Was Isaiah completely naked?

[naturist]

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...

[Thulcandrian]

I’ve heard of this word being interpreted either way, but since it specifies “with the buttocks uncovered,” I’ve always taken this to mean completely naked, or at least from the waist down.

[Jim]

Yes, I think that the phrase, “with the buttocks uncovered,” makes it clear. In addition, the passage starts with Isaiah being told to take off his loincloth.

[jimmy]

If I remember correctly he had to be barefoot naked! This was to symbolize being taken into slavery.
Jimmy

[natman]

Naturist,

I think you answered your own question.

Yes.

[naturist]

Yes, I believe he definitely was, but when this is presented to a non-nudist Christian sometimes their response might be "he might not of been completely naked" or "but that was to be a sign of nudity being shameful". Even though scripture does say with buttocks uncovered, Western culture has turned chaste nudity into something taboo and can't accept it. So I've always liked the question, "Would God command someone to sin?" Of course not! And then to ask what all things did Isaiah do during those three years? . . . He continued with his regular life during that time. Going to work, shopping, living with his family, picking his kids up from school . . .just everyday things. But now being able to see how the Hebrew word arom was used in other scriptures where true nakedness is a given, Like Adam & Eve and that a baby is born naked, just reaffirms that he must of truly been naked.

[Petros]

I wasn't there.

I tend to take the simplest most obvious meaning.

But in the USA, today, in the small town where I now live or the rather large city where, I grew up, if any male citizen over the age of say six goes down and hangs out in full sight in the open air in a populous part of town - East Park, or the mall, or in front of City Hall, "naked" - it is not going to matter to his inner sensitivity, or to the ladies, gentleman, and children aged 8-17 passing by,or to the police whether or not he has his boxer underpants on. He is conspicuous and scandalous.