Blog

Recently, I wrote a very lengthy article titled “The Case For Christian Naturism”. In it, I make a positive biblical case for the practice of chaste social nudity. God’s view of the human body is a positive one. So long as people aren’t being sexual with each other, there should be no disapproval about a group of friends deciding to go skinny dipping together, or even sitting nude around a table playing a game of Monopoly. I argued that the idea that clothing is necessary for sexual morality is nothing but man-made church tradition, and that insofar as curbing lust is concerned, this is also a man made idea. There is no command in scripture for people to hide themselves from others because we’re so inherently sexually deviant that the mere sight of the opposite gender will turn us into drooling, babbling, panting animals ready to mount the female. In fact, sociology shows that different cultures had different modesty standards, some permitting the exposure of what even what the most liberal theologian would consider “indecent”, yet they considered parts of the body we consider fine (like the face, hair, or feet) to be indecent. Incidentally, historical evidence shows that those parts a culture mandates be hidden at all times tend to become an object of sexual fascination. And thus, traditional modesty ends up worsening the lust problem it was created to solve. Unfortunately, while many people who read my article were highly opinionated (the Facebook post nearly had 200 comments!), very few of them seemed willing actually to engage with my arguments. And those who would engage with me, did so very half-heartedly and gave up after one or two comments. It honestly reminded me of the NPC meme where he just scowls at the person after being contradicted a single time.

Recently, Nick Peters of Deeper Waters Apologetics has unleashed a series of articles against naturism. And while not interacting with me per se, many of Aaron Frost’s arguments are also ones I would use to support a body-positive theological anthropology. Therefore, although it is a negative review of a book I didn’t write, the articles can be seen as general criticisms of Naturism. Peters is a good friend of mine, and I believe he only has the best of intentions in the writings of this article. As Chris from Mud Walkers has said in one of his videos, both sides mean well. And if I am not only factually wrong, but living in sin ^[1]Which would be a hard case to make for now seeing as my nudism has only been alone, and in private. But that said, I would see nothing wrong with social nudism. And I have every intention of going to … Continue reading, I will gladly do a complete 180. I have no greater desire than to conduct my life in a manner completely pleasing to Christ. So let us look at his arguments and see if they are enough to make this nudist put his clothes back on.

Nick Denies Having A Problem With Nudity Simpliciter

Nick Peters writes \\“To begin with, let’s see what it would mean to say God is opposed to nudity. Most of us are not, provided it is in the proper context. Taking a shower at home or having sex with your spouse? Go ahead and get naked. Want to go swimming in your own private pool or lake away from watching eyes in the buff? Go ahead. Again, this is the private and public sphere distinction.”\\ — No one is arguing that Christians on average think that being naked is wrong in every single possible context imaginable. Naturists do not imagine textiles taking showers in swimsuits or having sex with only their flies undone (and with the lights off so nothing can be seen anyway). Even the most hardcore textile will get naked for the bath or for sexual intercourse with a spouse. That said, if one holds to the idea that nudity must only be confined to these places, and that even an activity like skinny dipping is ok as long as no one is around, what underlying attitude does that imply about the naked human body?

In the comment section of the Facebook post where I shared my first naturism article, Nick said statements like “The body is to be seen as sacred and thus I don’t favor putting it on open display.” and “I won’t watch a movie with female nudity now because that is a real woman and I need to earn the privilege of being trusted with something sacred.” So something is sacred, so we have to hide it at all costs and act ashamed if someone sees it? I applaud Nick for giving the right Sunday School answers. Yes, this body IS sacred. As I argued in my first article, the human body is the image of God. God’s images in His Cosmic Temple. ^[2]For how this relates to naturism, see my article “The Case For Christian Naturism”. And for an in-depth exegetical treatment of seeing Genesis 1 as a cosmic temple inauguration text, see … Continue reading So Nick is quite right to assert that. However, to say that something is sacred, and therefore, it needs to be hidden, doesn’t make much sense. The gospel message is sacred, is it not? And yet we are called to share it with every single person that we possibly can (see Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 10:42, 1 Timothy 4:2). Communion is sacred, is it not? It is a ritual where we partake of eating the body of Christ and drinking His blood. (Matthew 26:26-28, Luke 22:19-20, John 6:53-38, 1 Corinthians 11:17-32). And if sacramentalists like Catholics and Anglicans are right (i.e it is more than symbolic), it would be even more so. ^[3]I don’t think the “real presence” view is correct. And I’ve voiced my disagreements of it in my article “Why I Don’t Believe In Transubstantiation”. Either way, the bread and the wine (or the crackers and grape juice) are in plain view for all to see. Even if they are covered by a table cloth for a time, soon the cloth is removed and everyone can see the body and blood of the Lord. So I’m afraid I don’t understand the logic here. If there’s a hidden premise Nick is assuming so that secrecy would follow from sacredness, hopefully, he’ll tell me and his readership what it is in a future rejoinder.

What I think is actually the reason why Nick is so funny about people being naked together is that he thinks the naked human body is this inherently sexual thing. And so do a lot of Christians. And so did I in the not-so-distant past. This is why they say that no one should see your naked body except for your spouse. You’re saving the sight of your naked body for your spouse on nuptial night. If one did not have a sexualized view of human nakedness, then this makes no sense. But, if nudity is sexual, then of course it makes perfect sense. As the reasoning would syllogistically go (1) Sexual things should be reserved for the marriage bed. (2) Being naked with someone else is a sexual thing. (3) Therefore, you should only be naked with your spouse. The problem is that I and all other naturists call premise 2 into question. And, in fact, we strongly believe that such a view is toxic and harmful. It fosters what the late David Hatton calls “A porno-prudish view of the body”, which in many cases like mine, lead to a fetishizing of the nudity of the gender we are attracted to. And once that fetish is in place, the devil has fertile grounds to plant a pornography addiction. This is why I chose not to keep this a secret. I believe the toxic porno-prudish view of human nakedness is causing the church to slowly suffocate a slow and painful death. Porn addiction among Christians are ridiculously high! ^[4]See, for example, “Porn and The Church” from AFA Journal, The Christianity Today article “Here’s How Pastor’s Describe Their Struggle With Porn”, and I wish I … Continue reading Nick has denied having a “porno-prudish view” of the human body, yet if that were really true, I doubt he would hold that social nudity should only be confined to couples in private. Would Nick say that I’m being gay if I were play a game of chess with a male nudist friend?

Nick Attacks A Straw Man Concerning Purdah

Nick Peters writes \\“Frost points to an idea of purdah. You can go to the link for more on that, but it seems like Frost is speaking in extremes. It’s either you hold to a doctrine that everything must be covered entirely, or you go completely naked. Frost tells us that if God wanted a purdah doctrine, he had thousands of years and pages in to tell us.”\\ ^[5]Nick Peters, “Book Plunge: Christian Body: Exodus 20:26” — https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/01/book-plunge-christian-body-exodus-2026/

Nick is unfortunately guilty of attacking a straw man. For clarity, Nick is interacting with the book “Christian Body: Modesty and The Bible” written by Aaron Frost, a Christian Naturist. Frost has never presented the dichotomy that “everything must be covered entirely” or “you go completely naked”. What Frost is arguing is that covering the body for sexually moral reasons is unnecessary and that there is no biblical command in scripture against it. He documents some wildly differing modesty standards which I’m sure Nick will get into later in his series. Looking at the historical evidence it would seem that no one can agree on just what precisely needs to be covered, and what can be shown. And Frost even documents examples of cultures that would be fine with even things like breast and genital exposure, but would adamantly insist on the covering of some other body part, like the face or the feet.

Frost writes “History records an ancient Persian practice called ‘Purdah’ which requires for women to be segregated, covered, and bound to particular modes of behavior. Today we can see Purdah most clearly in Islam, but it also has strong influences in Indian culture and judeo/Christian philosophy.^[6]Asha, S. “Narrative Discourses on Purdah in the Subcontinent.” ICFAI Journal of English Studies 3, no. 2 (June 2008): 41–51 The English language does not have a literal equivalent to the word ‘purdah’ but our word ‘modesty’ has been shifted from its original meaning into a concept very much like purdah. Decades ago, the Chinese women were known to observe strict rules about keeping the feet from being seen by any man except their husband, but they cared little about exposing the rest of the body. ^[7]“Studies in the Psychology of Sex” vol. 1 “The Evolution of Modesty, the Phenomenon of Sexual Periodicity and Auto-erotisism.” Third Edition. F.A. Davis Company Publishers. 1921 by Havelock … Continue reading This was a Chinese version of purdah. Early eastern cultures had strict rules for covering the face with masks, but also frequently left the rest of the body uncovered. ^[8]IBID, p. 19 Quoting from: J.W. Helfer, Reisen in Vorderasian und Indien, vol. ii p.12 This was a version of purdah as well. In these cultures where the feet or the face were strictly covered, these parts of the body were sexually objectified, just as we objectify the parts of the body that are most often covered in our own familiar culture. We do not sexually objectify the feet because, to us, they are a common sight, just as these cultures did not objectify the genitals because they were a common sight. In every culture that practices some version of purdah the part of the body they cover becomes dirty and sexualized. In cultures where no part of the body is necessarily covered they have noconcept of pornography or sexual objectification of the body ^[9]“Studies in the Psychology of Sex” vol. 1 “The Evolution of Modesty, the Phenomenon of Sexual Periodicity and Auto-erotisism.” Third Edition. F.A. Davis Company Publishers. 1921 by Havelock … Continue reading” ^[10]Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (pp. 11-14). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

The case that Frost is mounting is that Modesty/Purdah standards tend to sexualize the body in one way or another. In our culture, men get aroused at the sight of a woman’s breasts or butts. Interesting that these are the same parts of the body that women compulsively hide. But in other cultures, the sight of a woman’s face, hair, or ankles might be sexually arousing. We see these parts all the time, we don’t consider them sexual, and we consider anyone who does crazy and we (rightly) think something is wrong with them. ^[11]Matthew Neal has an excellent blog post on this titled “The Objectification Of Women – Part 1”, on The Biblical Naturist Blog, posted Thursday, September 23rd, 2010, — … Continue reading And yet as Pastor David Hatton wrote “One group of topless women in Mali, upon hearing about the fascination American men have with women’s breasts, fell down rolling with laughter, saying, ‘You mean, men act like babies?’ If these women heard this breast-fascination being religiously taught as intrinsic in men, they might stop laughing and start suspecting its preacher of being a pervert and his religion of being a deception.” ^[12]Hatton, David L.. “Who Said You Were Naked?”: Reflections on Body Acceptance (p. 62). David L. Hatton. Kindle Edition. Harsh words, but I cannot help but agree. Breasts are not sexual, they are maternal. Their God-given purpose is beautiful. It is a satanic lie to say a woman’s breasts are “indecent”. ^[13]Carolyn Latteier, from an interview on Berman & Berman’s television documentary, “All about Breasts,” aired June 4, 2002. Throughout his book, he looks at what The Bible does and does not teach on nudity, and how body exposure and coverage has been treated in other cultures, not just in different parts of the world, but even in different eras in human history. So, I am baffled that Nick Peters thinks Frost is arguing that we are forced to either dress in burquas or run around naked everywhere. One can’t help but wonder if Mr. Peters wasn’t reading to understand, but reading to respond. Probably out of a well meaning (yet misguided) desire to bring a good friend of his from what he deems as a terrible false teaching.

Then Mr. Peters says \\Because apparently Frost needs a strict command that says ‘Hey guys, can you wear clothes? That would be kind of cool!’\\ — Umm….yes? If something seems innocuous, and you want to form a strong moral opinion concerning how evil it is, then you probably should have some scripture to back up your claim. Imagine what Nick would think if some Christian came along and told him that it was sinful to play video games. I know Nick would have a ready response. But I suspect the first think he would do is ask for scriptural backup. The truth is, there are Christians who go around calling innocent things sinful or satanic. I was even prompted to write a whole blog article arguing that the Pokemon franchise isn’t endorsing devil worship. Some Christians think watching horror movies is sinful. Some think listening to rock music is sinful (yes, even Christian Rock). I’ve been accused of sinning in all kinds of ways that would make any rational person facepalm. One thing I always do is ask the weaker brother to back up his convictions with scripture, which he can never do because none of the aforementioned are sinful. They are, at most, matters of conscience (see Romans 14). And my conscience will allow me to jam out to Petra and play Pokemon, so there we go. If Mr. Peters thinks that it’s a moral obligation for all people everywhere to wear clothes, even in the company of other people who wouldn’t mind your nudity (e.g nude beaches, a nudist friend’s house), then he should be to back it up with scripture. But I suspect that like most of us (myself included), he did not reason to this conclusion through a careful biblical or philosophical analysis. Rather the Anti-Nude attitude is a presupposition that is pounded into our head by both church and secular culture. And this would probably explain the abject weakness of Peters’ critique so far.

The Issue Of Priestly Underwear In The Book Of Exodus

He makes an attempt at this by citing Exodus 20:26 which says “And do not go up to my altar on steps, or your private parts may be exposed.’” (NIV).

Before I continue, I want to say that Christian Naturism has been on my radar for a few years now, but I never gave it much thought. I didn’t necessarily think they were perverts, but I did think they were kind of weird, and I certainly wasn’t going to join them in running around on beaches naked as the day I was born. It was only when I read the article “Be Ye Transformed” on Phillip Oak’s blog “Aching For Eden” and it was posited to me as a therapeutic means of breaking free from pornography that I decided I would dig deeper. After all, I reasoned, “I tried everything” would not be an acceptable answer before God on judgment day if I did not try everything. I was going to make sure my excuse was valid at the very least. But prior to that, I would come across some of these textile-proof texts while reading through my Bible and think “Doesn’t this mean being naked around others is bad?” I would read passages like this and wonder “I wonder how Christian naturists deal with this passage?” but I wasn’t curious enough to actually look. I just want to stress to Nick and other Cerebral Faith readers that this position and lifestyle is not something I haven’t adopted without serious study, prayer, and research, and careful reflection. I used to be just like you.

Now, how exactly does this verse make a nudist lifestyle sinful? This is in the context of Israelite worship. God commanded lots of things to be done in the context of old covenant temple worship. Yes, the verse says what it says. But does this mean that outside of this specific context, being nude would be wrong? God also commanded that people with crushed testicles not be allowed to enter his assembly. Deuteronomy 23:1 says “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.” (ESV) Would Nick be opposed to people with injured genitals going to church on Sundays? I would hope not! Moreover, doesn’t this verse in Deuteronomy kind of presuppose occasional social nudity? Sure, not in a temple worship context, as Exodus 20:26 forbids that. But what about in ordinary everyday life? How would anyone know if a man had a crushed testicle if the testicles were never seen by anyone except the Mrs? You could have crushed testicles and just lie about it, and enter the assembly of the Lord anyway. No one would know. What? Are we to assume that Israel had some sort of genital inspection squad that looked into the pants of everyone to see if they had in-tact penises and testicles? Or perhaps Ancient Israel was not a clothing compulsive society as ours is.

Moreover, as Nick acknowledges, this command was given to priests. So what else am I morally bound to? Are we supposed to all have beards? Is it a sin to shave? After all, in Leviticus 21:5, we read “Priests must not shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards or cut their bodies.” (NIV) But I could have sworn I’ve seen Nick without a beard! In fact….*goes to check* Yep, in his author profile, he is beardless. I call Nick to repent of his sinful beardlessness and let his beard grow out along with his hair. Leviticus 21:13-14 says “The woman he marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people,” (NIV) So are Christians in general prohibited to marry women who fall into these categories just because the priests were? Priests were also commanded to wear an ephod with a bunch of different jewels on it (see Exodus 39). Am I sinning if I show up to church not wearing an Ephod? Granted, these commands were given to priests, but that is precisely the point. Nick would never make the case that these are binding for all people everywhere, yet the command concerning “private parts” in Exodus 20:26 is? Why? This doesn’t seem like good hermeneutics. It smells like proof-texting.

Nick Peters then writes \\”A more thorough look at this comes from someone online named Mud Walker who I was pointed to by the person who got me started on this. His page is called Renude Life. You can find a link to his argument here.

He states at the start that biblical scholars agree that garments in those days were loose and easily blown aside. Maybe that is so. The problem is he doesn’t tell us any biblical scholars who say this.

He says that nudity and sexual intercourse was common in pagan services. None of this is given with any citations, though I would not be surprised, especially with sexual intercourse. He also tells us that since the priests used these garments, we may assume that they were naked the rest of the time.“\\ ^[14]Nick Peters, “Book Plunge: Christian Body: Exodus 20:26” — https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/01/book-plunge-christian-body-exodus-2026/ Nick makes a big error here. Mud Walker is not the person who runs ReNude Life. He has a YouTube channel, which I highly recommend people check out btw, but ReNude Life is run by Jason Stern who wrote a book by the same name. If Nick is really concerned about scholarliness, he should probably make sure he’s attributing something to the right person.

He takes Stern to task for not citing any sources. And as a scholarly-minded person, I took issue with that as well. But I sent Nick the article anyway and hoped he would at least do a little Googling or a little searching in his Logos library. Unfortunately, it seems he has stooped to the “Oh, you didn’t cite your sources? Well, I’m just going to dismiss everything you said out of hand and not give it a second thought.” tactic.

That’s ok. I did the homework for him. John Walton writes “20:26. priestly modesty. Ritual nudity was widespread in the ancient Near East, whereas here every precaution is taken to assure modesty. Early Canaanite altars with steps are known from sites such as Megiddo. Israelite law also preserved modesty by legislating longer tunics and prescribing undergarments for the priests.” (emphasis mine in bold). ^[15]Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), Ex 20:26.

R. Alan Cole writes “Steps were an adjunct of altars in the ancient world, either to increase the majesty of the occasion, or (more likely) to reproduce the idea of some mountain ‘high place’ (as the ‘ziggurats’ of Mesopotamia did on a large scale). In temple days, Israelite altars had steps, but long before then priests wore special linen breeches, so that the old reasons of modesty would not apply (Exod. 28:40–42). Ritual nakedness was a feature of early cults, whether with fertility-cult significance or as an example of extreme religious conservatism.” (emphasis mine in bold). ^[16]R. Alan Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 2, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 172.

James R. Hoffmeier wrote “Exodus 20:22–26 deals with laws pertaining to the types of altars that are permissible for Israel to make and use. Those made of beaten clay and unhewn stone are allowable. Clearly some altars were too similar to those used by the Canaanites and were not to be copied. The statement about the priest’s nakedness in verse 26 is most curious. When this same word for ‘nakedness’ occurs elsewhere in the Pentateuch (e.g., Lev. 20:17–21), it has to do with sexual impropriety. Therefore “nakedness” here probably refers to the type of Canaanite fertility rituals that included sexual acts such as those described in Amos 2:7–8.” ^[17]James K. Hoffmeier, “Exodus,” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, vol. 3, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1995), 55.

Allen Goss and John Oswalt write “Verse 26 (“going up steps”) perhaps also addresses the issue of the permanence of the altar, but its main point has to do with the prohibition of even the appearance of utilizing sexuality in worship. Pagan worship, as mentioned above in several places, emphasized participation in divine life through sexual activity. In some cultures, priests served their gods in the nude. The Old Testament, insisting on an absolute distinction between creator and creature, is at pains to deny any magical means of blurring that distinction, especially through sexual activity. This prohibition was not necessary in regard to the altar of sacrifice in the Tabernacle and Temple complexes because the priests serving in those sanctuaries were required to wear undergarments beneath their robes (28:42–43).” (emphasis mine in bold) ^[18]Allen Ross and John N. Oswalt, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, vol. 1 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), 452–453.

It took me all but a few minutes to track down these citations from these biblical scholars. It appears Nick couldn’t be bothered to take 5 minutes to check the claim. I could provide more biblical scholars if this isn’t enough, but I think for most people it will be. This is sloppy scholarship on Nick’s part. But, in light of what we’ve seen, what should we draw from Exodus 20:26? Well, most nudists aren’t nude as part of pagan god worship in hopes of gaining fertility. And most nudists aren’t Israelite priests performing ritual duties in the temple. So, it would seem that if you’re just playing pickle ball at a resort with some nudist friends, this Bible verse doesn’t apply to you. And if you are doing sexual things in the nude to draw the favor of a fertility god, then you should repent immediately. Thankfully, I have not done such a thing and I never will.

Pharoah’s Daughter

Nick Peters wrote \\“Mud Walker tells us that simple nudity was common in the ancient world. One illustration of this is a fresco of Pharaoh’s daughter finding Moses while bathing. Well, Pharaoh’s daughter is naked, which tells us that people in ancient times were naked when they bathed. That’s not much of a stretch.”\\ — ^[19]Nick Peters, “Book Plunge: Christian Body: Exodus 20:26” — https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/01/book-plunge-christian-body-exodus-2026 Again, Mud Walker is not the one who runs that web site. But here Nick seems to miss the significance of Pharoah’s daughter’s nudity. Let’s read the passage together, shall we?

“Now the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river, while her young women walked beside the river. She saw the basket among the reeds and sent her servant woman, and she took it. When she opened it, she saw the child, and behold, the baby was crying. She took pity on him and said, ‘This is one of the Hebrews’ children.’ Then his sister said to Pharaoh’s daughter, ‘Shall I go and call you a nurse from the Hebrew women to nurse the child for you?’ And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, ‘Go.’ So the girl went and called the child’s mother” – Exodus 2:5-8 (ESV)

Yes, she was naked because she was bathing. What is significant about this? Peters seems to miss the point. Look at the passage. Pharoah’s daughter is not alone. There are other people attending her. She has her servants with her. Moreover, she isn’t in some fancy modern-day bathroom with four walls, a locked door, and blinds on the window. She is outdoors! The text explicitly says she was bathing in the river. Perhaps this river was a secluded place, but perhaps it was not. Yet this Egyptian princess had no qualms bathing out in the open. This was the ancient world after all. It’s not like she would have had much of a choice. She certainly ran the risk of being exposed. Indeed, Miriam interacted with her. She undoubtedly caught a glimpse of this woman in all her nakedness, and the Pharoah’s Daughter is totally chill with it. There is no indication that she tried to cover up. What this shows is the more lax nature of nudity compared to that of modern America. Here in America, we don’t dare even let close family members of the same sex see us naked! It isn’t a-typical nowadays for boys in locker rooms to change in and out of their swimsuits with a towel wrapped around them lest any other boys see their penis. The New York Times, in a 1996 article “Students Still Sweat, They Just Don’t Shower,” wrote: “Students across the United States have abandoned school showers, and their attitudes seem to be much the same whether they live in inner-city high-rises, on suburban cul-de-sacs or in far-flung little towns in cornfield country.” ^[20]Johnson, “Students Still Sweat,” para. 5.

The article goes on to quote various students giving reasons why they wouldn’t be naked in front of same-gender classmates in shower or locker room contexts.“You don’t want to get made fun of,” ^[21]Johnson, “Students Still Sweat,” para. 23. Stated one fifteen-year-old boy. “. . . you don’t feel very good about yourself,” ^[22]Johnson, “Students Still Sweat,” para. 25. stated by a student with weight issues who used to high tail it to locker rooms after class to get his showers over with prior to the arrival of other boys. “You never know who’s looking at you,” ^[23]ibid. Paragraph 27 said an eighteen-year-old female from Illinois.

I would love for Nick to look me in the eye and tell me that this is a healthy attitude to have. To be so ashamed of the body God gave you that you wouldn’t dare show to anyone, not even people of the same gender. Yet, there are biblical examples of not just Pharoah’s daughter, but even biblical heroes like the Apostle Peter (see John 21:7) having no problem being nude in front of his same-gender peers. ^[24]For the record, I would consider Pharoah’s daughter to be a biblical hero. She had compassion on a Hebrew baby and chose to raise him as her own, in defiance of her father’s awful decree. Face it, our attitude toward nudity has only gotten increasingly toxic over time. And there’s far more going on here than just some religious doctrine of lust prevention. Now granted, neither the Egyptian nor the Apostle give evidence of co-ed social nudity, but it still shows a relaxed view of social nudity that would mortify most even today.

The Argument From Deuteronomy 29:5 and Joshua 9

Peters wrote \\“Consider Deuteronomy 29:5

Yet the LORD says, “During the forty years that I led you through the wilderness, your clothes did not wear out, nor did the sandals on your feet.

I looked it up. The word for clothing means, get this, clothing. The same word is used when the Gibeonites approach Joshua in Joshua 9 and talk about how their clothes are damaged from their long travels, which they faked entirely. Nothing from Joshua saying “Guys. We’re in the wilderness. Just go nude like we are.”\\ — ^[25]Nick Peters, “Book Plunge: Christian Body: Exodus 20:26” — https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/01/book-plunge-christian-body-exodus-2026

I read this paragraph several times. I do not know what point he is trying to make here. You just have a verse from a historical narrative that describes people wearing clothes. First, Yahweh says that during the 40 years their clothes didn’t wear out. And then a second example of Gibeonites trying to pass themselves off as wary travelers from a faraway land by wearing tattered and worn clothes and sandals. What exactly is supposed to follow from this. Nick sarcastically says “I looked it up. The word for clothing means, get this, clothing.” Umm….yes? No one has ever argued to the contrary! Who is this snark supposed to be directed at?

I’m trying to figure out what the argument here is supposed to be. My best attempt at a steel man would have to be “Look, they decided to be clothed this whole time. The Israelites ran the risk of wearing out their clothes, and the Gibeonites actually had tattered clothes. Rather than risk wearing out their clothes, why didn’t they just choose to go naked? After all, you can’t wear out your clothes if you choose to go without them for a time. Why didn’t they? Probably because being naked in front of other people is wrong.” That’s my best shot at a steel man.

So can I knock down this steel man? Yes. First, as I suspect I will have to clarify again in a future article, Israel, and indeed most of the Ancient Near East, were clothed societies. But clothed societies are not the same thing as clothing-compulsive societies. There were no practicing nudists in the ancient world. Nudism as it’s practiced today, is a fairly modern movement that is only around a little over a century old. That said, ancient peoples weren’t neurotic about nudity as modern Westerners are. They had no problems getting nude when it was practical to do so. In the case of the Israelite wanderings, what does Nick see in his mind’s eye when he imagines these people going number 1 and 2? Surely he doesn’t imagine there were porta potties scattered about like some bizarre scene from an early episode of Digimon Adventure. Waste expulsion would have had to have been done out in the open. Granted, due to olfactory offenses, they would have undoubtedly wanted to get some distance from their fellow Israelites, but in the absence of porta potties and occasional rest stops, they would have had to pee and poo in the sand. And run the risk of someone seeing their family jewels and/or buttox. Indeed, there’s even a command from Yahweh to bury their feces (see Deuteronomy 23:13), which presupposes the practice I just described.

Moreover, Israel was mostly wandering in the desert for those 40 years. The sun is very harsh in desert climates. Being nude in a desert is a terrible idea because your whole body is exposed to the scorching sun. It’s not like they had bottles of Banana Boat Sun Block on hand to slather all over themselves. So what could they have done to protect their bodies from the sun? Well, they could cover up. They could wear cloaks reminiscent of what you see Obi-Wan Kenobi wearing in the first Star Wars movie. If your skin is covered, you won’t get sunburned. Perhaps this (i.e protection of the body) is the reason why God clothed Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:21. Naturists are not anti-clothes. We are anti-body shame. We are all for wearing clothing for practical reasons, and not getting sunburned is a good enough reason to cover up. Does Nick seriously expect desert wanderers to purposefully burn themselves?

Conclusion

I must say that I am very disappointed in Nick. The lack of scholarly rigor with which this article was written may be just as bad as that Watchtower Tract I wrote a response to a little while back. I am under the impression that Nick went into this with a closed mind, on a mission to find pro-naturist arguments and then refute them. I would hope the level of argumentation and exegetical rigor are at least a slight improvement over this one, but we shall see.

I’m trying to keep in mind that Nick is well-intentioned, that he is motivated by love. Nick is a good friend of mine. He’s not just an online friend although that is how we mostly communicate because we don’t live near each other. But he’s been there for me through some of the most difficult times of my life that I have endured through recently. He was the first person I called when I had to be talked off a ledge several months ago after hitting my emotional limit. So I’m trying to keep that in mind. Any criticisms of me or my fellow naturists is coming from a good place. And if the roles were reversed, I could easily see myself doing the same thing.

I’m trying to imagine what he’s going through thinking that a good friend of his who has a lot of promise as a future biblical scholar is seemingly going off the deep end. That said, not even the best intentions justify sloppy biblical scholarship. If Nick wants to win me over back to Textilism, he’ll need to beef up his arguments. In the next article, we will look at more objections to naturism from Nick Peters.