Nakedness and the
prophets of the Old Testament
IS nakedness a sin? The conventional answer is that of
course it is. But when we look into the Scriptures, a different picture
emerges.
Especially
when we look at the Scriptures in English there is confusion, because there are
two different Hebrew words translated into our Bibles as “naked” or
“nakedness”.
The first is ’arom, which simply means bare,
unclothed or buck naked.
The second is
ervah, which is not simply nude but
also lewd, offensive and disgusting.
If merely being
naked were sinful, would God have commanded it of anyone?
We read in
chapter 20 of the Book of Isaiah: “. . . the LORD spoke through Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying:
‘Go and loosen the sackcloth from your hips, and take your shoes off your
feet.’ And he did so, going naked and barefoot.”[1]
Naked and
barefoot was the way prisoners of war were in those times routinely made to go
wherever their captors wanted them to go.
And was this
just for a few days? No.
The next
verse says: “And the LORD said: ‘Even as My servant Isaiah has gone naked
and barefoot three years as a sign and token . . .’ ”
So for three
whole years the prophet of the Lord Almighty had been journeying about Israel naked – having been commanded to do so by the
Lord.
His condition
of nakedness has been hemmed in by commentators, who insist that the expression
translated as “naked” actually means “clothed with a loincloth”.
But the
Hebrew word used to describe Isaiah’s state is ’arom – simply, and
innocently, naked.
There is
naturally also a context of humiliation – Isaiah was prefiguring the
humiliation that Israel would suffer – but he himself, as the Lord’s
servant, was not humiliated.
Next we read
in the book of the prophet Ezekiel an allegory in which Jerusalem is described
as a naked girl, born of an Amorite[2]
and a Hittite[3] (hated foreigners),
and so something of a bastard child. Chapter 16, verse 7 says of her:
“Then you
grew up, became tall, and reached the age for fine ornaments; your breasts were
formed and your hair had grown. Yet you were naked and bare.”
The reference
is clearly to pubic hair, since this grows at about the same time the breasts
form – the hair on the head grows continuously, and there would be no point in
mentioning it.
Had the
ancient Israelites guarded their nakedness the way many Christians do nowadays,
or the way Muslims do, would the prophet even have known about this phenomenon?
And had he known the phenomenon, would it have been proper for him to mention
it?
Frequently,
Christian society expects its followers to hide their nakedness to the extent
that even man and wife do not appear naked in each other’s presence unless the
lights are out. What kind of sickness is this?
And then
there is, you might remind me, the repeated injunction in Leviticus concerning
intimacy between close relatives: “None of you shall approach any blood
relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD.”[4]
But notice
the active verb there – we are told: “You shall not uncover
nakedness . . .”
The
prohibition is on actively undressing the relative with the intent of sexual
intimacy – the New International Version is quite specific about this, using
the words sexual relations, rather than the euphemism of uncovering nakedness.
The context
makes it clear that the word naked as used here is not ’arom but ervah –
disgusting or lewd nakedness.
It is now
clear that the nakedness of the bath – and the incidental visibility of the
unclothed body – does not fall under this prohibition.
For a further
discussion of nakedness in a biblical context, see here
and here.
–
Strandloper
