This is sort of a starting point for this question and as I get answers (and more questions likely), will branch out as necessary.
Over the past several years, I have heard a statement that was reiterated recently regarding nudity in "Biblical Israel".
Usually it goes something like "The Jews were against nudity" or "Nudity was frowned upon in Israel".
This is not something I find supported by statements talking about Isaiah (Isa 20), King Saul (1 Sam 19).
The questions I have are:
1) Where do these teachers get their information and how accurate is it?
2) If this is true, should it shed new light on our desire for nude recreation?
I suspect that in some ways, I should be asking this in a totally different forum as this is sort of like preaching to the choir but....
[i]1. Nudity, the characteristic of paradise, was regarded in Judaism as reprehensible, even within the family (Lev. 18:6-19; Ezek. 22:10; II Sam. 6:20; 10:4; Isa. 20:2-4;- 47:3). For a son to look upon his father’s nudity was equivalent to a crime (Gen. 9:20-27). To a great extent this taboo probably even inhibited the practice of husbands and wives (this is still true of a surprising number of people reared in the Judeo-Christian taboo system). We may not be prepared for nude beaches, but are we prepared to regard nudity in the locker room or at the old swimming hole or in the home as an accursed sin?[/i]
I suppose it would be more likely, when in Isreals history.
Their history is so long, it would be like saying what was considered as a taboo in the 1600s is taboo today. Our US history, being so short, doesn't allow for much difference, yet there is a huge difference between today and four hundred years ago. Even one hundred years ago there is a huge diffence.
Isreal lasted over 2000 years plus, so you can imagine the difference in history and even languages. Ancient Hebrew practices from Moses to King David and from King David to the capture of Isreal in Daniels time, to the Jesus' time, now broken up into Jewish and Levitical groups, (now all known as "Jews" from the word "Judah") are huge differences and rules.
Their rules may not have been quite as strict in the earliest history of the Isrealites (all tribes were together including Judah) as they became by the time the dust settled and they were under the Roman occupation.
By then, they were so afraid of being punished by God that they over did it and made rules that made no sense whatsoever. That was when Jesus came on the scene and they had completely lost site of what and who God is. Their rules and regulations became more of a god than God is, and they proved it when God came down in the form of Jesus.
So we may have to break down the history into eras and what they were living by (generally speaking, the law of Moses...but...) in order to pull the truth out in the open.
However, and this is the good news, it doesn't really matter. Since we are no longer under the law of Moses anyway, and in spite of the ancient Isrealites rules, we are under grace and the law of Jesus.
Why do we need to worry about whether the Jewish (or Isrealite as a whole) had laws concerning whether one can be nude or not, when God himself never made that law. The Isrealites (Later Juda/Levite plus scattered = Jews) added so many laws that it would be impossible to keep them properly, let alone perfectly.
Looking back at what God said, and what they say, I would be more likely to go by what God said. But of course, many got stoned for that.
Given the long history of the Isrealites from Moses to Jesus, again it would be like worrying about what King Arther did and how it applies to our current state of affairs.
The language translated in some of the older versions as "don't look upon the nakedness of..." means to not to see your father or other relatives having sex. The passage in David about David exposing himself lead to God condemning Michal, the one who complained about it, to childlessness. Other statements about "shameful nakedness" dealt with using it as a demonstation that they'd been defeated. Nakedness has also been related to being poor (the poor went about and worked naked). Talk to a Chinese or Jewish person today. Being poor or not having much money is shameful to them. The first thing a Chinaman asks you is, "How much money do you make?" Jews have the same mindset.
... "uncover the nakedness of..." was more of an active phrase than an observational one. It meant to (physically, specifically by force in some instances) uncover/undress another person specifically for the purpose of having sex with them, and not just to watch some one else.
When Scripture says not to uncover the nakedness of some one, it means to not have sex with them. The language stretched farther than what ours does today due to societal conventions of the time- to uncover your father's nakedness (as in the Ham/Noah story) could mean to have sex with either your father or with your father's wife, since she (her nakedness) was his.
I just did a study on every time this word is used in the HEBREW and it is Hebrew slang for sexual perversion/deviation. I had this confirmed by a Jewish commentary on the Torah. This word based on context refers to incest, homosexuality, prostitution, or adultery/fornication.
Often the context of an even determines where its acceptable or not. So while there are some places were a person would enver be found naked there are other situations were less clothes or no clothes might be acceptable.
As mentioned the locker room is acceptable for men to be naked and talk to each other even goof around some. I think of certian situations in boot camp ... But that doesn't mean that those actions are acceptable every where.
So I think this was true in the ancient world as well. I doult we have enough written materal to know these execptions. But a couple ... come to mind. Bathsheba washing ... clearly she was awear of where she was bathing and some idea of the lines of sight. Perhaps bathing wasn't as modest as we are today wher we go into an room in out house and shut the door and then pull the shower curtian.
Also the Jewish baptism for cleasing. I read that there were lots of baths for men to get naked and dip to clean themselves before going to the temple. My impression is these were along the street to the temple ... so any one out and about would seem naked men in public along this street going to the temple. Yet men would be clothed in most situation.
So I don't think one sentence about modest dress of jews really means they were cover head to foot all the time. But who can recover these excetions and practices from long ago ... We'll not know in this world ...
Ceremonial bathing, and baptism, required that a person not be touched either by a person or an object until the ceremony was complete.
During an early-church baptism, the person would undress on shore and go down into the water alone, dunk his/her self while the "preacher" watched from a distance- possibly from shore- and then the person would return to shore and dress.
Likewise, Jewish cleansing rituals required that nothing touched the person, so they would also go into and come out of the bath naked. The cleansing pools that were used before entering the temple were in the outer courtyard, but since women were ot allowed within the temple, those who used them would all have been males.
I am not so sure we can take everything in this article at face value. Although its author is not homosexual, he has apparently decided to question the Bible's prohibition on homosexual activity. (Notice I did not say "homosexuality," for that word refers to the inclination, not the deeds.) Here's a quote from near the article's end:
"...There is no biblical sex ethic. The Bible knows only a love ethic..."
That tells me that the author is trying to prove a point--primarily about homosexuality, not nudity--and that he has not quite understood all the Bible has to say even about his primary subject.
But on our subject, social nudity, the Bible's teaching is equivocal at best. It is not so regarding certain prohibited sexual practices.
Yes, I agree. It was just the first argument I found that states the "Nudity was Taboo" argument.
The other two were a recent message I heard (I don't remember which one) and a discussion about Bathsheba in "Bad Girls of the Bible" (maybe book two).
Who says Bathshebs was a bad girl? Scripture doesn't. There is never any condemnation on Bathsheba; only on David.
Popular opinion today would have us believe that she was doing something wrong, but that isn't the case. The fault lay squarely with David, who was away from where he should have been at the time, and who apparently knew exactly what he was doing when he went up on that rooftop...
Does this Miss Curtis Higgs include Delilah? Or "Queen" Athaliah, who nearly wiped out Israel's royal family? Those are the really bad girls, far worse than the woman innocently bathing in her rooftop bathroom like any other Israelite woman.
That's not fair. She had been a prostitute, true; but she was the one who sheltered the Israelite spies in Jericho, and later married one of them, or at least another Israelite, becoming an ancestress of Jesus. She'd be more accurately described as "a bad girl gone good." (And even that description is open to question; many women found prostitution the only way to make a living without a husband.)
The series wsa "Girls Gone Wild Bible Style". In the case of Rahab, it talked about her "wild life" before and the repentance and acceptance into God's family after the Jericho attack.
Ah! Well, that's not so bad. But I don't recall the Bible saying anything about her "wild life" before she met those two spies...
(As you can tell, this strikes a nerve. I love womankind enough to hate the oppression and double standards that still seem to apply, such as the difference between "Boys will be boys" and "Loose woman!" )
Goes to show how much people will read into something then make their condemnations according to their current beliefs and misunderstanding.
One of the reasons I started this forum is to allow people to bring in these subjects and to correct any misunderstandings of what I wrote (or others) so we can grow in understanding.
Like the subject of circumsicion, we need to be open and vulnerable and be willing to cut out any wrong ideas and get down to the truth and heart of the matter.
Much of our beliefs today was based on unfounded ideas. I have even held the idea that the Mary who announced Jesus' ressurection and who wiped his feet, was a harlot. There is no where in the bible that mentions it. It was a theory that was encouraged to down play her role so others won't make her as big a "saint" as many wanted her to be.
But even that would be the wrong reason to down play anyone, since we were all sinners and being a harlot is no different than being a murderer, lier, thief, idol worshiper, etc. before we gave ourselves to God. What they need to do is see what she did when she wiped his feet. There is much more to that story than what we read on the surface. There is a whole sermon there.
Boyd Allen "May the Lord protect our nudity from the sight of those who will not benefit, and may he allow us to be seen by those who will."
Although I have not read them, I think the Bad Girls of the Bible books are meant to showcase how God can use a "bad decision" for the good of those who love Him. Some of those "Bad Girls" may have not "gone good," but God was able to use them, regardless.
What about the pools throughout the city? They were obviously used for more than a water supply as when the waters stirred people would try to be the first in to receive healing. People don't talk a lot about their purpose, but could they have been a place for public baths and cleansing separate from the Temple? We know the Romans had a lot of public baths.
Also, Bathsheba is not described in scripture as bathing on a rooftop - another changing of the story. I checked this out some time ago in a discussion. David was on his rooftop and she was likely at one of the pools cleansing herself after menstration when she would be required to bathe to cleanse herself. Check it out just in case I'm off.
But I don't recall the Bible saying anything about her "wild life" before she met those two spies...
)