The Law Of Moses, Nakedness, Worship, And Close Relatives
By Ian B. Johnson
It is surprising that, although
the Law which God gave to Moses was designed to be so strict that no person
could possibly keep it in his or her own strength, thus forcing us to seek
a savior (Galatians 3.23-25), it contains no general prohibitions against
nakedness. Instead, it contains prohibitions against nakedness in two specific
settings only — in organized worship and in specified relationships within
the family. It is interesting also that none of these regulations take
the form of an absolute prohibition of nakedness, in itself, even in these
two settings. Rather, both sets of regulations are primarily concerned
with the prevention of accidental or forced involuntary exposure of one's
nakedness. Thus, the regulations for worship provide that altars should
not be built to be approached by climbing steps, lest the worshipper's
nakedness should accidentally be exposed climbing the steps (a real concern
in a culture where robes were the common dress). Likewise, God directed
His priests to wear linen breeches under their ephod, in a culture where
both pants and underwear were uncommon, in order that they might not accidentally
expose their nakedness as they ministered and thus "bear" iniquity before
Him and die. Similarly, the central concern of the regulations involving
nakedness in the family was not with being naked, or even with being
seen that way by others, but with approaching a near kinswoman,
a person with whom the offender had a relationship of authority and trust,
in order to get her to expose her nakedness. The thrust of the regulations
was breach of trust within the family, not nakedness in itself.
All of this is consistent
with what has been written in other articles in this series about Adam
(and all people since) incorrectly associating their sin with their bodies,
and God accommodating their fear of exposure by providing clothing and
giving them some protection of their privacy so that they will be able
to come before Him without that fear. Thus, in the rituals of worship in
the Old Testament, God provided some protection lest worshippers discover
their nakedness before Him, lose their perception of their freedom to come
to Him because of their guilt, and possibly die as a result of that guilt.
However, when David voluntarily exposed himself while dancing before the
Lord, God did not strike him dead or even rebuke him. God had not prohibited
the act; it was not a sin to David and he did not incur guilt as a result
of it. In a similar way, God states His regulation of nudity in the family
in terms of not approaching a close relative to induce her to expose her
nakedness. A man's abuse of his authority or influence in that way to coerce
a relative to expose her body (and, in her eyes and heart, her sinfulness)
may injure her emotionally, cause her fear and thus keep her away from
God. This would violate the primary law of love, and is prohibited. In
both sets of regulations, therefore, the focus is on preserving privacy,
the affected person's perception that he or she is still able to cover
their body and, in their own eyes, their sin ("the shame of their nakedness"
— as discussed in another article in this series). It is not a declaration
that the body is actually the location of a person's sinfulness or that
God is offended by the appearance of an uncovered human body.
Nakedness And Worship
It is noteworthy that, whereas
God prescribed elaborate clothing, every piece of which had rich symbolic
meaning, for priests to wear while they ministered before the altar (Exodus
28), He made no specific prescriptions for the clothing of laypeople or
even of priests when they were not engaged in temple service. This observation
is, however, not as surprising as it might at first appear. The priests
were the people's representatives before God, the men through whom the
rest of the people approached God under the Law (Hebrews 5.1-3 and 9.1-10).
Since the common people could not approach God under the Law except through
sacrifices offered by the priests, there would be no need for the law to
provide for clothing to protect ordinary people from exposure while approaching
God except while they were actually approaching the altar. Therefore, it
was sufficient that the Law provide that the priests be well covered while
ministering and that precautions be taken against accidental exposure of
lay worshippers approaching the altar — and these were exactly the precautions
taken.
Exodus 28.42-43, KJV:
And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach: And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.
Exodus 20.24-26, KJV:
An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee. And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone; for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.
2 Samuel 6.14-16, 20-23,
NIV:
David, wearing a linen ephod, danced before the Lord with all his might, while he and the entire house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouts and the sound of trumpets. As the ark of the Lord was entering the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul watched from a window. And when she saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord, she despised him in her heart... When David returned home to bless his household, Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said, "How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!" David said to Michal, "It was before the Lord, who chose me rather than your father or anyone from his house when He appointed me ruler over the Lord's people Israel — I will celebrate before the Lord. I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by these slave girls you spoke of, I will be held in honor." And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.
Here, God did not reprove David
for his exposure of himself while dancing before Him. Rather, Michal reproved
David for it, and it was, apparently, Michal rather than David who was
in the wrong!
Exposing The Nakedness Of A Close Relative
Leviticus 18.6-7, KJV:
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord. The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother; shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Leviticus 18.6-7, NIV:
No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord. Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
These verses are followed by
an extended passage (Leviticus 18.8-17) which presents a long list of women
who occupy such a relationship to a man that he is not to "approach unto"
them "to uncover their nakedness." I have quoted the above passage in both
KJV and NIV to point out the approach of most modern translators, who consistently
treat "exposing" someone's "nakedness" as merely a euphemism for having
sex with them. However, the KJV translates the language literally, and
God was less prudish than most modern translators — when He meant to speak
of having sexual relations, He used the term "lie with," as in Leviticus
20.21, quoted below, and many other passages. In the passages that prohibit
approaching a near kinswoman to expose her nakedness, as opposed to prohibiting
lying with her, the primary concern revealed is not a concern for public
sexual morality, but one for preservation of privacy within the family,
just as the literal words suggest. Specifically, God's concern appears
to be with the abuse of authority inherent in approaching a kinswoman in
order to induce her to "expose" her nakedness. The sin is not being naked
or seeing nakedness, but imposing oneself on a kinswoman to cause her to
yield her sphere of privacy. This is consistent with the notion, developed
in other articles in this series, that God has accommodated our need for
privacy to hide our sins from Him and others by allowing us clothing to
protect that privacy. It is contrary to the law of love to impose a loss
of that privacy on another human being.
Leviticus 18.17-19, KJV:
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness. Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time. Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
Leviticus 20.17-21, KJV:
And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people; he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people. And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity. And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
This Web site is printer-friendly.
