Blog

This article is part of a series of articles in which I address objections to the philosophy and practice of naturism. The objections I am dealing with come from Nick Peters of Deeper Waters Apologetics. The series of articles Nick Peters wrote are a multi part book review of Aaron Frost’s “Christian Body: Modesty and The Bible”. Peters was introduced to the book through me as part of my recommended reading after the brouhaha that erupted after I published my article “The Case For Christian Naturism” where I made a lengthy positive case for naturism from scripture. For the uninitiated, naturism is a philosophical form of nudism. We believe there is nothing inherently wrong with people doing life together without man made additives. We believe that the church and the porn industry both are wrong to treat human nakedness as this inherently sexual event, and we believe this has only fueled the flames of pornography. I’ve already responded to Nick’s first article, and today I will be responding to “Book Plunge: Christian Body: Leviticus 18 and 20”. Although the articles are reviews of a book, the articles can be seen as criticisms of naturism in general. Therefore, despite not being the author of Christian Body, I will choose to respond to Nick, doing what I can to help curb the toxic nude-is-lewd philosophy that has seeped into modern minds.

A Brief Treatment On Leviticus 18 and 20

Nick Peters opens up by correctly saying that the term “Uncovering the nakedness of” in Levitcus 18 and 20 is a euphemism for sex. ^[1]Nick Peters, “Book Blunge: Christian Body: Leviticus 18 and 20”, Deeper Waters, https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/02/book-plunge-christian-body-leviticus-18-and-20/ That’s all well and good, but if this is the case, then all the prohibitions against “uncovering the nakedness of” this person and that person cannot be interpreted as prohibitions against familial nudism. I am glad that he recognizes this though, as given the sloppy scholarship of the previous article I responded to, I was afraid that he was going to insist on these passages insisting that the literal gazing upon a family member’s naked body was sinful. When I saw the title, I literally said “Please God, tell me he isn’t going to make that argument.” But it looks like my fear was misplaced. Nick Peters wrote “When I was growing up, I remember a movie being advertised called Sleeping With The Enemy. Now for me, I thought this was a bizarre title, but I was an elementary schooler. How was I to know any better. Why would you sleep with an enemy like that? For me, sleeping with someone meant going to bed next to them. Now I know far better what it really meant!” ^[2]ibid. That is a good analogy. And the euphemisms in both cases works. If two clothed people want to have sex, what do they do? They take their clothes off. Perhaps in some cases they’ll even remove each other’s clothes. They “uncover the nakedness” of the other person. It makes sense. The euphemism “Todd is sleeping with Sarah” makes sense as sexual intercourse is often done in the bedroom, on a bed, usually right before the two go to sleep.

And for other readers who may be wondering about the validity of saying this is an idiom for sex, I want you to know that this is pretty much a scholarly consensus at this point. The NIV doesn’t even translate the idiom. It just says “do not have sexual relations with…” your mother, father, sister, etc.

As F Duane Lindsey writes “18:6–18. The general principle of this section is given in verse 6: Do not have sexual relations (the Heb. uses a euphemism trans. lit., ‘to uncover the nakedness of’) with any close relative other than your spouse. The primary thrust of the passage is to forbid illicit marriages, as the prohibition against adultery was assumed (cf. v. 20; but contrast Harrison, Leviticus, p. 186). Also assumed is the prohibition against marrying a non-Israelite (forbidden in Deut. 7:3–6; cf. 1 Kings 11:1–2). However, if a non-Israelite (as Ruth) converted to the Lord, marriage was permissible.” ^[3]F. Duane Lindsey, “Leviticus,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 200.

Dr. Michael Heiser said “If you look at the language here in Leviticus 18 where you have the phrase ‘uncovering the nakedness of’ all over the place through the chapter, if you look at the instances where the passage talks about uncovering the nakedness of one’s father or uncovering the nakedness of one’s uncle, that would mean having sex with your father’s wife or your uncle’s wife, in other words, it’s beyond voyeurism. This is the idiomatic expression of to have sexual relationships with your mom, your father’s wife or your uncle’s wife. If you take that, now think about the term uncovering the nakedness, that idiomatic expression, that verb there uncovering. if you go to Leviticus 20, here’s what you read. ‘If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother. and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness. it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the side of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity.’” ^[4] Dr. Michael Heiser, “The Naked Bible Podcast”, Episode 79: Leviticus 17-18, — https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcast/naked-bible-79-leviticus-17-18/

The reason why Frost brings this up in his book is that some less academically inclined Christians may read the passage in a translation like the King James Version or The English Standard Version, take the phrase literally, and therefore use it as a proof text against naturism. For example, if they catch a man going skinny dipping with his mom, they’d accuse him of sinning because Leviticus 18:7 reads “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness.” (ESV) And that’s just an abuse of the text.

A Bizarre Straw Man Against Frost – He’s Assuming Ancient Israel Was Like Our Culture?

Nick Peters Wrote \\“Frost does tell us that people still could bathe together in public baths and be out in the nude regularly and says the documentation will come later. That will be accepted for now and I will see what he says when I get there. That being said, Frost still makes the mistake of assuming that the culture in ancient Israel was just like our culture or at least similar enough.”\\ ^[5]Nick Peters, “Book Blunge: Christian Body: Leviticus 18 and 20”, Deeper Waters, https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/02/book-plunge-christian-body-leviticus-18-and-20/ – I am beginning to wonder if Nick and I were reading the same book! In what ways does Frost assume that the culture of ancient Israel was just like ours? From what I can tell, he is taking pains to try to argue the exact opposite! It would be nice if Nick could explain exactly where and how Frost is guilty of this cultural eisegesis, and then explain to us from Ancient Near Eastern literature what was really going on. Yet he does not do so.

Let me quote just a couple of portions and I’ll let you decide if Frost thinks ancient Israel was like ours.

“Two passages in the Old Testament teach that if you take someone’s only garment as collateral for a loan, you must return it by nightfall so that they do not have to sleep naked through the cold of the night (Ex.22:26-7, Deu.24:13). From this teaching we can clearly see once more that God freely allows for His chosen people to go about their daytime business completely and literally nude, yet He demonstrates affectionate care for the warmth and comfort of the underprivileged people through the cold Palestinian nights. The fact that modern Christians would consider this to be terribly “immoral” only shows how wrong we are about what is and is not sinful in God’s eyes, and it shows how far our religious beliefs are from what is actually taught in the Bible.” ^[6]Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (pp. 107-108). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

“In Ruth 3:3 this impoverished widow has been working in the fields of Boaz gleaning grain for herself and Naomi. Since this was rough, manual labor in the hot sun and since clothing was expensive and easily ruined, Ruth and the other poor laborers had been working nude in the fields, as was the norm. But when Ruth wanted to approach Boaz with a formal request, her mother-in-law Naomi gave her this instruction: ;’Wash yourself therefore, and anoint yourself and put on your best clothes, and go down to the threshing floor’ (Ruth 3:3 NASB). You can see by the italics that “best” has been shoehorned in by the modern translators simply because our contemporary sensitivities cannot handle its absence, but at that point in history rough labor in the fields was done nude simply because it makes perfect sense.

As a poor woman Ruth and her contemporaries would all have gone about many of their typical activities completely nude, dressing only in formal situations as the passage illustrates. Once again, the translators have changed what the Bible says so that they can make it fit their predetermined doctrine. Ruth put on clothes before going to make a formal request from Boaz, but in the informal setting of labor in a field, clothing was a valuable possession that was left safely at home. Without the added words Naomi’s instruction is simply, ‘put on your clothes, and go down to the threshing floor.’ That is what the Hebrew plainly says in all of the surviving manuscripts.” ^[7]Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (pp. 108-109). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

Does what Frost describe sound like a culture “just like ours”? Oh yeah, of course, I see naked people when I visit farms all the time. That’s so like our culture. And I remember just last week having to give my only outfit, which was a single shirt-like garment, to my neighbor for a pledge. I had to go around naked all day. Thankfully he returned it to me before sun down so I didn’t have to cry out to the Lord for the injustice. I mean, that’s so our culture, is it not? “clothing was expensive and easily ruined” That’s just like our culture. I do not have an entire wardrobe of clothes to put on. Like I said, it’s just a single shirt-like garment. Isn’t ancient Israel and modern America so alike? Ok, I’m turning the sarcasm off. Obviously, in the two quotations above, Aaron Frost is noting some crucial differences between our culture and theirs. Now, I think Nick will try to debunk some of this later in his series, but the fact remains is that Frost is stressing the differences with all the rigor of a John Walton. And these aren’t the only examples.

Nick Peters then wrote \\“We are very individualistically based and we set the rule for ourselves. You obey the law not so people will think well of you so much as you want to be a good guy and not go to jail. Even if we granted that nudity was far more common in the ancient society, there would have been other controls set in by the group to make sure ogling didn’t take place.”\\ ^[8]Nick Peters, “Book Blunge: Christian Body: Leviticus 18 and 20”, Deeper Waters, https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/02/book-plunge-christian-body-leviticus-18-and-20/

What other controls, Nick? if Ruth was working the field in full view, if people were as prone to voyeurism then as we are now, what would have stopped “ogling” from taking place? Actually, what keeps ogling from taking place in the modern day? Prior to adopting the naturist philosophy, I had a huge lust problem. Women wearing clothes didn’t help. I could ogle a woman in a bikini, a one piece, or a tank top and shorts. Shoot, if she was pretty enough, I could ogle her if she wore a long-sleeved shirt and blue jeans. Gosh, it’s almost as if clothing isn’t a magic shield against lust. It’s almost as if lust is an internal problem. It’s almost as if it’s what comes out the heart that defiles a person. I wonder if some wise teacher ever caught onto that or if it’s just me (Matthew 5:28, Matthew 15:19, Matthew 23:26-27). Doesn’t seem to me like there are proper controls in place to prevent ogling in the modern day. You could cover a woman from head to toe and a man with lust in his heart will still objectify her.

I wish Nick would tell us exactly what these controls were. He doesn’t tell us, and he doesn’t direct us to any sources via footnotes. I must point out the hypocrisy of chastizing Jason Vern (not Mud Walker) for not citing his sources when Nick is guilty of the same thing.

Nick then wrote \\” It is questionable that such is the case in a pornified society such as our own.”\\ — Really, Nick? There’s nothing that can be done about ogling? Is this just how we men are? Is this why our only hope is to just do everything we can to restrict ourselves from pornography, spending money on filters, software, getting accountability groups, going to AA-like porn addiction group therapy memes and congratulate each other on it being “N” amount of days since we last jerked off to a naked woman on a screen? Is The Holy Spirit really that powerless? So much for sanctification. Nick, what kind of gospel do you believe in? Do you believe Jesus came merely to save us from sin’s penalty, or do you believe He also came to save us from sin’s power? I do not believe that lust is an integral part of who a man is.

Seeing A Naked Person Is Not A Sin

Nick Peters then wrote \\”Frost also contends that in our society, we think looking at a naked person, at least of the opposite sex, is sinful. No. That in itself is not sinful. If I walk down the street and a woman suddenly jumps out in front of me completely nude in an attempt to flash me, I have done nothing wrong. I cannot help that. If I chase after her to at least ogle her, or perhaps even more, then yes, I have done something wrong. The looking itself is not a sin.”\\ – Well, I’m glad Nick doesn’t think that I’d be sinning if I were the victim of a flasher or saw a streaker running down the road. Ought implies can, and you cannot stop such an unexpected event from happening. Nevertheless, I think if Nick were being charitable, he would realize that such a bizarre and unlikely scenario is not what Frost has in mind. Frost has in mind things like seeing nudity in movies, or photographs. And this is considered a sin because there is an assumption that the mere sight of an attractive person of the opposite sex without clothes on will incite lust. And in many cases, it will, because we’ve been conditioned to respond sexually to the naked bodies of whatever gender we’re attracted to. And such sexual responses serve, in a confirmation bias sort of way, that what the church and porn industry sold to us is true. I have been taught that my penis will get erect if I see a beautiful woman without clothes. So what happened to me when I discovered internet porn for the first time and saw beautiful women without their clothes on? I became hard as a rock. In fact, for me, it didn’t even have to be full nudity. A Sports Illustrated magazine or calendar would get the blood flowing just as well. It go so bad later in life that even seeing women in shorts and/or a crop top would make my mind go places. My culture gave me a psychosocial disease that resulted in me having severe gymnophobia. It got to the point where I even hated the word “naked”. Because hearing the word, even if it wasn’t referring to human nudity, it caused me to think of naked women. And that thought caused me to feel “horny” and one thing lead to another and eventually, I was off to a private area to touch myself while gawking at my favorite FemJoy models. I remember discovering Michael Heiser’s podcast for the first time. I cringed and thought “Why did he have to name it THAT?”

Nick himself may not think mere looking is a sin (as long as it’s not done on purpose and is brief), but there are Christians who probably do think that. Matthew 5:28 for example, is widely misunderstood. Some have taken it to mean that if you even find a woman to be beautiful, you’re “lusting” after her. So let’s say you accidentally came upon a woman getting out of the shower. Her window is open. Let’s say you get a brief glance at her. And you think she’s pretty. She works out at the gym and has a nice body. If you even remotely enjoyed what you saw, most lay Christians would have accused you of lust. I remember saying in a Facebook group a while back that “Elizabeth Tabish was the prettiest Mary Magdalene that ever appeared on screen” and being told by other commenters to take care of my lust issue! I think the actress is pretty, but I don’t want to have sex with her, so to be accused of lust was an odd thing! ^[9]By the way, to hear my take on Matthew 5:28, check out my video “Exegeting The Sermon On The Mount (Part 5) – What Adultery Is and Is Not” So it should not be surprising to Nick if there are Christians who would think that if a good-looking lady flashed you, in the scenarios Nick is envisioning, you would still sin. Some Christians, especially those of a fundamentalist bent, have some whacko ideas.

But, let’s look at what Nick said again. He said “If I chase after her to at least ogle her, or perhaps even more, then yes, I have done something wrong. The looking itself is not a sin.” – So, it would seem that Nick is conceding that merely seeing another person naked (even if it’s a person of the opposite sex) naked, isn’t wrong in and of itself. Would be wrong is “ogling” her. And here, I take Nick to mean lusting after her, or eyeing her up and down, objectifying her. And I would wholeheartedly agree with that. But let’s change the scenario a bit. Let’s say I have a neighbor who is a naturist. To avoid getting in trouble with the anti-nudity laws, her backyard has a large privacy fence. One day, I decide to start a Bible study at my house where we go through whole books of The Bible. I walk into her backyard and see her gardening nude. I don’t lust after her (she’s not my type anyway). I don’t objectify her. And in fact, I don’t even get aroused at seeing her naked body. I simply say hello and ask if she’d like to come join my Bible study this afternoon. We casually start talking about it, and she says that she would love to come this afternoon, but she has to tend to her garden. I offer to help her so she can finish faster. Then we start working together, we talk while we work, and I eventually even forget she’s naked. It is hard to make a sex object of a woman you are talking and doing chaste activities with. You know why? Because sex dolls don’t talk back.

Acording to Nick’s own words, theoretically, if I could see a naked women and not “ogle” her, theoretically such co-ed social nudity should be fine. And guess what? Naturist after naturist after naturist after naturist testifies to the de-pornifying power of chaste nudity. Even from people who had SEVERE lust problems and voyeurism issues come to see the unadorned body in a new light. I can throw my own name in with Phillp Oak (author of “Surprised Into Freedom: The Effortless Obliteration Of Lust and Body Shame”), South West Will, Chris who runs the Mud Walkers YouTube channel, and many others. Naturism normalizes nudity. It de-fetishizes nudity. And once that’s done, pornography loses all of its appeal. In fact, I was talking with Chris MudWalker over Zoom a couple of days ago, and he mentioned how when he watched porn after being a naturist for a while, it disgusted him. He said naturism caused him to see the humanity of the women who were being exploited on film. And I said that I had the same experience. I remember two occasions where I accidentally stumbled upon pornographic material ^[10]now, keep in mind, that for me nowadays, pornography is more than just nude imagery. It is people doing lewd things on camera. Intercourse, blow jobs, masturbating, anal, etc. and in the first case, I turned it off and was really angry. And the second case, I turned it off and literally felt nauseated. I wanted to throw up. I no longer saw just sexy bodies on my screen. I saw people made in God’s image, who Christ died for, people with souls, hopes and dreams, feelings. Embodied persons who were being exploited. I just wanted to scream “Stop! Don’t do this! You have so much more value than this! Please stop!”

So by all accounts, Nick should be ok with me being a naturist. But maybe he doesn’t think that I am freed from lust. Perhaps he thinks that I, Phillip Oak, Chris MudWalker, and many other naturist Christians are just all lying about being freed from lust. We’re all in one big conspiracy. Well, he’s free to think that, but we know better.

Something that really frustrates me is that fact that as good as the biblical and sociological arguments for the goodness of chaste nudity is, seeing it with your own eyes is something that amounts to an irrefutable proof. I think if Nick decided to take a trip to a nude beach, he would experience cognitive dissonance at minimum. He would see families playing in the sand, laughing, smiling and having fun. Mom, Dad, and their kids, but with no swimsuits. He would see people playing volleyball, pickle ball, surfing, swimming, laughing and having a good time. He would see people doing exactly what he would see on a textile beach. And he would be forced to ask himself the question “How are these people sinning?” “These people don’t seem like perverts. They seem like regular people. They’re all naked, but there’s no impropriety going on here.” He would either be forced into a state of cognitive dissonance, or he’d question everything his culture ever taught him regarding the evils of being nude if someone else could see you. The problem is (and I think this is by a devil’s design) is that such testing and looking at the proof is itself considered by many Christians to be a sin. And so most Christians have no idea what goes on in naturist settings. They stay far away. And per Romans 14, they should. Unless you are convinced that what you re doing is not sin, you should not do it. And so, I am stuck just making arguments from The Bible and logic.

More Odd Comments About Frost’s Perception Of Biblical Culture

Nick Peters then wrote \\“Frost keeps regularly going with this idea that nudity in itself is sinful when it obviously isn’t. So far, he has not dealt with a distinction between a private and a public sphere and he has not interacted with any scholarship on the topic. If you want to understand the biblical culture, you also need to understand them as an honor-shame culture and not a guilt-innocence culture. The group did what they could to censor unwanted behavior and individualism would have been frowned upon.”\\ – Again, Nick fails to show what exegetical errors Frost is supposedly making. I am trying to hide my frustration, but it is a bit irritating to hear someone say “This person has no idea what they’re talking about! They’re just so so wrong!” but then they fail to point out the flaws in what the person is saying. What specific biblical argument did Frost make that assumed an individualistic mindset? And how would a collectivist mindset change our understanding of the passage? Nick Peters doesn’t tell us.

He is right that the biblical cultures were an honor/shame culture. And I suspect that fact is going to play in my favor later on in this series. For now, it would be nice if Nick told us exactly what kind of eisegesis Aaron Frost commits. Nick doesn’t even tell us where exactly in the book he is. The reader has no idea what chapter or page he is on. There is no quotation of Aaron Frost followed by a commentary on why what was said in the quotation is wrong. We’re just simply told that Frost supposedly made all these mistakes, but we aren’t given any of the specifics! It can’t be that he misinterpreted Levitcus 18, for Peters expressed agreement with that. So there must be some other biblical passage that Frost is abusing. But I can’t say one way or the other because Nick just doesn’t give me anything to go on.

Conclusion

So again, that is another day and another post. I walk away once more convinced that Nick Peters hasn’t really done the deep looking that needs to be done on an important topic. The church needs a better understanding of the nature of the body, love, lust, sex, and marriage. So far, I am skeptical I will find it on Deeper Waters.