to get the sense of sheer terror that Adam and Eve suddenly felt.65
Alan’s words illustrate that nakedness, in this context, represented far more than just physical nudity; it symbolized many other dimensions of exposure as well. The word nude is typically used when referring to bodily exposure, while the term naked is much more universal; it suggests exposure not only of the surface of the body, but of the essential self, which includes the body as well as that which lies beneath it. In this respect a person can be nude without being naked, and vice versa.
Whereas nude only implies a lack of clothing, naked implies lack in a much broader context. Used conceptually, “the naked truth” is the truth minus the lies that previously covered it up; the “naked eye” is used to describe what the eyeball perceives when not covered by a microscope or other mechanical apparatus. Naked is a term used to describe anyone or anything that has been laid completely bare. It is in this context that Adam tells God he is naked even after he had covered himself up.66
Initially, the bodily aspect of his, and her, exposure was not merely symbolic: Adam and Eve were both nude and naked. So what were they going to do about it?
. . . and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.67
And ever since this disobedient duo reached for that famous fig leaf we have all been hiding—hiding from each other and hiding from God. We don’t want people to see our wounds, imperfections, or weaknesses (the parts of our essential selves we keep covered), and we certainly don’t want them to see us without our clothes on. So in approximately 4000 BC Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves, and in 1721 the “bathing machine” was introduced to the beaches of Great Britain.68
Swimmers would change clothes in the privacy of a fifty-square-foot box on wheels, which was then lowered into the water. The bather entered the surf through the front door, thereby preventing exposure before, during, and after completing their swim. While bathing machines were most popular in the British isles, by the late nineteenth century such devices could also be found in the United States, France, Germany, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand.
In classical antiquity swimming and bathing were done naked. It wasn’t until the late seventeenth century that females began to wear swimwear, but men continued to wade in the nude until beaches were desegregated and “swimming costumes” became compulsory. By 1860 these “costumes” had become mandatory in the UK, and soon thereafter in the US as well.
Male nudity in the United States and other Western countries was not a taboo prior the twentieth century, when swimming in the nude was the natural default for men in the United Kingdom, and in most of the rest of the world as well. Since this time, the association between shame and the exposed body has traveled far and wide; even permeating one of the highest political offices in the United States government.
Draping the Spirit of Justice
I was strolling about an outdoor mall in Peoria, Illinois with some friends, and I spotted a statue that almost made me choke on the pretzel twists in my mouth. It was a life-size rendition of a majestic lion, most likely made of bronze or clay, whose testicles were insufficient to say the least. Lions have sizable sex organs, yet this one had the genital architecture of a rat. A friend informed me that the mall had so many complaints about the original statue, whose anatomy was more realistic, that the artists who crafted it were called back to grind down the testicles.
Similarly, in 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft (a self-identified Christian man) spent $8,000 of taxpayer money to hide a statue whose breasts were exposed. The Spirit of Justice, an eighteen-foot aluminum statute of a woman that stands in the US Department of Justice’s Hall of Justice, was covered with drapes. The Washington Post humorously called this action the “most talked-about cover-up at the Justice Department” at the time!69
Such efforts at bodily censorship may seem over the top, but are these examples any different from artistic depictions of Christ’s crucifixion, which invariably depict a loin cloth that almost certainly wasn’t there?70 If breasts on an aluminum woman are too much to handle, how will Christianity reconcile with the idea of a very real Jesus who most assuredly had a penis?
Cleaning Up the Crucifixion
Bible teacher J. Vernon McGee wrote, “He was crucified naked. It is difficult for us, in this age of nudity and pornography, to comprehend the great humiliation He suffered by hanging nude on the cross. They had taken His garments and gambled for ownership. My friend, He went through it all, crucified naked, that you might be clothed with the righteousness of Christ and stand before God throughout the endless ages of eternity.”71
According to Ethan Renoe, the covering of Christ’s midsection is an attempt to “clean up” the crucifixion:
In many ways, the fact that artists have typically covered Jesus up while hanging on the cross has done a disservice to our perception of His scope of atonement. We are used to seeing Him, battered and bloody, yes, but at least with a shred of decency left and a towel wrapped around his midsection . . . We try to “clean up” the crucifixion.72
A friend of mine has a daughter who was recently asked to draw a picture from the Bible to enter a drawing contest at school. He wrote:
What did she draw? Jesus on the cross, naked, with a penis. We don’t have any such pictures in our home, but somehow she got the idea that Jesus must have been naked on the cross. She was right, of course, but we’re not sending that picture in to the art contest. She didn’t get his nose quite right.73
Shower Head Trip
The origin of clothing is made clear in Scripture; the first “outfit” ever worn was made out of flimsy leaves by a bashful couple in a perfect garden. Because animal skins and vegetable materials decompose rapidly, there is very little archeological evidence for the origin of clothing.74 The oldest known woven cloth was found in Turkey and dated to around 7000 BC.
Notwithstanding, the practice of habitually wearing clothes is a fairly recent innovation in human history. In primeval times our distant ancestors, evolving in Africa and migrating into a world of tropical and temperate climates, were certainly naked most or all of the time. As humans expanded into colder areas, they quickly had to adapt artificial covering. Not long after, they also started adopting customs to govern what clothing should be worn, and when it should be worn. (It was then that the purpose of clothing began to shift from merely keeping us warm, to being used to differentiate class, gender, and social status.)
Nonetheless, some cultures continued to appreciate the body in its most natural form.
The ancient societies of Greece and Rome both embraced the practice of public bathing in the nude. In Greece, nudity was commonplace during sporting events and festivals.75 First-century historian Diodorus Siculus records that the Celts (who lived in modern-day continental Europe and the United Kingdom) commonly fought naked in battle.76
Even as recently as the 1960s nude swimming was commonplace at the YMCA in the United States (this was before females were admitted), and in many US high schools as well. In some locales swimming trunks were not even allowed in the pool. This was not a controversial practice during an era that was far less likely to view “skinny dipping” as an erotic phenomenon, especially among classmates of the same gender.
Yet today very little opportunity exists for people to see each other naked in a non-erotic context. Public schools haven’t required showers for at least two decades, and some schools are even considering removing showers altogether, because they are so rarely
