Isaiah 20
2 "At that time the LORD spoke through Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, “Go and loosen the sackcloth from your hips and take your shoes off your feet.” And he did so, going naked and barefoot. 3 And the LORD said, “Even as My servant Isaiah has gone naked and barefoot three years as a sign and token against Egypt and Cush, 4so the king of Assyria will lead away the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Cush, young and old, naked and barefoot with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt."
Some critics say that Isaiah wasn't completely naked, that he must have worn something. I came across the following somewhere on a naturist site but can't remember where. But I thought it was interesting and it justifies him being totally naked:
arom (Phonetic Spelling: aw-rome')
Finally, the Hebrew word for "naked" in (Isa 20:2,3,4) is arom, which Strong's defines as: "(in its orig.sense); nude, either partially or totally." This is also the word used for Saul being "naked" in (1 Sam 19:24).
NOW, having said these things, I must explain why I still feel fairly certain that Isaiah may have been "totally naked." I begin with the sentence above. The Hebrew word "arom" is used in 11 other places, and they all seem to point to "total nudity." For example, Adam and Eve were both naked ("arom") (Gen 2:25), and a baby is born naked ("arom") (Job 1:21)(Ecc 5:15). (Other uses: Job 22:6, Job 24:7,10, Job 26:6, Isa 58:7, Hos 2:3, Amos 2:16, Mic 1:8) Therefore, why would "arom" mean "totally naked," except when it is used for Isaiah and Saul? It seems unlikely to me...