Table of Contents
Is it sinful to show your body? What does the Bible say about nakedness?
Is showing your body a sin? Can a man be shirtless?
What do people think? Some say:
- Wearing sexualized clothing is a sin because it tempts others to lust.
- There is nothing inherently sinful about the female body or the male body.
All of these are true, but let's get into the heart of the matter by following in Scripture to see what the Bible teaches. Can a man be bare-chested or shirtless? Let's find out.
The Bible mentions several things about nakedness.
For example, in Leviticus 18:15, it says, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter-in-law. She is thy son's wife. Thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
This is implying that uncovering nakedness has to do with a sexual urge or desire to get with someone or engage in sexual intercourse.
But in other places, nakedness is seen as what we would consider nakedness to be and that's the exposure of the genitals or sexual organs. In fact, the Scriptures actually give us a clear indication of what nakedness is from a biblical perspective.
And here we see the Bible's definition of what nakedness actually is, not just being shirtless or being lightly clad, but something very specific.
Now, as we see, particularly to Aaron and his sons, nakedness is from the waist to the thighs.
And this has implications for us today when we talk about shirtlessness in men, because, scripturally speaking, a man is not showing his nakedness by being shirtless if he has on a pair of pants, or some sort of opaque covering from his waist down to the top of his knees.
As we'll see later in our discussion today, there is no prohibition scripturally against a man being shirtless. In fact, shirtless men are found in the biblical and historical record without mention of it being sinful.
Look at what Jewish scholars have to say about this issue, on MyYodeya on the Judaism Stack Exhange Forum
Look at an ancient depiction of a Hebrew man.
He's shirtless, but he's covered from the waist down to his knees, just as The Scriptures share.
But what about women?
We would also include covering from the waist down to the end of the thighs for women too, even though depictions of Hebrew women (as seen later in this article) veered on the side of being a little longer than that (like a little past the knee). But we see from the books of Songs of Solomon and Proverbs that the breasts of the woman are a part of the sexual experience for the man.
And so in this regard, breasts would be considered inherently sexual and would need to be covered.
Proverbs 5:19
Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times, and be thou ravished always with her love.
Actually in Scripture, particularly in the New Testament, women's clothing and how a woman dresses is given more attention than the clothing and dress of men as seen in 1Timothy2:9, and 1Peter3:2-4.
What we know is that breasts are for the sexual satisfaction of the man. And this makes sense since the woman was made for the man, according to Scripture.
Scripturally speaking what's off the table for the man is from the waist down to the thighs. And even though some women may be attracted to the bare chest of a man, this doesn't make it sinful in the sense that there's no prohibition with regards to this. Eyes, ears, toes, and ankles are also at times sexualized, but scripturally speaking there are no prohibitions with regards to showing these in public either.
The caveat for the men, however, would be that you are your brother's keeper.
This means that men should still not seek to incite sexual desire or lust in a woman by his shirtlessness (except for his wife), by maintaining that when he is shirtless, it's in an environment where it is expected, for example, swimming at the beach/pool or cutting the lawn in hot weather.
But if it is on Instagram where the sexual pose is being done, or where other sexual inuendos are being done, or posting with lustful intent, it is sinful. And we know that because God does not incite lust. He does not cause us to be tempted. He doesn't tempt others, so we should not tempt others either as beloved children (Ephesians 5:1)
James 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempeth He any man.
So is showing skin a sin?
No, it is not a sin. Even Adam and Eve, when they were clothed by God, were clothed with garments made of animal skin that didn't cover every part of their bodies. We do not have an indication that their full faces were covered, or all of their feet were covered. We don't have indications of this, and so having skin showing would not be sinful.
In fact, the Lord Jesus Himself was shirtless and most likely naked at His crucifixion on the cross according to many biblical scholars including David Tombs, A Howard Paterson Chair of Theology and Public Issues at the University of Otago.
And we know that there was no sin of His own upon Him for He committed no sin. And so, of course, showing skin would not be sinful.
1Peter2:22-24
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
Also, again, from the biblical account, it seems as if the Lord Jesus rose from the dead, at least shirtless, or even naked, because the linen cloths were found in the tomb. And this goes hand in hand with what Mary Magdalene said when she thought that he was the gardener, because the gardeners in those times were shirtless.
John 20:15 - Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
Picture of Gardener in Ancient Rome
Gardeners in that time wore very little clothing; they were shirtless, and at times even naked. So it would follow that the Lord Jesus was either shirtless, or naked at the time of His resurrection from the dead.
Look at the Apostle Peter's reaction here:
Luke 24:10-12
10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. 12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.
Is it a sin to look at your private parts?
No, it is not a sin based on Scripture. What would be a sin, a form of sexual immorality, is if you sexually fantasize and lust about having sex with someone that you're not married to while looking at your private parts. Sinful pride can also be a sin included here.
Matthew 5:27-28
Is it a sin to show your private parts?
Again in the marriage bed, it would not be a sin, because, of course, the original man and woman, Adam and Eve were naked, and they were not ashamed. And we know from Scripture the marriage bed is undefiled, and so being naked in front of your husband, if you're a woman, or in front of your wife, if you're a man, is totally allowed and not a sin.
Being naked in front of a doctor who's giving you a pelvic exam or some sort of examination would also not be a sin, because the purpose of it is not to incite sexual desire or lust, or to break any of the laws of the country.
However, if you are exposing your body against the laws of the land (so long as they don't contradict Scripture), that would be considered sinful, for we are to follow the laws that are there and honor those who are in leadership and authority over us. See Romans 13:1-4
Also, if you're showing your genitals to incite sexual desire and lustful thoughts in the minds of people, outside of your spouse, then that would be a sin on your part.
The Bible talks about not showing your genitals, or uncovering your nakedness, which for men would be the waist to the end of the thighs at the knees. And with women, it would also include, just by inference, the breasts, because the Songs of Solomon and Proverbs infers that that is a sexual part of the body, and that men get sexual satisfaction from female breasts. So showing breasts in most situations (except at the doctor's office and places like that) would incite sexual lust in men. And this should not be (except with your husband), for God does not tempt us, and we should not tempt others.
So women:
For your husband, it is not sinful.
Proverbs 5:19
19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.
To tempt others, it would be:
James 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man.
Ancient Baptisms Done Unclothed
Did you know that ancient baptisms were done in the nude (at times to just brief/loincloth) for men but, for women, their baptisms were done in the dark for the sake of modesty?
Again, there's always been a difference in the dress codes of men and women.
Baptisms were done without clothes according to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and mentioned on the Christianity Stack Exchange Forum
Early Church Fathers on Men (shirtless/less covered) vs. Women (clothed)
| Church Father | Work / Writing | View on Men | View on Women |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215) | Paedagogus (The Instructor) | Men could be bare-chested when working or in necessity; urged simplicity rather than luxury. | Women to be fully clothed and avoid revealing dress; modesty emphasized strongly. |
| Tertullian (c. 155–220) | On the Apparel of Women, On the Veiling of Virgins | Men expected to be modest, but no strict command to cover chest; shirtlessness in labor tolerated. | Women commanded to cover body and veil head; revealing dress condemned. |
| John Chrysostom (c. 347–407) | Homilies on Matthew, Corinthians, etc. | Men could wear lighter dress in work/exercise, but must be decently clothed in public worship. | Women required to be fully clothed, avoid adornment, and maintain chastity through modest dress. |
| Ambrose of Milan (c. 340–397) | On the Duties of the Clergy, On Virgins | Men had freedom to dress lightly in manual labor/athletics. | Women commanded to remain covered as a symbol of virtue and chastity. |
| Hippolytus (c. 170–235) | Apostolic Tradition | Men in baptism were stripped to undergarments, shirtless in ritual context. | Women were also stripped for baptism but covered with modesty cloths and baptized separately. |
| Origen (c. 185–253) | On Prayer, Commentary on 1 Corinthians | Men should avoid vanity but may have bare body in necessity. | Women required to veil when praying or prophesying; clothing tied to submission. |
The Prophet Isaiah was told by God to strip naked and preach for 3 years in Isaiah 20:1-4.
Here's another example of shirtlessness among men.
From the Jerusalem Perspective:
The Apostle Peter was out on the boat with some of the other disciples, and the Bible says that when John told him it was the Lord up on the shore, that he wrapped his outer garment around him because he had taken it off and was naked and jumped into the water.
John 21:7 KJV Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.
We don't know the degree of nakedness here, but let's look at another translation of this verse.
John 21:7 Living Bible -Then I said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” At that, Simon Peter put on his tunic (for he was stripped to the waist) and jumped into the water and swam ashore.
He could have been lightly clad, most likely shirtless, possibly just having something from the waist down, as some translations say, "stripped to the waist for work."
Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary:
“The word ‘gymnos’ indicates Peter had removed his outer garments and was laboring in typical fisherman’s attire—probably a loincloth or short undergarment.”
Picture of barechested fisherman in 1st Century Rome selling on land, not on his boat while fishing. He is lightly clad. Image is courtesy of the British Museum
Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (Anchor Bible):
“Peter was working stripped to the waist, as was common for fishermen, and put on his outer garment before going ashore.”
Fishermen depicted shirtless and very lightly clad in Ancient Rome. Could this be the way the Apostle Peter was dressed as he was stripped for work,or shirtless while fishing with the Apostle John when the Lord Jesus prepared the meal on the shore? It would make sense from the context and the historical record.
Peter’s Attire at the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1–14)
| Event | Description | Attire / Practical Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Fishing overnight (John 21:1–3) | Peter and other disciples fish; catch nothing | Peter likely rolled up sleeves or removed outer garment for labor. Practical exposure of upper body common among fishermen. |
| Jesus appears on shore (John 21:4–6) | Disciples don’t immediately recognize Him; He instructs them to cast nets | Peter remains engaged in labor. Shirtlessness or partial exposure plausible due to work. |
| Recognition of Jesus (John 21:7) | John identifies Jesus; Peter realizes it | “for he was naked” → Peter had removed his outer garment while fishing. Not sexual nudity; practical labor attire. |
| Peter girds his fisher’s coat (John 21:7) | Before jumping into the water, Peter girds his outer garment | He secures his tunic/cloak around his waist to move freely into the sea. |
| Peter jumps into the sea (John 21:7–8) | Peter leaps to meet Jesus | Now properly clothed (garment girded) for movement; focus on devotion and urgency. |
| Other disciples follow in boat (John 21:8–14) | Disciples pull the net with the large catch | Everyone resumes typical attire; “nakedness” is no longer mentioned. |
Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible 29A (1982), p. 1077: “The expression ‘he was gymnos’ almost certainly means that Peter was stripped to an undergarment or loincloth while working. Fishermen typically removed their outer clothing to handle wet nets.”
Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary(2003), Vol. 2, p. 1234: “‘Gymnos’ here does not indicate complete nudity but the ordinary practice of working without the outer garment—essentially shirtless, or with only a short undergarment.
- D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John(1991), p. 670: “Peter was lightly clad, in a manner appropriate for fishing. The addition of the outer garment before approaching Jesus shows reverence.”
Shmuel Safrai, The Jewish People in the First Century(Vol. 2, 1976): “Mishnah Bava Metzia reflects common labor practice in antiquity, including light or minimal dress during field work or fishing. Outer garments were valuable and were typically removed in conditions of heat or strenuous activity.”
E.P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah(1990): “The halakhah acknowledges the workman’s adaptation of dress to climate and task. It was normal to work in a light undergarment or without an upper garment at all.”
Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (1969): “Manual laborers did not wear their expensive outer garment while working. They either girded it up or worked bare to the waist. This explains the Gospel references to Peter’s gymnos state.”
When The Apostle Peter met the Lord, the Lord never upbraided him about his shirtlessness or being lightly clad. But we do see something important about being shirtless. For Peter, it depended on what he was doing, whom he was doing it with, and whom he was going to see.
For when he went to see The Lord Jesus, he put on his outer garment, but on the boat with the other men while fishing, he was lightly clad or shirtless. Both states were perfectly fine, but depended on the context.
The Greek word γυμνός (gymnos) in John 21:7 does not mean fully naked but stripped for work, i.e., without outer clothing — often interpreted as bare-chested or in a short tunic/loincloth.
Peter putting on his ependytēs before going to meet Jesus reflects 1st-century Jewish modesty norms in public or sacred encounters.
This verse is one of the clearest textual evidences of Jewish fishermen working with their upper body uncovered.
Shirtless Hebrew/Israelite Men and Clothed Women Depicted
Look at a depiction of Hebrew men (those in the multicolored and at times tassled garments) and women in ancient times.
Their clothing is based on what they're doing.
The men here are clothed and shirtless when hunting. Clothing here comes down to personal preference and context. But mostly it seems that the men are shirtless in the context of hunting and farming. The women are clearly seen as always clothed, never shirtless. This again shows that there is a difference between men and women in terms of what is appropriate. Notice the garments on the women cover their breasts and flow just below their knees (a little lower than the garments of the men).
Church Father Thomas Aquinas paraphrased quote above
St. Augustine paraphrased teaching above.
Can A Man Be Shirtless?
Yes. It is not a sin.
Again, this goes back to the principle of modesty that shows moderation depending on the context. Just like the Apostle Peter was shirtless or lightly clad while fishing, but clothed himself when going to see Jesus, the King and High Priest, men are to base their clothing on the context. But a man being shirtless from the biblical and historical perspective is not sinful in and of itself.
Is it a sin for a man to be shirtless? No. It is not a sin.
However, since it is not sinful for a man to be shirtless, context is the determinant of appropriateness, like with the Apostle Peter fishing, vs. when He went to see the Lord (the King/High Priest). Also men should not be shirtless just to draw attention to themselves (excessive pride), but shirtlessness for men should be done with good reason or purpose (athletics/work).
Where you are, who you're going to see and the context should be considered, but shirtlessness or barechestedness in men is not inherently sinful based on the absence of prohibitions, demonstrative examples in Holy Scripture and the veracity of the historical record.
