans_Wearing_Bikinis_in_sport

I showed all this to put in context what Paul was saying. Paul was saying that women should wear appropriate clothing for worship and yes the stola probably would have covered most their bodies, unless they were sleeveless as many stola’s were. Basically Paul was saying that women should not be coming to worship dressed like these athletes, or even in work attire which would be smaller less fancy stolas. But this was for worship only. He was not saying they had to wear all these layers of clothing all the time, or that there might not be appropriate times for shorter stolas or less clothes like these women above where wearing as the played sports.

In this section we proved two points. For worship we should wear, complete, appropriate and modest clothing. We don’t want church to look like a brothel, or like a fashion show.   We also showed that in Roman times women did wear less clothing in some circumstances, and Paul does not extend his clothing standards beyond the assembly of the church for worship.

So why should we wear clothes?

388px-John_Liston_Byam_Shaw_The_Woman_The_Man_the_Serpent

Adam and Eve

As a general rule we should wear clothes because God clothed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as well as the fact that in the new heaven and new earth people are seen wearing clothes.

9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Genesis 1:9-11 & 21(KJV)

Christian nudist and others try to claim the only reason Adam and Eve needed clothing was because of their sin. I believe that God would have clothed them at some point anyway. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil gave them the insight that clothing represented dignity and honor. Men and women being clothed is an outward symbol that separates man from every other creature on this planet.

Think about it – every animal on this planet has a natural clothing that protects them from the elements, man had no such natural protection. I believe it was inevitable, whether man or woman sinned that God would have eventually clothed Adam and Eve.

Look in Revelation where there is no sin anymore and the saints are clothed in white:

After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

Revelation 7:9(KJV)

So yes as a general rule, people should wear clothing.

Nakedness in the scriptures is often associated with poverty and shame

21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Genesis 9:21-26(KJV)

Right after the flood when civilization is just beginning to be rebuilt, one of Noah’s three sons,Ham, does something that causes his father to curse him. This issue was not that he saw his father’s nakedness, the fact was he went out making fun of his father’s nakedness to his brothers.

In the Law of Moses, he states several commands about “uncovering nakedness”:

None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.

Leviticus 18:6(KJV)

The phrase “to uncover their nakedness”, literally is to have sex with them. This passage lists several close family relations that are forbidden, parents with children, as well as forbidding men to marry a woman and her daughter, or a woman and her sister. These are all about sex, and marriage.

In fact the same “uncover nakedness” language is talked about with a man and his wife:

Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.

Leviticus 18:19(KJV)

This was one of the many cleanliness laws of Israel (which of course we are no longer any more) which forbid men from having sex with their wives when they were on their periods.

Nakedness was also associated with the shame of slavery as slaves were stripped naked for inspection when being sold.

SlaveMarketInAncientRome

 

A positive display of nakedness

So it is clear that clothing represents dignity and honor, while nakedness MOST of the time, represents shame. But an event with King David tells us nakedness is not always a shame:

14 And David danced before the Lord with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod.

15 So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet.

16 And as the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, Michal Saul’s daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the Lord; and she despised him in her heart…

20 Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!

21 And David said unto Michal, It was before the Lord, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel: therefore will I play before the Lord.

22 And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.

23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

II Samuel 2:14-16 & 20-23(KJV)

Basically David was excited for all the Lord had done for Israel and stripped down to his underwear and danced with all his might before the Lord. His wife Michal thought his actions were undignified but God caused her to barren because of her attitude toward her husband’s behavior.

Voluntary temporary nakedness for a purpose is not wrong

Why was David’s nakedness not dishonorable, yet most every other instance of nakedness in the Bible is associated with shame?

This is the key question. The answer is that under certain conditions, nakedness is honorable and acceptable, rather than being a shame.

Within marriage nakedness is a beautiful thing – the Song of Solomon spends most of the book using symbolic imagery to convey the beauty of both the male and female bodies.

The other time is when the nakedness is not forced, but clothing is voluntarily taken off for a specific temporary purpose. When David took his clothes off for worship, it was for a specific, temporary purpose. David did not walk around the rest of his life naked, eventually he put his clothes back on.

Doctors and paramedics must remove people’s clothes to give them medical attention.   When children care for their elderly parents, or when parents care for disabled adult children they will sometimes have to see them naked – there is no shame in this, and no sin in this.

Medical students must examine naked bodies.

I would argue that a male or female model stripping to be painted is nakedness with a purpose.

François_Barraud_-_La_seance_de_peinture

When people swim or bath whether in the nude that is nudity for a purpose, and it is temporary. (So no I would not be opposed to nude beaches, although I don’t ever plan on going to one).

Jean-Léon_Gérôme_bathes007

But swimming nude, and walking around nude all the time like in nudist colonies are two very different things. We should be wearing clothing, unless there is a specific and temporary reason why we are not.

I don’t agree with nude dancing in topless bars because this has physical contact between the dancers and the men and definitely leads to covetousness and fornication.

But what about some plays or shows where dancers are sometimes half naked or completely naked? I don’t see an issue in these types of dancing because it does not have naked women interacting with men in the audience, it is a show of the beauty of the body, and nothing more.

Musicians_and_dancers_on_fresco_at_Tomb_of_Nebamun

Ancient Egyptian painting of nude dancers

Even if the men are aroused by the female bodies, or women by the male bodies it is highly unlikely they are going to try and find a dancer and try to have sex with them.

What about people taking nude pictures of themselves?

I don’t believe it is always wrong for a Christian to take nude pictures of themselves, or allow themselves to be filmed naked.  I also do not believe if they allow nude pictures of themselves to be made public that it is wrong to do so.  I think there needs to be discretion here, and I am not advocating for child pornography or the breaking of any laws in doing this.

I believe that while a woman’s body belongs to her husband(in reference to the physical acts of touching and sex), her beauty belongs to world. If a woman enjoys displaying her beauty, under the right conditions(like her husband is allowing it if she is married) then I don’t see an issue. Obviously there is a time and place for everything, I don’t think a woman should show up to her church, or her job naked(unless of course she is a nude model).

If a man or woman want to put a picture of themselves on some website, as long as they do it with some discretion, realizing they can never get that picture off the web, then that is their right to do so, and nothing Biblically forbids them from doing it.

Conclusion and Application

I realize we have gone over a lot of information, and you can see by the images I have displayed in this paper that I do not believe it is wrong for a Christian to view nudity.

It is not wrong to view nudity, whether in paintings or in photographs. It is not even wrong to be aroused by viewing nude images as long as those images do display immoral acts like homosexual sex, group sex, rape or bestiality.

If someone becomes voluntarily naked, temporarily and for a legitimate purpose that does not involve sinful behavior, there is nothing wrong that. So there would be nothing wrong with a Christian being a nude model, or a Christian photographing or painting nude models.

The sin comes when covetous thoughts come as we talked about earlier.

If you are have read my articles on nudity, and have faith that nudity is acceptable for a Christian to view, then I suggest you check out this great new Christian Erotica Site –  RestoringChristianSexuality.com

All images in this paper were taken from Wikipedia or wiki commons common domain images.

8 thoughts on “Can Christians view nudity?

  1. Jeff

    Is there any indication that Christian women would have walked around in a bikini in those days or would that be more of an assumption?

    1. We don’t know for sure if any Christian women wore bikinis. We do know that many Roman women did wear them. I would probably guess that it would have been no at least a while after the apostles, because the Christian acetics took over for hundreds of years after the Apostles.

  2. Jeff

    In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul uses some examples from the Greek Games to illustrate how our service is to be in the Christian life.
    Do you think he ever attended these games?

  3. Guy

    Your article is very thoughtful. I was following your logic until you made the leap that “I believe that God would have clothed [Adam and Eve] at some point anyway.” What is your reasoning for that belief? How did you reach that conclusion? At the conclusion of his creation God viewed all that he made, including the naked Adam and Eve and it was “very good.” [Genesis 1:31] If God deemed their state of nakedness to be “very good” why would it need to be covered? Why would he have chosen to cover them in the future? That action would seem to conflict with his declaration.

    I have been struggling with this issue for a long time. I have always felt more comfortable without clothing. While we have never practiced social nudity, my spouse and I often shed our clothing when alone together (which is not often). We have considered going to a nude beach or even a family friendly clothing optional resort. We’re not interested in gawking or any other illicit activity. We simply enjoy the freedom of being in the state that we were created and the ability to enjoy the beauty of His design. I have difficulty believing that is inherently wrong.

    1. Guy,

      Revelation 7:9 shows us that in Heaven with no sin present people are clothed:
      “After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;”

      When God said it was “very good”(Genesis 1:31) and in “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”(Genesis 2:25) he was referring to a husband and wife being naked together as being good. Husbands and wives should have absolutely no shame, not guilt or any other problem being naked in front of one another.

      You notice in Genesis how God did not make several couples and have them all be naked around one another?

      My problem with nudism is that it tries to divorce sexuality from nudity. Don’t get me wrong – I think our sexual nature is beautiful and given by God. But the Christian nudist movement tries to teach us that we can view nude persons like a beautiful tree as opposed to a cheeseburger but I am sorry that is simply not the case. That is asking human beings to go directly against wiring and design that God gave us.

      In heaven there will be no marriage and no sex yet people are still clothed. This tells me that God would have eventually had Adam and Eve be clothed with the remained righteous or sinned.

  4. Guy

    Uneuqallibido:

    I respectfully disagree with your analysis. I think you are taking a metaphor as a literal statement. White robes signify the righteousness of Christ which covers our sin so that we are not naked before God (i.e., appearing before him in our sinful state). There are multiple examples throughout the Bible of the use of metaphors to make a point. Physical objects are often used to illustrate an abstract idea. Righteousness that comes through the grace afforded to us by the atoning sacrifice of Christ is just such an intangible abstract concept. The use of the metaphor of a white robe which signifies the covering purity of His atonement for our sins conveys this idea in a concrete way that we, as humans, can comprehend. In my humble opinion this reference does not mean that the saints are literally wearing white robes. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus refers to Peter at the “rock” on which he would build His church. He did not mean that Peter would literally be a cornerstone of a church building.

    Perhaps a better example related to clothing is the parable of the wedding feast found in Matt. 22:1-14. In that parable a man is ejected from the wedding feast because he attended without wearing wedding clothes. The point of the parable has nothing to do with what actual clothing the man wore but his lack of standing to attend the wedding feast. The wedding clothing is merely a metaphor for his standing to be in the presence of the King. This is further explained by Paul in Second Corinthians 5:1-5 when he writes in verses 2-5 “[2] Indeed, we groan in this body, desiring to put on our dwelling from heaven, [3] since, when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. [4] Indeed, we groan while we are in this tent, burdened as we are, because we do not want to be unclothed but clothed, so that mortality may be swallowed up by life. [5] And the One who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave us the Spirit as a down payment.” Paul is saying that we do not want to be found naked before the judgment seat of Christ, but he is not referring to literal clothing which does absolutely nothing to attend to our salvation. Rather he is emphasizing that we be in right standing with God by being “clothed” with the righteousness of Christ’s atoning sacrifice.

    I also think you stretching your interpretation of Genesis by inferring that because a group humans were not created naked together, beyond Adam and Eve, that mere public or group nudity is somehow inappropriate. If that were the case, then why did God command Isaiah to prophesy naked for three years (Isaiah 20)? I presume you agree that God is not capable of commanding someone to sin? Yet, Isaiah was require to appear nude in public for three full years. Therefore, mere nudity is not by itself, sinful or God could not command it.

    Sexuality in not of the body, rather it is in the heart and mind of each person. Yes, the body is the physical means by which we have sexual relations, but it is not the definition of sexuality. We are to maintain dominion over our hearts, minds and bodies. If a person is unable to divorce sexuality and nudity then they should definitely not participate in social nudity any more than an alcoholic should hang out in a bar. But that is a matter of one’s own heart and mind not a result of the body itself. I don’t think you can fairly compare the nude human body to a “tree” or a “cheeseburger.” We are the pinnacle of God’s creation in that we are sentient and imbued with a soul which permits us to be in relationship with Him. We are created in His image, unlike a tree. The human body is an unmatched artistic and engineering marvel and we should rethink our inability to appreciate His handiwork for the beauty that it is. Equating it to sexuality is our folly, not His. Many are aroused by nudity because it has been forbidden by the laws of man, but I find no persuasive evidence that God intended it to be that way.

    Warm Regards,
    Guy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s