Blog

This is part 5 in a series of articles in which I respond to Nick Peters of Deeper Waters Apologetics. Nick Peters is writing a series of articles critiquing Aaron Frost’s book “Christian Body: Modesty and The Bible”. Although I am not the author of the book, some of the arguments Frost uses to defend naturism biblically and sociologically are some of the same arguments I would use. His articles can be seen as criticisms of naturism in general. If you would like to reads parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of my response series, click here, here, here, here, and here.

In this article, I will be responding to two of Nick Peters’ blog posts rather than just one, because the first one is so bad that it only takes a single paragraph for me to refute. “Book Plunge: Christian Body: The Naked King” will be that article. The next one, which will be a little more in depth, will be “Book Plunge: Christian Body: The Naked Prophet”.

The Naked King Saul

First, response to Nick Peter’s article “Book Plunge: Christian Body: The Naked King”. Click the link and go read it as I’m not going to quote the whole thing. Basically nothing Nick says is out of line with the point Frost was trying to make. Frost’s point was that being naked in front of others isn’t a sexual sin. Yes, given Saul’s kingly status, to be driven to strip everything and prophesy all day and night would have been quite a humilating thing to do. But it was humiliating precisely because he was the king. The point is that God doesn’t seem to have “Indecent Exposure” as a category of sin. I’ve seen plenty of naturists comment on how humbling simple nudity is. It eliminates class distinctions. There are no kings, priests, governers, rich, or poor, there is just our humanity. Our clothes which might otherwise mark us out as someone important is non-existent. However, it is a blessed thing to humble oneself voluntarily. It is a terrible thing to be humbled by someone else. The Holy Spirit humilated (i.e forcefully humbled) Saul. No disagreement there. Like I said in the previous article, I would feel perfectly comfortable stripping down at a nudist beach or perhaps as an art model, but if a group of thugs ran up to me in Wal-Mart, pinned me down, forcefully stripped me of my clothes and left me lying on the floor naked, that would be humiliating. It’s not that I am ashamed that others can see my body as God created it, but that these thugs showed power over me and took something from me against my will. It’s the difference between willfully showing humility (an internal act) versus being humbled (and external imposition).But the point that Frost and other naturists make from this incident is that The Holy Spirit made Saul get naked. If God thought being naked around others was bad for the typical reason modesty cultists err…proponents cite, then The Holy Spirit would be making Saul sin. Isn’t God concerned that Saul’s body might make some of the women in the area lust? I’m sure that at this stage in his life, especially as a warrior, Saul probably had a fit body. Doesn’t God care about the stumbling of women? And what about any children who may have been in the area? Surely seeing a naked man at such a young age would “rob them of their innocence”. God doesn’t seem to be concerned about any of that. Maybe that’s an indication that we shouldn’t be either. That was Frost’s point. And that was my point when I mentioned it in “The Case For Christian Naturism”. That’s it. That’s my refutation to this entire article. If Nick Peters had read Aaron Frost a little more closely, he would have understood and I wouldn’t have had to reiterate it. The problem is that I can concede most everything Nick says and it doesn’t negatively impact naturism one little bit.

The Prophet Isaiah – The Text and The Commentaries

In Isaiah 20, we read “In the year that the supreme commander, sent by Sargon king of Assyria, came to Ashdod and attacked and captured it— at that time the Lord spoke through Isaiah son of Amoz. He said to him, ‘Take off the sackcloth from your body and the sandals from your feet.’ And he did so, going around stripped and barefoot.

Then the Lord said, ‘Just as my servant Isaiah has gone stripped and barefoot for three years, as a sign and portent against Egypt and Cush, so the king of Assyria will lead away stripped and barefoot the Egyptian captives and Cushite exiles, young and old, with buttocks bared—to Egypt’s shame. Those who trusted in Cush and boasted in Egypt will be dismayed and put to shame. In that day the people who live on this coast will say, ‘See what has happened to those we relied on, those we fled to for help and deliverance from the king of Assyria! How then can we escape?’” (NIV)

Nick Peters then quotes Aaron Frost as saying “Again, I have scoured every commentator I could find on this passage and almost without exception every one of them is quick to insist that this passage surely cannot possibly mean what it plainly says.” ^[1]Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (p. 97). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition. What is what the text plainly saying that Frost says commenters avoid? Isaiah’s nakedness. Frost says that in all the commentaries he’s read, all of them try to avoid the conclusion that Isaiah was naked naked. No, he was only mostly naked. Probably clad in a loin cloth or some other form of underwear. Peters then cites a couple of commentaries that do affirm (although not explicitly) that Isaiah was indeed naked. These commentary sections are pretty decent entries. And Peters’ seems to heavily imply that Frost either didn’t look at all or he did, but maybe in a small number of commentaries? However, Peters shows what he thinks when, after quoting John Goldingay’s commentary, he says “This one could indicate nudity, not for sure.”

After Goldingay’s commentary, Nick Peters cites Gary Smith’s commentary. Smith says “The date the ‘supreme commander’ (cf. 2 Kgs 18:17) of Sargon’s army captured Ashdod was 711 BC. This date appears to be the year (v. 2 ‘at that time’) that God directed the prophet to perform a sign act of going naked for three years to warn his audience in Judah. Isaiah’s radical actions symbolically point out that the Assyrian defeat of Ashdod has serious implications for Judah. Ashdod’s reliance on the Egyptians for protection from Assyria should serve as a lesson for Judah’s future military policy (vv. 5–6).” ^[2]Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 1–39 (ed. E. Ray Clendenen; The New American Commentary; Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2007), 365.

With snark, Mr. Peters says “Hmmmm. Smith didn’t seem to hesitate.” Well, maybe Frost didn’t have Smith’s commentary in his library. Mr. Peters and I are aspiring biblical scholars. We both have expensive Bible software (Logos) with packages that contain massive libraries. Frost may have had 3 or 4 hardcover commentaries on Isaiah at his disposal. He probably didn’t have 15 different commentaries on the same biblical book that he could easily search with a few clicks like I can. When Frost says in every commentary he couldn’t find an affirmation of Isaiah’s full nudity in the commentaries I’ve read, I believe him. Maybe he should have read more commentaries. I don’t know how many commentaries he’s read.

Peters then cites the following commentary by Andrew M. Davis; “While the strongest pronouncement of these judgments is to Egypt herself, God is also sending a message to Judah and to any small nation that, threatened by the vicious Assyrian Empire, is tempted to rely on Egypt for help. Judah should know better, but Isaiah 30:1–7 clearly reveals emissaries traveling across the desert with money to buy an alliance with Egypt. We will speak more in due time about that sinful unbelief on Judah’s part. But other small nations in that region were also tempted to turn trembling to Egypt’s might for aid from the Assyrians. Isaiah 20, one of the strangest chapters in the whole book, shows God’s command to his prophet, Isaiah, to act out Egypt’s humiliation by going around naked and barefoot for three years as a sign against Egypt and Cush. The message was clear: Egypt is no refuge against the terror of the Assyrian Empire and its expansionist ambitions. Assyria will defeat Egypt and humiliate her completely. Then all the people will realize how foolish it is to rely on the strength of man and not on God.” ^[3]Andrew M. Davis, Exalting Jesus in Isaiah (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2017), 113.

Again, great exerpt. Peters says “Dr. Lange wrote in 1877. Maybe they were a bit more prudish then and he would hesitate to mention nudity.” ^[4]Nick Peters, “Book Plunge: Christian Body: The Naked Prophet”, Deeper Waters, — https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/09/book-plunge-christian-body-the-naked-prophet/ Then he follows up with a quotation of that commentary;

“1. In the year when the Tartan, i.e. commander-in-chief of king Sargon of Assyria, came against Ashdod to besiege the city—which he also took after a comparatively short siege,—Isaiah received commandment from the LORD to take off his garment made of bad sack linen and his sandals, and to go about naked and barefoot (vers. 1, 2). For the incredible thing shall happen that the Egyptians and Ethiopians, shall be compelled to go into captivity naked and barefoot, like Isaiah goes about, (vers. 3, 4). Thereupon all inhabitants of the sea-board of Palestine, will, with terror and shame, be sensible how wrong they were to confide in the power and glory of Ethiopia and Egypt (ver. 5). They will say: Thus it has gone with the power from whom we expected protection; how now shall it go with us? (ver. 6).” ^[5]John Peter Lange et al., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Isaiah (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 231

Then Peters goes on to quote John Calvin’s commentary. And again, all of the commentaries he cites do indeed mention the nudity of Isaiah. Like I said in the previous article, Frost’s book isn’t perfect. It isn’t the most scholarly material out there. Nevertheless, I do agree with “the big ideas” as Tim Stratton would say, and I have been able to verify most of it either through the sources he does cite (he’s not completely without footnotes) or through other authors who have said the same thing (Oak, Hatton, Thompson). As I said in the previous article, it’s a good book either as a primer or as supplemental reading, but for heavy-duty scholarship, I would recommend the books like “Surprised Into Freedom: The Effortless Obliteration Of Lust and Body Shame” by Phillip Oak or “Who Said You Were Naked?: Reflections On Body Acceptance” by David L. Hatton. It should be clear that what Peters says at most may be an indictment on the level of Frost’s research when it comes to this particular passage, but it isn’t an indictment of naturism itself or the biblical case for it. If you find Frost non-credible, what about me? Many of you have followed my content for years. You know how scrupulous I am. And when it comes to sources, I’m a foot note maniac. Unless it’s a common knowledge claim (e.g “George Washington was the first U.S President), you can expect to find a footnote after a claim linking to one or more scholarly sources. Nick Peters has known me for a long time, and he’s followed my content for a long time. Although he hasn’t spoken to me since I came out as a naturist, we were good friends. Frost’s was but one book in a whole tower of research material I went through in investigating this topic. I did not just read Christian Body and accept everything Frost said hook, line, and sinker. In fact, I didn’t read Frost’s book until after I was already convinced of the naturist philosophy. And I was able to judge the merits of the book on the basis of what I already learned through my 15 years of ordinary biblical studies, and my several months of digging into this topic in particular. Like Peters, I too have an expensive Logos package. I have countless commentaries, books, and original language resources at my disposal. When I read Frost’s book, I realized that it wasn’t the best, most scholarly book out there. And it isn’t the first one I’d recommend to a Christian interested in hearing a theological case for naturism. Nevertheless, I deemed it to be an alright book. Could there be more citations? Sure. Especially when Frost comments on Greek and Hebrew. Should he maybe have been more aware of what scholars were saying on Isaiah? Sure. But despite its flaws, I don’t think it’s an entirely worthless resource.

The Significance Of Isaiah’s Nakedness

Nick Peters write \\“[Frost] says God would not have commanded Isaiah to do this if it was something sinful. True enough, but at that point, Frost stops. He never asks the important question.

Why did God command Isaiah to do this?

The fact that Isaiah was commanded should show that this was not normative. ‘Isaiah. I command you do to that thing you always do where you walk around naked.’ No. This was something unusual to the society so they would have noticed. What’s the point?”\\ ^[6]Nick Peters, “Book Plunge: Christian Body: The Naked Prophet”, Deeper Waters, — https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/09/book-plunge-christian-body-the-naked-prophet/ –

Again, there seems to be this odd assumption on Peters’ part that Christian Naturists believe ancient Israel was a society of nudists. Yet if Peters had read Frost a little more carefully (or I’ll do one better, if he had done as much research as I have on this topic) then he wouldn’t have come away with such a gross misunderstanding. No, God was not commanding Isaiah to do something he “always did”. As I have said in an earlier article, Israel was a clothed society. But a clothed society is not the same thing as a clothing-compulsive society. The ancients had no problem being nude when it was practical, such as bathing, field working, fishing, gardening, etc. And the latter three were done nude to the costly nature of clothing, that most people owned one, maybe two garments (if they were lucky), and they didn’t want to mess up their only clothes doing dirty jobs. See part 2 of my response series for sources on that. God was commanding Isaiah to go nude for three years, not just in the expected contexts, but everywhere. So of course, it would catch peoples’ attention. This would be like a man going everywhere in a swimsuit, and not just the beach or the pool or the tanning bed where you would expect it. That would definitely catch peoples’ attention, especially if it were a speedo (my preferred swimsuit when swiming with textiles).

Peters says “[Frost] says God would not have commanded Isaiah to do this if it was something sinful. True enough,” Nick, do you realize the significance of this concession? Here’s why we naturists bring up Isaiah’s nakedness as part of our defense of naturism; modesty proponents tell us that it’s sinful to be naked around other people. Reasons range from horribly eisegeted proof texts like Nick Peters has used to the “you’ll cause your brother/sister to stumble into lust” argument attached to teaching that our voyeuristic social conditioning is either how God made us or how sin made us after the fall. ^[7]See Mud Walker’s video “Pavlov’s Dogs…and Nudism” for an explanation of how we are not hard wired to get hard at the sight of breasts and butts but it is because our … Continue reading Even wearing skimpy outfits is condemned. Every summer Christian girls always have the debate over what style of swimsuit is acceptable because they love Jesus and want to do the right thing, and they think they’re sinning if too much of their bodies is visual. Because by God we men are just hopeless voyeurs and we can’t do anything but get erect and pant like dogs if we see a little too much female flesh. Sanctification? What’s that? If I sound angry, it’s because I am. I feel like the church has lied to me. I feel like the church has failed me. I struggled with lust and porn issues for many years and they didn’t lead me to what will actually work. God did not fail me and neither did His word. But His bride sure did. Well, at least mainstream Christianiy did. Philip Oak and the pastors as MyChainsAreGone.org are my brothers in Christ, and so, they are technically part of the church too. So maybe I shouldn’t throw Christ’s entire bride under the bus. The point is, nakedness is treated by most conservative evangelicals as this horrible lust inducing, sexual sin provoking thing. And yet, God commands Isaiah to go nude for 3 years!

Isaiah would have undoubtedly have been seen by both men and women, and even children! Isaiah would have been seen by people of both genders of all ages! This doesn’t comport well with the premise that being nude around other people is a sin. Isaiah is not obeying the “private/public domain distinction” Nick Peters talked about in part 1. Given that God explicitly commanded Isaiah to go clothes-free for three whole years, it follows logically that social nudity isn’t sinful. Let’s put my reasoning in the form of a syllogism.

1: If being naked around other people is sinful, God would never command it (see James 1:13)

2: God commands Isaiah to walk around Israel naked for 3 years (Isaiah 20:1-4).

3: Therefore, walking around naked in front of others isn’t sinful.

This is a logically valid syllogism. The conclusion follows from the premises by the rule of modus tollens. Premise 1 finds support in James 1:13 which says “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.” (ESV) God doesn’t even tempt someone to do evil. If God wouldn’t even tempt someone, it would seem to follow that God would not to the even greater thing and outright command someone to commit a sin. If being fully naked were the ultimate form of immodesty, then God would never command anyone to do it. If God had as much of a clothing compulsive philosophy as modern evangelicals, God would never command any human to walk around naked in public. For if God agreed with most evangelicals, he would abhor the naked human body as lewd and indecent, and would consider its very exposure to be a sexual crime. And yet, Isaiah 20:1-4 is clear that God does exactly that. So, if Christian textiles want to condemn nudists for wanting to hang out together naked as they were created, then they’ll have to deny one of the two premises. That’s how rejecting a logically valid argument works. All you need to do is to deny one of the premises. But which premise will the Christian textile reject? Both premises seem to have the backing of scripture. It would seem that the denial of either one would be a denial of biblical inerrancy at the very least. You’d have to say that either James was wrong in saying God doesn’t tempt anyone to do evil. Or you’d have to say that Isaiah didn’t really hear from the Lord, and he just decided to be a nudist for 3 years on his own volition. For me, I am not so attached to my idea that I would impugn God’s word for the sake of upholding them. But if Nick feels free to nullify one of these God breathed texts, he’s free to do so (2 Timothy 3:16).

However, given what Peters has said (“true enough” in his words)), then it would seem that he should have no problem with some Christians deciding to be naturists. Now, Nick Peters does not have to join us in living a clothes free lifestyle. It is no more mandatory to be naked all the time than it is to be clothed all the time. I affirm that this is a freedom in Christ issue. However, in my experience, most people who are persuaded by the philosophy of naturism quickly shed their clothes, because a lot of us liked the freedom that came with being naked, but we were taught to be ashamed of our bodies for all our lives. In fact, after becoming a naturist, some memories started flooding into my mind. I remember wanting to run around naked as much as possible as 2 and 3 year old, but my mom scolded me and forced me to put clothes on. I remember times in my early childhood sitting in the bath tub wishing I could be naked around the rest of the house as I was allowed to be at bath time. As a teenager, while not going fully au naturau, I would go shirtless as much as possible during the warmer seasons, and I would come up with all sorts of excuses as to why I was doing so ^[8]Because I didn’t think “Because it feels good” was a good enough excuse. I loved the feeling of the sun and the occasional breeze on my bare chest. These are memories I had suppressed until after I became a naturist. I feel like I’ve always been a nudist on the inside, but I was just denying that part of me because of all the cultural indoctrination about the badness of the body I had been taught by both the church and the secular world.

Nick Peters writes \\“Isaiah was saying this is what is coming for them. They think what is happening to him is shameful. That same thing will happen to them! Indeed, it did. Captives were often led away naked just for the point of shaming them further. Again, Frost only seems to see either sinful or celebrated. He never sees anything else. I don’t think he has any understanding of honor and shame at all.”\\ ^[9]See Nick Peters, “Book Plunge: Christian Body: The Naked Prophet”, Deeper Waters, — https://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/2024/08/09/book-plunge-christian-body-the-naked-prophet/

Nick here seems to make another non-sequitor argument. Yes, the nakedness of the Assyrian captives was not celebrated. This is because it was forced upon them by their enemies. How humiliating it is to be forcefully stripped and then led away in a procession as a conquered foe. But this entail that Isaiah’s nakedness was shameful? How so? Isaiah voluntarily got naked out of obedience to Yahweh. Is it shameful to obey Yahweh? Because nakedness had contexts in which it was shameful (like if you were poor or a captive), does that mean it’s always shameful? Does Nick Peters imagine this prophet acting shy and bashful for the whole three years? Does he imagine Isaiah stumbling over his words because he’s so ashamed of his perpetual naked state?

Guess what else is associated with shame in the ancient world?

– Childlessness. (Genesis 29-30: 38; Deuteronomy. 25:5-6; 1 Samuel 1)
– Beardlessness. (2 Samuel 10:4-5)
– Being a victim of rape. (2 Samuel 13:13)
– Suffering a military defeat. (2 Chron. 32:21; Ezra 9:7: Psalm 6:10, 25:2, 31:1, 35:4, etc; Isaiah 22:17-19: Jeremiah 2:26, 36, 48:20, etc; Ezekiel 32:24-30)
– Demotion in social class. (Isaiah 22:17-19, 47:1-5)
– Mourning the dead in the face of victory. (2 Samuel 19:4-5)
– Long hair on men and short hair on women. (1 Corinthians 11:6, 14-15)
(Remember Samuel, Samson, and John.) ^[10]I’m thankful to Chris from Mud Walkers for this chart. I took a photo of his chart from his video “Modesty Diagram Response (1)” and then copy/pasted it into my blog post from the photo.

Well, I guess we Christians need to avoid being childless, beardless, and having long hair if we’re men and short hair if we’re women. We’re outside of the will of God otherwise. Or maybe this is a bad inference to make. I think the latter is more likely, don’t you?

Conclusion

Once again, I am just at a loss for words concerning the lousy logic, lousy exegesis, and lousy everything of Peters’ critique. If I didn’t know Nick Peters or read anything he said or heard any of his talks before, and all I knew were what he wrote on naturism, I would not come to the conclusion that he’s a seminary student with a bright mind and mastery of the biblical text. I would probably conclude that he is just some dude who is proof texting try to find anything he can to justify he pre-conceived gymnophobic conclusions. I am disappointed in Nick because I know he’s better than this. It is my hope that he will read these rebuttals I’ve wrote and, if not reconsider his position, at least do more research on this topic and write better material. I know these words are scathing, but I say them because I actually love Nick as a friend and respect him as a fellow Christian Intellectual, and I just know he can do better. On the other hand, maybe this is the best that anyone can do. Maybe anti-nudity theology doesn’t have a biblical, philosophical, or scientific leg to stand on. Maybe this is the best he’s got. But then, if that is the case, might it not cause the Christian thinker to consider that we naturists have a point? Maybe we’re right. As I’ve always said; the truth will have the strongest arguments in its favor, and any argument against the truth will be fallacious in some way or another. This is because truth is reality, and reality cannot be refuted. If Nick’s view corresponds to reality and mine doesn’t, then he should have the strongest arguments, and all of my best arguments should have one or more fatal flaws. But I am 7 articles into his critique of Christian Naturism, and I am walking away more confident than ever that I’ve arrived at the true theology of the body.

Next time, we will be returning to Ezekiel 16 as well as an examination of John’s description of Peter’s nudity in John 21:7. I highly doubt that he’ll make any good points based on his terrible track record so far. Nick, I do love you, and it’s because I love you that I tell you the truth (Galatians 4:16). I just wish beating The Dancing Dragon Dungeon was as easy as refuting your material. ^[11]That’s an inside joke between me and him.. Also, I affirm the virgin birth.