Is being a Nudist or even
Swinging a Sinful Lifestyle or
Can a Christian Do Either?

Now, is it just me, or does this say something different than how it is usually rendered in the english? Of course, when I saw this, I thought to myself, "Well, maybe, I am just not smart enough to understand or read into the Hebrew what these translators are seeing". So, I decided to do a bit more digging into the surrounding verses and also into what other english translations of the Bible say.

Well, interestingly, it appears I am not the only one who translated this verse this way. A very well-known Christian, Robert Young, who has created many popular Christian resources, translated it the same way as me as well (see below). Further, the Douay-Rheims translation (older Catholic Bible) has also the same basic approach:

Does this mean it is the correct translation? Well, I decided to dig deaper, to find other verses within the very same paragraph that say the same thing in english, to see if their original hebrew counterparts said the same thing. As, I figure, if I am missing something, I should see similar patterns in other related passages of scripture. So, then I took this verse here, about the prohibition of men lying with other men, sexually speaking, to see, if maybe, it says something about copulating as well in the original languages:

So, it appears that the hebrew direct rendering of Leviticus 18:22 is basically the same as the King James Bible and the Young's Literal Translation on this verse here. However, you notice that, even though they say "not lie" with in both verses 20 (neighbor's wife - KJV) and 22 (with men - KJV), they are not even close to the same type of wording in the Hebrew. Further, if you look at most of the other prohibitions in the very same section of scripture, you will see it talks about not uncovering the nakedness of your relatives, as to have sexual relations with them or maybe shame them. Which also, is a totally different wording. Regarding "uncovering nakedness" of your relatives, I do not believe it really means being a nudist at a beach as a family is a sin, as there are two different types of "uncovering nakedness". Improper (sexual, shame) and proper. To say it is only refering to "uncovering nakedness" in general, it would mean that you could not give your young child a bath (Leviticus 18:6). Therefore, it is not refering to uncovering nakedness in general, but rather uncovering nakedness with improper behaviour in mind (sexually, to shame, etc.).

After doing a bit more research, I did find one verse that spoke in very similar terms to the verse about lying with your neighbor's wife. It used the term for [copulation/sexual intercourse/7903], BUT it does not use the term for [semen/sowing offspring/2233]. Take a look at Leviticus 18:23:

So, here we see the same "sexual intercourse/penetration" word used, as we do with Leviticus 18:20. However, we do not see the semen/seed/offspring word used in conjunction with it (which is probably because offspring could never be produced!). Notice, again, Young's Literal Translation seems to be more on mark than the King James Bible. It seems like he basically did a direct rendering of what the Hebrew said, like I have done here.

So, does this mean, that with your neighbor's wife you can not have sexual penetration to produce offspring? Or does it mean you can not have sexual intercourse of any sort with your neighbor's wife? The reason I ask is this word here [semen/sowing offspring/2233] seems to either be:

1. Saying that sexual intercourse is a sin and could lead to you defiling this man's wife, by getting her pregnant, violating the husband's rights to clean offspring.
2. Or maybe, it is saying that ejaculation (as to potentially get her pregnant) from sexual intercourse is a violation because it could lead to pregnancy and unclean offspring.
3. Or maybe, it is saying that sexual intercourse is a sin that leads potentially to pregnancy and unclean offspring is a sin.
4. Or maybe, it is saying all sexual interaction with your neighbor's wife is a sin, as it could lead to unclean offspring.

I know it seems crazy I am going into such vivid detail. However, the point is to learn God's law, not gloss over it or just assume the common rendering is correct, when it is so obviously glossed over in many of these common english translations. With regards to the King James translation of this verse, the word "carnally" means physically/sexually lie with your neighbor's wife and you can see they were trying to use this word to represent copulation. Then, in the King James Version, they actually do not even include the word "to bear offspring" or "seed/semen", which seems very wrong to me to just leave a word entirely out of the translation. The fact is, if it meant "lie carnally" rather than "sexual penetration emitting semen or creating offspring" it should be far closer and use generally the right words (like most other verses of the Bible). As you can see, we loose a lot of meaning by just glossing over certain scriptures. Atleast there is two common translations of the Bible that read more accurate (Douay-Rheims and Young's Literal Translation).

Back to the topic at hand, "Swinging". When you read Leviticus 18:20, you could conclude that it is saying it is wrong to have sexual penetration with your neighbor's wife due to potential of corrupt offspring (but this leaves a very huge gray area of conduct). It appears to be likely saying sexual penetration with your neighbor's wife is a sin in all circumstances, but then, it appears to have a non-defined gray area regarding such activities as seeing your neighbor's wife naked, touching, kissing, etc (assuming no cheating/theft is involved). After thinking it through thoroughly and checking what other scriptures say within the Old Testament, I believe the intent behind God wording it this way was for reason of legal meaning and court judgement. For, a court could be deceived by a man or woman who accused their spouse of cheating, if the standard was any form of potentially romantic interaction at all. If you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. The point is that men in times of old and even today, could manipulate a court to have an innocent person killed. Now, if actual sexual intercourse is the standard from which we define someone cheating on their spouse, we can see how that is very concrete act from which to judge someone. However, if someone who maybe touched someone or looked at someone a certain way and another person just happened to see or misjudge what occurred, you can see how this could lead to some false judgement, if that was the standard from which we judged adultery. As in the case of this new movie, "The Stoning of Sara M", we see a man trying to setup his wife to be killed for adultery and he succeeds in doing so, merely off accusations of two men seeing her supposively in a compromising situation (no actual sexual intercourse). Matter of fact, her husband ordered her to work for a man, who's wife just died, so as to make it tempting for the man and then attempt to find even one situation where she "laid down on a bed" (alone, for a nap), so as to accuse her of improper behaviour and get her stoned to death. This is the main reason why I think this verse says actual sexual penetration is the violation, instead of merely improper behaviour.

Now, regarding whether or not there is more to it than just this judgement factor (like a freedom factor), I would say the rest of scripture seems to make you think that it is best to avoid your neighbor's wife sexually, so as to avoid the temptation of sinning. There is one weaker viewpoint, where you could take a liberal stance and say it is a property right issue. In that, as long as the husband was OK with it and they are 100% avoiding the factor of pregnancy, it maybe permissible to sexually interact with another man's wife. However, you can see how this viewpoint is treading into dangerous territories and likely not biblical. Why? Because it seems to be contrary to the flow of other scriptures within the Bible (such as flee fornication). Further, I don't think this verse is saying that, but rather avoid all sexual intercourse with your neighor's wife. So, the freedom factor is in conjunction with the idea of fleeing temptation and sin (freedom, in light of your own perceived self-control and what constitutes stepping over the line and committing adultery in one's heart). As this scripture appears to be saying not to have sexual penetration, as there is potential you could mix seed and defile your neighbor's wife. So, the point being, you need to flee from such a sin. Each person would have to consider their own self-control and limit (within reason and considering the factor of fleeing temptation). It is like alcohol, whereas some people should avoid at all costs, while others can have a drink here and there. I am referencing the scripture "flee fornication". It is saying, the principle of running the opposite direction of a sexual sin. And getting close to say a nude woman who is not your wife, can be very tempting, as you can imagine. So, I think, maybe, the idea is to not judge in such things as sin, but rather, to judge as it is a potentially foolish action that could lead to sin (too tempting, and the man sins by sleeping with his neighbor's wife). Now, regarding nudity, perhaps, something like this would not be tempting to some men and women and they could visit nudist beaches, etc. The point is, you have to know your own self-control and also consider if it is wise. If something would lead you to sin, you should flee from it. Like alcohol. For some, one drink can lead to alcoholism, while others can drink with no fret of problems. This why some churches just teach very high standards (no alcohol, no gambling, no sexual interaction until marriage, etc), because they want you to flee any opportunity of sin. Nobody can argue with having a higher standard on anything, as long as you don't become too legalistic (i.e. ~ no friendship with opposite sex in normal situations, etc).

The point here is to wrap your mind around God's thoughts and logic. The fact is, there are many situations in life, where it can appear compromising, potentially adulterous to a person who is not fully understanding what is occurring. For instance, a man is giving CPR to a woman on the beach (and she is in a bikini) and man takes a photo of it. A wife is friends with a man, and she happens to be the type that is more touchy/feely, while the man tends to smile a lot. A doctor, checking a person physically for some check-up. Or a mortitioner cleaning a nude dead body. As you can see, there are many situations where you have nudity occurring or where a person could take a picture or video and someone could see it and misjudge what is occurring. Further, there is a freedom aspect to it. As God said, "my burden is easy and yoke is light". The point being, God does not make a lot of rules regarding your overall activity, but rather a few, to keep it simple. If you see a woman on the beach topless, does that mean you sinned? Does it mean the woman sinned? How about a woman who is a massage therapist, where she does not touch any of your sexual organs, but gives you a massage, while you are nude laying face down. Do you see what I am saying? So many situations, where people could have apprehensions, judgements, etc. God makes it simple, so we don't have to worry about every little action we are taking, yet we need to consider our own personal limits and flee sexual immorality. So, the point is not so you can go do everything but sexual intercourse with another man's wife. The point is, so people do not judge incorrectly and that people have certain freedoms from abnormal restrictions. Imagine a male Christian gynecologist - how could he do his job, if it was considered sexual adultery to even look at the female sexual organ? Or, if he was checking the woman, would this constitute adultery? The point is, God is smarter than you or I, so he would define sexual sin in a very wise and basic manner. Consider also, nurses having to clean patients, who are not able to clean themselves. So, such actions do not constitute adultery.

From all of my previous studies, I know that the two main commandments are:

And that these two commandments represent the entirety of God's Law, just as the 10 Commandments represent the entirety of God's Law.

If you observe the structure of the 10 Commandments, you will notice that the first 4 represent "loving God" or "don't steal from God". And the last 6 commandments represent "loving your neighbor" or "do not steal from your neighbor". And from the 10th Commandment, we see that we are not to "covet" our neighbor's property, which means, we are not to desire to steal it from our neighbor. However, that does not mean you can not admire his property or borrow a certain item from him, etc.

Looking at the 10th of the Ten Commandments above, we can see that there is a "household" structure, where the man is head of the household. Second in command is the wife and so on down the line. We can see that the man's household includes:

1. A house
2. A wife or wives
3. A manservant
4. A maidservant or maybe concubine (secondary wife/maidservant)
5. An Ox or Ass (something used for labor or production).
6. Or anything that is thy neighbors (whatever remaining property he owns).

To see an example of how the wife is second in command, consider Abraham and Sarah, where Sarah told Abraham that now she is looked down upon by her maidservant (who became a concubine to Abraham to bear offspring). So, Abraham gave Sarah permission to get rid of Hagar.

But, what should be very clear is that the wife is part of the husband's household. This is relevant to understanding the mind of God regarding marriage, sex, property rights, and so on. So, the wife is equal to the husband, but the husband is the one with elevated command and is deemed as the executive of the household.

Considering this, you can see that possibly all that is within the man's household can function with property rights (Exodus 20:17, Exodus 22:14, etc.). Of course, the wife, she has an elevated position, so she is not bought or sold, and no man can have sexual intercourse with her, other than her husband. But, the husband could have his wife go cook or clean for a man, who has no wife and needs help with various tasks. I believe this is the correct understanding of the wife in the family structure, though, one could take a liberal stance and say that she could have sexual interaction with other men, if the husband permitted. But, such a stance I believe is just twisting the scriptures. As it does not flow with the way the Bible discusses this topic. Consider even if a manservant marries a maidservant of his master (Exodus 21:2-11). If the manservant goes out, the maidservant remains in the master's possession. If the manservant does not want to leave her, he can stay with his master forever and stay married to the maidservant. Now regarding the master's wife, she is second in command and is esteemed, and flesh of his flesh. So, a man to loan out such items as his ox or manservant to do a job, help out a person, etc. So, is it also possible for a husband to loan out his wife for non-sexual reasons, like helping someone out, etc.

Now, what about a situation where you have two married people on a nudist beach and they can see other married people nude? Would this violate Leviticus 18:20 or any other verse? Or playing a game of volleyball naked? Or even more? See what I mean? Where is the line, exactly and what should be avoided. For some, this would be great temptation, so to "flee fornication" they should avoid such activities (if thy right arm offend thee, cut it off). So, once again, I feel like I opened some pandora's box, as I did with other topics, but the point I believe is God does not make really restrictive rules to protect people from maybe misunderstood or odd situations and circumstances. It is not a license to go do whatever you want, but rather a protection for you in judgement. So, instead of taking the risk, you should consider your self-control and take another step back just in case.

The more I study these topics, the more I realize just how off many are regarding the family structure, marriage, sex and related topics. It is like we have taken our surrounding conservative American/Greco/Roman culture and forced its interpretation onto the Bible. Rather than allowing the Bible to speak for itself, even our esteemed translators of the Bible did not want to ruffle any feathers and played it safe by glossing over the translation of various passages of scripture. I don't know about you, but honesty, that really irritates me. Why is it that I have to spend all manner of time seeking out the true rendering of scripture in english using reliable resources like Strong's Concordance? Why is it, they could not just avoid their own mind, thoughts and feelings and just literally put down the true meaning of the words? That to me seems very disingenuous. I would pay a great deal of money to just see someone literally go through the Bible and just put in the "Strongs Concordance" meaning of each word. Actually, I think Robert Young pretty much did it with the "Young's Literal Translation", but his tranlsation is not the most popular among giants like the King James Bible. Maybe doing a comparative study between Young's Literal Translation and the King James Bible would shed light on many topics?

THREE APPROACHES TO INTERPRETING LEVITICUS 18:20:

The Conservative Approach ~

I would say the most conservative approach to interpreting this passage would be to conclude that all sexual intercourse with your neighbor's wife is a sin and that you should flee whatever activity that would tempt you to do it. So, to flee it, you would avoid all potential (avoid nude activity, sexual activity, everything). And the part of the scripture which mentions unclean pregnancy is just refering to the fact that having sexual intercourse brings uncleanness from the emission of semen and could create an unclean pregnancy. Further, because it would be tempting to sexually interact in other manners with your neighbor's wife, we should conclude it is also wrong to even get close to doing it. This would go well with those who want to be safe and in line with God's will, rather than potentially have a problem on your hand. This could be the correct interpretation of this passage of scripture.

The Liberal Approach ~

I would say the most liberal approach to interpreting this passage would be to say that a man can permit his wife to have sexual relations with another man, only if it can be 100% guaranteed that she will not become pregnant and that the man does not emit semen into her. Such a viewpoint to me has difficulty harmonizing with scripture, but it does seem like a viewpoint. The idea is you look at Leviticus 18:20 as saying what Young's Literal Translation says, which basically is you can not get your neighbor's wife pregnant or mix seed between families. And then, you would look at it as a property issue, whereas, you can do with your property as you will, but not defile the design of marriage, so as to not mix seed between families, but keep your family intact. Further theft (adultery) could not occur, but both spouses would have to be in agreement to "swing". Such a lifestyle would be very risky, because "What if" you got your neighbor's wife pregnant? Or, what if it really is a sin and you are misinterpreting the Bible?

The problems with this viewpoint are:

1. This could be an incorrect understanding of Leviticus 18:20 and it like is you can not have sexual intercourse with your neighbor's wife, period, as it could get her pregnant (this is how the Douay-Rheim's Bible translates the Hebrew).
2. This does not appear to be "fleeing fornication" as fleeing means running in the opposite direction, not playing near the border. However, does fleeing a sin, mean fleeing things surrounding a sin?
3. Though you can make this liberal viewpoint align with basically all of scripture, it seems to have a very weak ability to do so, showing it is highly likely in error. Just reading through the Bible, you can't imagine even this type of viewpoint ever harmonizing, but you are maybe able to twist it to fit the viewpoint..
4. There is the addiction aspects of sex and also the potential of warping one's mind or having complications with your morality. As it could be a door that leads to error.
5. I personally believe a far safer and wise viewpoint would be to take the Face Value / Best Guess Approach below.

The Face Value / Best Guess Approach ~

Based on what I have seen so far with other passages of the Bible and the fact that we can not pin point with perfection the meaning, I am guessing it could mean you can not have sexual intercourse (vaginally penetrate) your neighbor's wife and it is God's desire to keep sexual activity only within your own marriage. So, in the case of your neighbor's wife, sexual intercourse is off limits, but if your neighbor's husband is into the "kinky things", it is very wise to avoid any of the sexual activities he is encouraging, as it could lead to sin in some way. Look at it like he is tempting you. If he is just into playing some nude volleyball or some silly thing nude, I could not say that scripture condemns (but, I can say it is risky). But, where there is sexual interaction, we would say it is off limits. My main concern with this slippery slope is that maybe God created Leviticus 18:20 this way for legal reasons, rather than freedom reasons. For, legally, this would be a 100% violation, rather than say something questionable, like "Rubbing a married woman's back". So, to avoid having people going around making false judgements, God has it limited to the very clear act of sex. Now, this may or may not be the reason it is written this way. It could also be a freedom aspect to it, so as to show God's law is a "an easy yoke and his burden is light" as Jesus said. So, the point being is that the family structure is preserved by sexual intercourse being off limits, but there maybe a gray area, but be careful, for sake of the potential sin. This to me seems like the best guess of what it is actually saying.

As scripture says, we are to flee sexual immorality as it is potentially too risky to even try these activities, especially if it is tempting to the individual, he should avoid at all costs such types of lifestyles. There is risk in potential pregnancy and also in getting a sexually transmitted disease (STDs). To give you an example, let us again consider the alcoholic. It may not be a sin to drink one beer (as it is highly unlikely you will get drunk on one beer), however, for an alcoholic, one beer could mean relapse into serious sin and addiction. A death drink for him. So, for some, it causes them to sin (leading to sexual intercourse with his neighbor's wife), it would mean for him to avoid any of these gray area activities (nudity with others, etc) at all costs, to save his soul. As Jesus said, "If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off". The point being, it is better to loose your hand and make it to heaven than to retain your hand and end up in Hell. So, for the alcoholic or someone who is addicted to certain things, it is wise, to cut it off or find a good way to keep yourself from sin.

VARIOUS OBJECTIONS:

What about Matthew 5:27-28?

With regards to Matthew 5:27-28, I discuss its interpretation in great deal here. Basically, Jesus was quoting the 7th Commandment - "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and explaining the theology behind the 7th Commandment with the 10th Commandment - "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors ... wife". So, Jesus did not change the meaning of the 10 Commandments and did not add any new morality. It is refering to having the desire to take another man's wife. Further, the term "lust" is rendered often "desire" or "covet" in scripture and actually has zero sexual connotation to it. It is used like the word "desire" today, but with an action component as a requirement. Actually, Young's literal translation also translates the word to be "desire" instead of "lust", probably because lust often has a sexual connotation in people's minds. So, looking at a nude woman is not looking at her with lust in your eyes. Rather, according to the greek renderings of the scripture, it appears to be saying, that when desire to act and take another man's wife, you have "stolen her in your heart" and have commited the sin at that moment. It is like when a thief decides, I am going to break into someone's house. Before this, they are just "tempted". However, when they decide, they have sinned.

Now, taking the Lamborghini example again, lets say you set your eyes on his car and had "lust" for it. Lets say at first, you just thought it was an awesome car. There is no sin at this stage.. Maybe then, you thought, man, I would like to drive it. Again, no sin here either. However, lets say he says to himself, "I am going to steal this car". This would be the moment he sinned in his heart. And then, when he would go and attempt to steal it, this would be when he sinned in action.

What about John the Baptist rebuking King Herod about having his brother's wife?

In this passage of scripture, we see that John the Baptist is rebuking King Herod for taking his brother's wife. Is this the same thing as "wife swapping" or being a "nudist"? Again, same principle as before. In this case, King Herod, literally, stole his brothers wife, against his brother's will.. Even if his brother was OK with it, the fact is, he is not borrowing her or playing nudist games. Rather, he literally took his brothers wife and made her his own wife. On top of that, he is "uncovering his brother's nakedness" as he is next of kin and according to Leviticus 18, he is shaming his brother (its deemed a form of incest). So, we are talking two sins: 1. stealing another mans wife. 2. uncovering the nakedness of his brother's wife (which is the same as uncovering his brother's nakedness). Therefore, the principle of breaking up a marriage comes into play here and incest. So Kind Herod falsely broke up a marriage and stole his brother's wife. As God's Principle is once a man and woman are married, they can only get a divorce in the case of "uncleaness" or as Jesus said, "except for the cause of fornication", which means "sexual cheating or idolatry(uncleaness)". And the only time a brother can marry his brother's wife, is if his brother dies, as then, he is next of kin and could raise seed up for his dead brother (such as in the case of Onan, who was slain by God, because he refused to raise seed for his brother's family after his brother's death).

I discuss marriage, divorce and remarriage in depth here.

What about the scriptures that talk about modest apparel?

Well, let us read the two passages in the New Testament that discuss how women should adorn themselves:

One thing to consider is that the Apostle Paul is refering to a Christian attitude of dress and its perception by others. As it is clear, when the Apostle Paul talks about Sara, he mentions how she honored and obeyed Abraham, her husband. This is mirrored in the other passage, when it says to adorn yourself "with shamefacedness and sobriety". So, Paul's instruction is not really a set of clothing standards, but rather a standard based on the message you are giving other people and the inward heart. Two of the fruits of the Spirit are "gentleness" and "self-control". The greek definition of "shamefacedness" is "reverence, honor". And for "sobriety", it is "soundness of mind, self-control". So, essentially, the Apostle Paul is telling all women to dress with reverence and self-control, rather than without reverence (to husband, God, etc) or without self control (one who is addicted to fashion, shows herself in a manner to draw the wrong type of men or attention, etc).

So, it is not refering to an actual dress code, other than the mention of "broided hair", "costly array" or "plaiting the hair", etc. And, what this is refering to was likely obvious violations (per the culture he was in) against being reverent and self-controlled. Is it saying a woman can never braid her hair? Or that a woman can never wear "gold, or pearls"? Or that a woman can not "put on apparel"? Whoa? Wait a second! Did I just say that a woman can not "put on apparel"?!? So, basically, if you read this passage to say, you "never" can do these things, it would also mean a woman can never "literally" put on apparel (clothing, in greek). So, if you could not wear gold, you could not wear any form of clothing either(you would be nude), with such an interpretation. Therefore, it is actually saying, a woman is to focus on being "modest" in apparel, rather than focusing on braiding her hair, wearing gold jewelry and the arrangement of apparel. So, it is about the focus of the woman in question, not the apparel she is wearing. If your heart is right, your clothes will follow. So, if you are focused on being reverent and self-controlled, you are not concerned with being the most beautiful woman, or looking glamourous, hence you will not have the persona about your character either.

Now, what is "modest apparel"? Well, if you look in the greek, you discover that "modest" means "orderly, decorous, good behaviour, modest, well arranged, seemly". If you sort of wrap all those words into one definition, you discover "modest apparel" to mean, "apparel of good taste that is well arranged, not trying to show yourself as important".

Regarding some specific dress code of what Christians can wear, worldwide, I believe such a thing would not be possible beyond what Paul stated. Because, in one culture, wearing a dress maybe considered immodest or something maybe a loose woman would wear (Muslim countries), while, in another culture, a dress maybe the highest standard for modesty (the Western World). So, it has to do with your audience/culture and what you are trying to convey to those around you. Not so much what you are actually wearing. So, the Christian standard is one that comes from the attitude or heart of the person and considers what its audience would think.

For instance, some men in Scotland wear a kilt. In countries, such as the USA, this would be deemed inappropriate clothing, and perhaps even something a woman would wear. Yet, no man would dare say this to a Scottish man, lest they offend and receive their just due reward. So, to say, a man can not wear something like a kilt, would be to assume God made such a prohibition. In Scotland, it is normal. In other countries, it may not be. As Paul said, "unto a jew I become as a jew... To them that are without law, as without law".

So, the point is women are to be humble in dress toward their husbands, not loud and riotous, without self-control, or with expensive and flashy attire. So, lets say a Queen wore something considered expensive apparel, would this make her immodest? I do not believe so, because she is actually expected to wear such clothing and modesty for her, would be as the greek says, namely, "apparel of good taste that is well arranged, not trying to show yourself as important". So, a queen should consider apparel that would be well arranged, good taste, yet not trying to show herself as more important than others (relative to what people think). Further, she is to show herself as reverant and self-controlled, not loud or rebellious. So, it is dependant on your circumstances, and the message you are giving to other people.

Regarding how this would relate to nudity, I would say, nudity is something that has its place and time. You have to ask yourself this question, "Is there any time in which it is normal to be nude?" One would likely consider such situations as bathing, maybe sleeping in private, having sex with your husband, etc. So, you can not apply the "modest apparel" command to situations that would warrant nudity and you can not be hypocritical and apply it to situations you don't like, while not applying it to situations you do like. For instance, you may think it is OK to bathe nude, but you may consider it sinful to have sex, in daylight, nude. Such a viewpoint is your opinion and you can not apply the "modest apparel" to the sex situation and not the bathing situation, being hypocritical.

Further, there are situations that you would likely deem uncommon or not a time to be nude, that the Bible and other people would consider situations to be nude. For instance, King Saul actually prophesied naked before the prophet Samuel, for a complete day and night! Now, to most people, this would seem very "immodest", however, as you can see, this was commonplace with prophets, as the people said, "[Is] Saul also among the prophets?" So, there are situations where nudity is justified and "modest apparel" would not apply. Generally, nudity is associated with shame, and sometimes prophets would show nudity to mirror the people's shame before God. In this case, where King Saul is naked for a full day and night, it does not say he is doing this for any shame related reasons. Nudity is often tied to "shame" or "sex" or "prophecy" or even maybe "praise". So, being nude in public is often a sign of some sort (shame, prophecy, etc), atleast in the Old Testament, as some nations defeated in battle were paraded naked. We see one instance where David danced unto the Lord atleast in a manner, for which those who didn't like him, were able to say he was not "modest" in their sight. So, the point is the message you are giving.. So, nudity is defined by scripture, not by people's beliefs. And it is clear, there are situations in the Bible, where someone is naked and people today would assume it is evil or wrong. A brutally honest question for you, "If you saw a man of God, one you revered, naked, prophesying, would you assume he is insane or sinning?" Like I said, there are situations which many would judge hastily, without considering what the Bible says.

By modest apparel, it is refering to the message you are conveying. Looking at the greek definition of "modest apparel" again, it is, "apparel of good taste that is well arranged, not trying to show yourself as important". This modest apparel would be utilized in most of your activities in life (secular, religious, etc). However, there are actually situations where nudity conveys the right message (bathing, displaying the human form, art, etc). Could a nude beach be something acceptable in God's sight? It is hard to know, as I do not know of any nude beaches discussed in scripture. So, to assume it is a sin, would be an assumption, not something based in scripture, as not all situations call for "modest apparel". Probably the closest thing to a "nude beach" would be the Apostle Peter, mostly nude, on his fishing boat, seeing the Lord Jesus at shore and swimming to him. I am guessing the Apostle Peter was wearing something equivelant to a bathing suit, though he could have been completely naked, as it would lend to his occupation. So, atleast, you could say a regular beach or nudity/partial nudity on a boat would be deemed potentially permissible.

Regarding a nude picture of a woman, if a woman never identifies herself within the picture and she is not a famous person, how is she sending the wrong message? When making a nude photo, she is not working in secular or religious society, but rather for beauty and/or eroticism (such as seen in the Song of Solomon). No one knows who she is, so her reputation is intact, and she has not brought disgrace on her walk as a Christian. Consider also nudity for medical purposes. What about a textbook showing various regions of a nude anatomical body for medical purposes? Are these sketches or photos immodest? Again, it has to do with the message you are giving and what you are conveying to your audience, as that is the point of 1 Timothy 2:8-10 and 1 Peter 3:3-5 . Putting a nude picture up online can be unwise, particularly if it can be identified with you and cause you problems within your own life or represents Christianity in a bad light. But, to put it up without anyone knowing who you are, it does not damage your reputation or bring shame on Jesus Christ. Or, if your reputation is already known to have such a profession of showing yourself nude, and you are not trying to be the next Miss USA, it would not hurt to have your face and name attached to such pictures, as it is your occupation of nudity or eroticism. As currently, most non-Christians, assume Christians are sex-negative, so something like this could potentially show non-Christians, that Christianity is not against sex, eroticism, etc in a safe and clean way.

It is the mode of operation to which you are conveying your message. If you are a person in a company or in a ministry and your reputation could not have such a thing occur, obviously, you should never do it. It is not rocket science. It has to do with your reputation and what you are conveying. Not some strict universal dress code, where women must wear dresses and men must wear pants. Consider, in Jesus' time, there were no dresses or pants, but rather, garments. Of course, a woman can not portray herself as a man and a man can not portray himself as a woman.

If a woman puts her picture up online of her nude, does it mean she is a loose woman? That she sleeps around? I have actually seen a Playboy photoshoot, where one of the women was a virgin. So, obviously, posing nude, does not mean you have sex or are loose. Further, many of those ministers who condemn such actions, look at the very materials they condemn. As Romans 2 declares, "2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. 2:2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. 2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?". OR, as Jesus declares in Matthew 7 "7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye? 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." So, the point is, your judgement needs to be consistant with scripture and your own lifestyle. Do not be doubleminded or hypocritical.

What about a man being caught with a married woman (lying with) her and then being stoned? Would not this verse prove Leviticus 18:20 means more than just sexual intercourse?

This scripture(Deuteronomy 22:20-27) here is actually a very good test for these interpretations of Leviticus 18:20. Lets look at the passage in its entirety: