gossiping about it, effectively destroying Noah’s standing, cultural status, and ability as a father figure. In the

story, Shem and Japheth were blessed for coming to the defense of their father’s honor. Rather than joining Ham in
his boasting, they reverently covered their father’s shame.281
189. Exodus 20:26–The Priest’s nakedness wasn’t to be exposed because it would create dissonance
between his social role, in which he was to be seen as sexually neutral, and his biological standing as a sexual being.
The Priest’s costume symbolized his societal role; to be exposed in that context would be improper and
Rita Poretsky writes: “Personhood, first sexual energy, and physical nakedness could be either in
synchrony with social associations or in disharmony. . . . Nakedness is a nakedness of self in a social context, not merely
a nakedness of body.” 283 On the other hand, it was quite suitable for David to dance basically nude in public
to observe 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 manifestation “uncover the
nakedness of” (as it’s 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 generally 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 nearly nude in the City of David to observe the return of the
ark, in full view of all of the citizens of the city. http://videonudism.com/teen/nude-beach-branch.php criticized his public nudity and was rebuffed.
King David was not strictly nude–he wore a “linen ephod,” a type 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 naked
and barefoot for three years. The prophet Micah might have done the same thing (see Micah 1:8).
194. Song of Solomon repeatedly expresses gratitude for the nude body.
195. Every Biblical organization of nakedness with shame is in reference to a sin already committed. One
cannot hide from God behind literal or figurative garments. All stand nude before God.286
196. Nakedness cannot automatically be equated with http://nudism.name/nudist-video/hairy-pussy-nudist-beach-pics.php .
Linking nudity with sexual sin, to the exclusion of all else, makes as much sense as insisting that fire can
Just be connected to the destruction of property and life, and is therefore immoral. Sin comes not from nakedness,
but from the way in which the state of nakedness is used. Ian Barbour writes: “No aspect of man is bad in itself, but merely 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 creation.” 287
Pope John Paul II concurs that nudity, in and of itself, isn’t sinful. “The body in itself always has its
own inalienable human dignity,” he says. It is just obscene when it’s reduced to “an object of ‘enjoyment,’ meant
for the gratification of concupiscence itself.” 288
197. Nakedness cannot automatically be associated with lust.
It is not practical to cover the apples in the marketplace only because someone might may be tempted by
gluttony, nor is it essential to prohibit cash because someone might be overcome by greed. Nor is it realistic to ban
nudity, just because a person might be enticed to lust. Also, appreciation 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
appreciation become lust, and therefore sin. Even then, it’s the person who lusts, not the target 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 this kind of occasion to
treat the individual as an object of enjoyment (even if his action is simply internal) it is just he who’s guilty of
shamelessness . . . not the other.” 289 Margaret Miles finds that “Nakedness and sexuality or lust were rarely
Linked in patristic writings.” 290
198. Many historical church leaders have disassociated nudity with sexual immodesty. St. Thomas
Aquinus, for instance, defined an immodest action as one done with a lustful motive.291 So, 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