Some critics argue that the Gospels subtly depict Jesus in sexually suggestive situations. They claim that Jesus was naked in the garden with a young man in Mark 14, that He stripped fully in John 13 when He “laid aside His garments,” that the plural form of “garments” implies total disrobing, that John 21 confirms nudity through the word “naked,” and that the disciples’ love for one another reflects something erotic rather than covenantal.

That is the claim.

Now let’s examine it carefully and let the text speak.

The Garden. Mark 14:51–52

The text says a certain young man. It does not say Jesus.

The young man is wearing a linen cloth. The Greek word for naked is γυμνός (gymnos). That word often means underdressed or lightly clothed depending on context. The narrative explains what happened. He was grabbed. He fled. He lost the cloth in the chaos.
The point of the passage is abandonment. Just two verses earlier:

The fleeing young man is a living picture of shame and panic. Amos had already prophesied humiliation imagery like this.
The text does not describe intimacy. It describes chaos.

John 13. “Laid Aside His Garments”
This is where the claim usually tries to anchor itself. So let’s slow it down and tighten it up.
Three Greek details settle this.

1. The Word for “Garments”
The word is ἱμάτια (himatia), plural of ἱμάτιον (himation).
In every Gospel usage, ἱμάτιον refers to outer garments, cloaks, or robes. It does not mean the inner tunic. It does not mean undergarments. It does not mean nakedness.
John himself defines his vocabulary later.
Here John clearly distinguishes:
• ἱμάτια. Outer garments. Plural.
• χιτών (chitōn). Inner tunic. Singular.
Same author. Same book. Same clothing system.
If ἱμάτια meant “all clothing,” John would not need to mention the χιτών separately. But he does. That distinction is deliberate and consistent.
So when John 13 says Jesus laid aside His ἱμάτια, it means He removed His outer robes.
That is settled Greek.

2. The Verb “Laid Aside”
The verb is τίθησιν (tithēsin) from τίθημι (tithēmi). It means to lay down, set aside, place somewhere.
It does not mean strip naked. Greek has clear verbs for stripping completely, such as ἀποδύω (apodyō). John does not use them.
τίθημι is controlled language. Measured. Intentional.
And John loves symbolic layering. Later in this same Gospel, Jesus says:
Same root idea. To lay down (tithēmi). Not forced stripping. Voluntary action.
He lays aside garments.
He lays down His life.
John is building theology through verbs. That’s not incidental detail. That is literary precision.

3. The Cultural Setting
A first century Jewish man wore:
• Inner tunic, χιτών (chitōn)
• One or more outer garments, ἱμάτια (himatia)
Removing outer garments for labor was normal. Servants did this constantly. You do not wash feet in flowing rabbinic robes. You remove the outer layer, gird yourself, and work.
John says He girded Himself with a towel. The verb is διαζώννυμι (diazōnnymai), to wrap around the waist for work. This is servant posture. Not exposure.
If Jesus had removed His inner tunic in a formal Passover setting, the shock in the room would have centered on modesty. Instead Peter objects to rank inversion.
Peter is scandalized because the Master is acting as a slave. Not because the Master is undressed.
That difference matters.

4. The Theology of the Scene
John 13 is enacted parable.
He rises from supper.
He lays aside His outer garments.
He takes the form of a servant.
This mirrors the logic of condescension. The Lord lowers Himself. Authority stoops. Glory kneels.
Once you see that covenant arc, the clothing language reads exactly as intended. Jesus removes symbols of status to demonstrate sacrificial love. He does not remove His humanity. He does not remove modesty. He removes visible rank.
The plural ἱμάτια strengthens this. It implies layered outer garments, the kind worn by a teacher. He sets them aside to serve.
That is humility embodied.

John 13:4 does not describe total disrobing. The Greek ἱμάτια refers specifically to outer garments. The verb τίθημι means to set aside, not to strip. John’s own vocabulary in chapter 19 confirms the distinction between outer garments and the inner tunic. The cultural setting confirms normal servant preparation. The theological arc confirms symbolic humility.
The claim that this passage depicts nudity is not drawn from the Greek. It is imposed onto it.

John 21 and “Naked”
Again the word is γυμνός (gymnos).
Peter is fishing. Fishermen worked stripped down to minimal attire. Underdressed for labor. When he hears it is the Lord, he puts on his outer garment.
That is reverence.
If gymnos meant fully nude in a shocking sense, Peter would not remedy that with a single outer garment and leap into the sea. The text assumes normal work attire and the addition of a robe before approaching Jesus.

The Love Question
The word for love here is ἀγάπη (agapē). Covenant loyalty. Self-giving devotion. Holy affection rooted in obedience.
It is not ἔρως (eros). The New Testament never uses eros for discipleship relationships.
Women are included in this covenant community. They followed Jesus. They supported the ministry. They were first witnesses of the resurrection.
The command to love one another applies to the whole covenant body. It is family language, not romantic language.

The Verdict
The claim relies on conflation. It merges different passages, ignores consistent Greek vocabulary, and reads modern assumptions into ancient texts.
Mark shows shame and abandonment.
John shows servant humility.
John 21 shows reverence.
John 13 commands covenant love.
None of these scenes suggest impropriety. The language does not support it. The narrative does not support it. The historical reception does not support it.
When you read the Greek carefully and follow the covenant logic, the sensational reading evaporates. It just does not hold.
If you want, we can dig deeper into ἱμάτιον versus χιτών across the Synoptics, or trace how gymnos functions in classical Greek. Let’s reason it out step by step.