Wasn’t Clothing the “Norm” in the Bible?

An Unaddressed Issue.

One of my non-naturist readers submitted an important question a while back. I thought the answer deserved its own new entry into The Biblical Naturist blog.
Here’s the email in full:

Matthew,
I've been reading and enjoying reading your thebiblicalnaturist blog. Your arguments are compelling and convincing. I'm a Christian, but not a naturist/nudist. Your blog has convinced me that the Bible doesn't condemn nakedness. However, I DO have a question that I haven't seen addressed.
From your descriptions, and analysis of Bible passages, and from my readings of Scripture, it appears that, while nudity was not really promoted or condemned in biblical times, most people wore clothes most of the time. They often went naked for: various jobs, prophesying, bathing in public communal baths, and exercising, but from my readings, the default was still clothed. Except for Adam and Eve, most accounts of nakedness were either related to a job, or some unusual situation.
I like the idea of making my home clothing optional, but I don't see bible passages stating that this was the norm.
I once asked a Sunday school teacher of mine (who had been an archaeologist in Israel) about footwear in NT biblical times, and specifically, during corporate worship. He indicated that wearing sandals (usually that person's best pair) was the norm. So... wearing your "Sunday best" seemed to be practiced even in Jesus' time.
While nakedness was much more common and much more accepted back then, I still get the impression that:
- Nudity still wasn't the norm. If it were, I would expect little to no mention of someone's nakedness. But nakedness seemed to be a condition to be mentioned as significant.
- The common man (or woman) walking down the street or living in his home was clothed.
- It was nothing like a naturist or nudist resort, even in people's homes or yards.
- Being naked in town would be like a homeless person is now. An indicator of extreme poverty, and to be avoided.
- Corporate worship (in a synagogue) was a clothed affair as well.
I would welcome your comments and views on this matter.

Thank You
Bill

Thanks for writing, Bill. Let me see if I can address your question in a satisfactory way.
First of all, I’m grateful that the blog has opened your eyes to the fact that the Bible neither promotes nor condemns nakedness. That acknowledgement all by itself sets you apart from the vast majority of Christians. And I really appreciate your words of affirmation about my work.
Now let me dive in on your questions.

The Question In a Nutshell…

Rather than comment point by point on what you’ve written, I’m going to see if I can summarize your question—hopefully accurately and fairly enough that I will not be guilty of creating a “straw man.” How does this sound?

• In the Bible, isn’t it the norm that people were clothed most of the time?

And the answer to that is a simple “Yes, it is.”
But I’m pretty confident that that’s not the answer you were really looking for, because that answer is nothing more than the acknowledgement of a historical fact. It doesn’t mean much… or at least we haven’t yet discussed what that fact means.
The reality is that there are probably other questions—unstated, but implied (or presumed)—behind that question. There likely are assumptions about what the answer must mean, therefore answering in the affirmative to the question as stated is taken as assent to the veracity of the unspoken assumptions behind the question. But that is not the case. So, let’s uncover the assumptions and THEN answer what I suspect is your question’s real intent.

Assumptions, Assumptions…

Let me take an educated (and experienced) guess at the assumptions that you—or others—might be holding behind your question:

1. You’re The Biblical Naturist; you’re obviously teaching that the Bible promotes naturism.
2. Whatever we see as common practice in the bible should be adopted as normative (i.e. morally required) for us today.
3. The descriptions of public life we read about in the Bible fully describes life for the common folks in biblical times.

Ok… so now I’m treading very close to “straw man,” right? I’m putting words in your mouth that you didn’t say so that I can shoot them down. That’s almost the case, but let me give the reasoning behind why I’ve articulated these assumptions as being hidden within your question (if not for you, then perhaps for others who have pondered the same question). Then I’ll give my response to each.

1. You’re The Biblical Naturist; you’re obviously teaching that the Bible promotes naturism.

• The subtext of your question is, “How can you promote naturism when it’s obvious that the bible does not promote living life naked as a ‘naturist’?” If this subtext that were not in play, then the question would not really be a question, but simply a historical observation.

REPLY:
I do not promote naturism, nor do I teach that the Bible teaches that we should live naked. I don’t teach those ideas because those assertions would be false! The bible simply does not command or promote nakedness as a way of life. I’ve never stated or suggested otherwise.
What I teach is that fact that the bible does not command or promote clothing either! Clothing is not a moral requirement for righteous living. Clothing does not commend us to God. Our bodies are not visual impediments to moral purity. To teach any of these notions is to assert a falsehood.
Many times I’ve been asked, “Why is nakedness such a big deal to you??” … to which I answer, “Nakedness is not a big deal to me. Nakedness is only a big deal to those who believe it is morally wrong.”
No, I don’t promote naturism, I just confront the lies that claim that the Bible teaches against social nudity. (I wrote a blog article about that, too).

2. Whatever we see as common practice in the bible should be adopted as normative (i.e. morally required) for us today.

• Clearly, the question you asked can only have bearing on whether or not people today can live life as naturists if we also assume that the very description of the biblical lifestyle should be considered a moral mandate on how we also should live. Otherwise, the question is as inconsequential as “Didn’t people walk just about everywhere they went?”

REPLY:
When people are looking for reasons to oppose social nudity, they are often tempted to make the very same observation you made, but with the presumption of moral mandate: “Social nudity was NOT the norm in the Bible, therefore to practice it is NOT normal and not biblically acceptable.”
But the problem is that when we pull out the assumption behind such a declaration and say it straight out as I just did as point #2 above, the absurdity of that assumption is so evident as to be laughable.
Nobody would argue that since people in the Bible never rode bikes, drove cars, or took buses or planes to travel that we shouldn’t either. Didn’t people just walk? Well, of course they did. So?
Yet if the very same logic were applied to travel as is sometimes made about clothes, then we’d have to ban all travel that was not by foot or by the power of a beast of burden!
So, as to the question of whether people generally wore clothing, the answer is, “Well, of course they did. So?”
Common practices of a culture long past are not morally binding on us today. Your question is fine for discussing the way of life in biblical times, but it is irrelevant to the question of the morality or practice of social nudity today.

3. The descriptions of public life we read about in the Bible fully describes life for the common folks in biblical times.

• If we are looking to biblical times as our basis for biblical behavior today, then it must also be assumed that we know all that we need to know about those cultures we are supposed to emulate.

REPLY:
I shouldn’t need to spend much time on this one, because the absurdity of this claim is also self-evident, even though it too is inherently assumed in the question if we hold to Assumption #2.
Some might claim that we know everything that we need to know because God inspired the inclusion of only those things that we need to emulate… but the hypocrisy of that claim becomes immediately evident when you just compare how Christians live today against what we DO know about life in bible times (like walking everywhere, or wearing only tunics and robes). There’s really no other assertion besides the “nudity-taboo” that anyone ever tries to use “biblical life” to support.
The fact is we know very little about life in bible times as it relates to common nudity. What’s more, we read the biblical text through 21st century eyes. We consider the Bible’s teaching on clothing through the lens of wealthy modern individuals with enough clothes to go for weeks changing clothes every day without ever wearing the same outfit twice.
What did people in biblical times really think about nudity? How common was it really? When we read the bible in English, it’s hard to tell, because a careful examination of modern translations reveals that whenever nudity was mentioned or implied when not shameful or embarrassing, the text has been rendered in such a way as to obscure the nudity that was present. I’ve carefully documented this translational obscuration in the blog series, Squeamish Translating. Those articles focus only on New Testament texts, but perhaps I need to write a version from the Old Testament as well.

In Summary…

I suspect that you’re thinking, “I wasn’t thinking those things at all!” and I would believe you. But I would encourage you to answer the question, “Why would common practices of attire in biblical times matter at all to this discussion of the morality of Social Nudity and its recreational practice?” Perhaps there are other good reasons you could offer, but the only one I’ve ever been able to discern is the presumption of biblical practices being normative for us today. That particular reason is invalid, so that’s why I have addressed it.
The correct answer to that question is that if we can discern that nudity truly was more common in biblical times (for work, public bathing, in individual homes, ritual mikvehs, exercising, etc.), then we can draw a very strong conclusion that since the biblical writers did NOT forbid such public nudity, we cannot and must not have the audacity to claim that the bible does forbid it at all. This purpose for asking the question doesn’t support the nudity-taboo teaching, so you just don’t hear anyone offer it.
On that score, allow me to address a few points in your email that warrant specific commentary.

Additional Comments

Except for Adam and Eve, most accounts of nakedness were either related to a job, or some unusual situation.

I’m surprised that you say “unusual”… I dare say that naked prophets were not unusual. Naked girls milling grain were not unusual. Naked servants were not unusual. Naked fishermen were not unusual. Even naked poor people were not unusual. They might seem unusual to us today, but we cannot assert that it was unusual at the time. To describe them as “unusual” affords you the opportunity to categorize public nudity as “unusual,” when in fact it may not have been at all! That’s 21st century lenses at work.

I like the idea of making my home clothing optional, but I don't see bible passages stating that this was the norm.

The bible doesn’t comment on the incidence of nudity in the home at all, but certainly it must have been common if only wealthy folks had more than one garment in their possession and the garments worn during the day were repurposed as blankets at night (Exodus 22:26-27, Deut. 24:12-13). Family bath time, bed time, and laundry day all would have resulted in plenty of family nudity. Again, if we read these sorts of passages without the discoloration of our modern experiences, we’ll miss the implications of what it must have been like when whole families lived together in a single tent, as it was when the OT laws were given.

- Nudity still wasn't the norm. If it were, I would expect little to no mention of someone's nakedness. But nakedness seemed to be a condition to be mentioned as significant.

We must be careful what we declare “If… then” for. Quite frankly, my impression is that nakedness IS mentioned very little in the Scriptures. Nakedness IS mentioned from time to time in the bible, but it is again the modern-day mindset that notes the “significance” of the mention—assuming that the “naked” part is really the point of the mention! The way I see it, the poor’s nakedness was a sign of the poverty which God’s people were commanded to minister to. The mention of Isaiah’s nakedness was notable only because it went for 3 years non-stop. King’s Saul’s nakedness was notable because he had “changed professions,” since evidently nudity among prophets was so common as to not merit a mention. Peter’s nakedness fishing was mentioned only to tell why he grabbed his garment before jumping out of the boat (and he probably wasn’t the only naked fisherman on the boat!).
My point is that it is our modern mindset that says, “Oh… he was NAKED… that’s notable!” when that may not be the emphasis of the passage at all.

- The common man (or woman) walking down the street or living in his home was clothed.

We can guess that this was pretty much the case, but it may not be nearly as universal as we imagine today, 2000 years removed. Have you ever seen a naked person walking around in public? Yet in bible times, Jesus and others made a special point of telling people to pay attention to the naked poor people; it must have been common enough to warrant repeated instructions on that precise point! If people really did often work naked, then seeing a naked workman in the middle of the day would not have been noteworthy; when Mary Magdalene mistook Jesus for the gardener, the most natural explanation for her mistake is that He—having left the grave-clothes behind in the tomb—must have been “dressed” like an actively working gardener!

- Being naked in town would be like a homeless person is now. An indicator of extreme poverty, and to be avoided.

Yes, extreme poverty was to be ministered to by God’s people, and if they did so, then those needs would be addressed. But bear in mind that the “naked” that this is talking about is the same as the “hungry” the bible tells us to feed. Being hungry was not a moral need, it was a physical need. Being naked was not a moral need, it was a physical need (they probably sold the shirt on their back for food, so they no longer had a way to stay warm at night—See James 2:15-16 for a clear description of what the hunger and nakedness meant).
Furthermore, the instructions to feed “the hungry” and clothe “the naked” were not commands to feed any person we meet who happens to be hungry at the moment or clothe every person who happens to be naked at the moment; they were commands to feed the hungry people who truly had no food to eat and no way to get any food, and to clothe the naked people who truly had no clothes to wear and no way to get any clothes.

- It was nothing like a naturist or nudist resort, even in people's homes or yards.

Again, you might be right in the main, but you have no way of knowing this for sure. First of all, I know of no mention in the bible at all of any sort of “recreational” activity… either at home or “on vacation.” We’re really only guessing on this point.
However, it might be worth considering that if a carpenter worked in his own backyard woodworking shop, we could expect that he would strip off his clothes to preserve his one clean garment from getting sweaty and covered with sawdust. The same would be true for a gardener or any other physically demanding home-based job.
Beyond that, however, I can say definitively that there was a place in public life where nudity was precisely like a nudist resort… and that’s the local city’s “gymnasium” (from the Greek word gumnazo meaning “naked”) and any of the Roman Baths common throughout the Roman Empire. Even Jerusalem had a local gymnasium in Jesus’ day (Check out this article). Paul’s writing reveal his own knowledge of the gymnasiums’ existence and the activities practiced on their grounds (he mentions wrestling, running, boxing, and “exercise” a word translated from the Greek word gumnazo in the NT). These mental/physical training sites also served as Universities in their day, and yes, nudity was required for all genders while on the grounds. NOTE: These gymnasiums—or “Palaestras” as they were called—were a part of public life throughout the Roman empire while Jesus was on the earth and while the New Testament was being written!!

The Fine Print…

This is the part where I admit that almost everything I’ve suggested regarding commonplace nudity in biblical times is speculative. I can point to hints of these things here and there throughout the scriptures, but I have no concrete proof (except the point about the local Gymnasiums in Jerusalem… I can prove that).
But… we also have no concrete proof that any of the speculations I have offered are not accurate. My point is not to prove that my descriptions are accurate, but to point out that within the things you wrote, there are assumptions about how things were in bible times which themselves may not be accurate. Drawing final conclusions on my speculations would be indefensible. Drawing final conclusions on your representation of biblical life would also be indefensible. THAT is my point.

Thanks!

Again, Bill, thanks so much for writing… and for giving me this opportunity to put into a blog post some things I’ve pondered for a long time, but never directly addressed. I hope my comments have met your expectations. Please feel free to follow up with a reply here or directly by email.
— Matthew Neal

See also:
I Don't Promote Naturism
Obviously! – a post about Assumptions.
Squeamish Translating, and in particular, the article about Naked Disciples.
A Day at the Baths (this shows the layout details of a bath and Paleastra combined)
Hellenism: Center of the Universe (This one is startling in its implications…)

God Doesn’t Like RED! (the Failure of “Guilty-By-Association”)

Weird post title?

I agree.

No, I don’t really believe that God doesn’t like red. Quite the opposite, actually.

But… if I am careless (and biased) in my approach to biblical interpretation, I can make a pretty strong case from the Bible that God doesn’t like red. He might even hate it!

“Guilty-By-Association”?

Ask a preacher about what God thinks about nakedness, and you’ll almost always hear, “Throughout the Bible, you’ll find nakedness associated with shame. Therefore, nakedness is shameful and wrong.” In other words, Nakedness is Guilty-by-Association.

To start with, it’s worth observing that they will not point you to any Scripture passage which simply and clearly condemns nudity. In fact we can make quite a list of “rules” about nudity that are not found in the bible.

There is…

• No verse that forbids you to see others naked.
• No verse that warns you against allowing anyone to see you naked.

The “exceptions” are missing, too.

• No verse that says you can see your spouse naked.
• No verse that says doctors are permitted to see their patients naked.
• No verse that says how young your child may be and still see you naked.

Why don’t they just point to such a verse that forbids public nudity? Simply because there isn’t one.
So, they have to utilize the next best thing… the Guilty-by-Association argument.

“Guilty-by-Association” on Trial

OK… let me say up front that I don’t believe “guilty by association” is any proof of “guilt” at all. Scripture interpretations based on “Guilty-by-Association” are false. I know of no teaching about moral standards—accepted among biblical Christians as doctrinally sound—which is based solely on the “guilty by association” argument.

Wait… I know of one… the argument against social nudity. That’s the only one.

But if “Guilty-by-Association” is not accepted for any other moral teaching, why is it accepted for this one issue? Is “Guilty-by-Association” actually is a sound interpretational means to discern God’s moral perspective on a matter?

If “Guilty-by-Association” is a valid way to interpret the Bible, then God hates RED. And I can prove it!

==================================================

God Hates RED!

A survey of the Bible shows how the color red is associated with sin or sinfulness.

In the Old Testament:

• Isa. 1:18 - “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.
  • Obviously, God wants us to know that sin is associated with the color red, for He repeats Himself, comparing sin to scarlet AND crimson.
• Numbers 19:1-10 – This law calls for the slaughter of a Red Heifer for the sin of the Israelites. The entire animal was to be burned (no eating any part of it) along with some red cloth.
  • The priest who performed the sacrifice was to be considered unclean. Being unclean is obviously not a good thing.
  • Likewise, the one who gathered up the ashes after it was burned was to be considered unclean.
• Proverbs 23:31 – “Do not look on the wine when it is red…”
  • God’s disdain for the color even extends to what we drink.
• Genesis 25:25  - “Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau.”
  • Later in his life, Esau sold his birthright for some “red stuff.” (Genesis 25:30)
  • No wonder God says in Malachi 1:3, “I have hated Esau.”

In the New Testament:

• Matthew 6:13 – Jesus said, ‘There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.’
  • Bad weather is associated with the color red.
• Rev. 6:4 – “And another, a red horse, went out; and to him who sat on it, it was granted to take peace from the earth, and that men would slay one another; and a great sword was given to him.”
  • The Second Horseman of the Apocalypse, sitting on a red horse, bringing war, and death.
• Rev. 12:3 – “Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems.”
  • This perhaps the most damning verse of all, for red is the color of the Dragon… Satan himself!

So, in the scriptures, we see a consistent pattern of the color red being associated with sin, sinfulness, Satan, or other bad things. This is how we can know that God hates RED.

It’s Innate!

This is something that God has built into every person, too. Think of these facts about how we respond to the color red in our lives:

• We naturally recoil at the sight of blood, which is red.
• When someone gets very angry, we describe them as “seeing red.”
• If our financial ledgers have a negative balance, we are “in the red.”
• We use red to tell people to STOP!! And no one likes to be told to stop.
• Red is the sign for danger.
• Red is color of destructive fire.
• Women painted with red lipstick are a source of temptation to lust for men.

It’s easy to see why red has a negative meaning in human society; this is directly the result of the fact that God hates RED!

The Christian who wishes to live a life pleasing to God will judiciously eliminate red from his or her life.

=======================================================================

STOP!!

Everything I’ve just written about how God hates the color red is utter poppycock.

Pure rubbish.

Terrible, terrible interpretation.

And it’s because I’ve invoked the “Guilty-by-Association” argument.

“Guilty-By-Association” Fails the Test

Let’s look at how bad it is and why it’s so wrong.

1. I was prooftexting. I searched for and cherry-picked verses that I could somehow twist into supporting my pre-determined conclusion. If it didn’t support my point, I skipped it.
2. And that brings me to my next error… there were many references to red in the Bible that are NOT associated with sin or anything bad. So if red is not always associated with sin or bad things, the color itself cannot be the issue!
3. I lifted the passages completely out of context. I quoted only that portion which I deemed to support my conclusion. Esau was not rejected by God because he had red hair. The red sky at night (as opposed to the morning) indicated good weather to come. There were four horsemen, each on a different color horse.
4. I focused on the color to the exclusion of any other part of each passage, making it sound like the color was THE reason the text indicated anything sinful or bad.
5. I paid no attention at all to the fact that there are multiple words that are translated as “red” in the Bible. They are not all used the same way.
6. I completely ignored the fact that red is a natural color found abundantly in creation… utilized to great beauty in the natural (and very good!) world!
7. Finally, NONE of the passage were in ANY way given to us to communicate God’s attitude towards the color red!

This is how you make a point using the “Guilty-by-Association” argument. And it is all wrong.
God knows how to declare His standards of conduct. His clear words of moral absolutes are found throughout the Bible. When God doesn’t clearly call something sin or forbid it, then we must not presume to “add it in” using a spurious or false argument to support it.

Nakedness is not a new thing among humans. It is simply inconceivable that God would have failed to clearly state his will regarding nakedness if He really did wish to forbid it (see Inconceivable Omission).

Let’s review how those who use “Guilty-by-Association” make the same sort of errors that I made trying to prove that God hates red…

1. They use prooftexting. I have seen many people simply list Scripture references rather than present clear interpretation of those verses based on the context. If they do quote a verse, they never present it in its context. When I respond to such folks, I take the scripture reference they’ve given me and quote it back to them in its full context (with an explanation of what it really means), I simply get no reply back! Prooftexting always fails the test of careful and honest exegesis.
2. There ARE verses in the Bible that present nakedness without any shame or sin associated! Sadly, many of them have been translated out of the English language Bible (See Squeamish Translating) so that the references to nudity that remain in the English translations are mostly negative (Seriously...see Squeamish Translating)! Studying the matter by consulting the original languages reveals this bias against nudity and deals a blow to the “Guilty-by-Association” effort. The fact is, unless all occasions of nudity are equally “shameful,” we cannot conclude that the nakedness is the de facto source of the shame.
3. Passages about nudity are often lifted out of context. Most notably is the teaching against incest in Leviticus 18… which uses the euphemism “uncover the nakedness of…” for incest (since there is no Hebrew word for “incest”). The phrase absolutely and unequivocally refers to having sexual relations with a close (“blood”) relative (reiterated 4 times in the passage… see Lev. 18:6, 12-13, 17) . Yet those who have pre-determined that the Bible forbids social nudity do not hesitate to rip that phrase in Leviticus 18 right out of its context in their attempt to declare social nudity to be immoral (see also The Meaning of Nakedness).
4. Opponents of social nudity regularly quote passages of Scripture that deal with nakedness and shame and they invariably assign the shame to the nakedness rather than the behavior of the “shamed” person. The truth is this… every time there’s shame associated with nakedness, there is ALSO a description of the person’s shameful and sinful behavior! It is indefensible to focus on one aspect of an account and presume that it alone is the source for the shame related in the text.
5. There are a number of words in the Old Testament that refer to a person being without clothes. Here’s another very significant FACT about nakedness in the Bible… of all the Hebrew words that reference nudity, only ONE (ervah) is ever associated with sin and shame! That observation by itself should tell us that simple nudity is not the moral problem Bible people seem to want it to be (see The Meaning of Nakedness).
6. Opponents of social nudity conveniently ignore the fact that God created Adam and Eve (and all of the other creatures in the world) to live naked and unashamed. It was so significant to His “very good” creation that it merited a special mention in Genesis 2:25. This very positive attitude about His naked creation—expressed by the One who cannot change—is completely ignored and/or discounted. God didn’t change His attitude about the naked human form… people did! (see Who Hates Nudity… God or Satan?)
7. Finally, there’s not ONE passage in all the Bible expressly given to us in order to inform us of God’s moral view of nakedness (with the possible exception of Genesis 2:25, which affirms the goodness of nakedness). Therefore, each and every passage cherry-picked to make a guilty-by-association argument against nakedness is a passage that was not given to us for that purpose! Again, if God wanted to tell us what His moral opinion is about simple nudity, He could have, and He would have. But He didn’t.

We Must Not Be Hermeneutically Lazy

Yes, we can all see that there are passages where nakedness and shame are closely associated. But nothing is “Guilty-by-Association” when we study the Bible to determine moral truth. Not even for nakedness. It is simply irresponsible and lazy if someone is willing to accept superficial conclusions about nudity based solely on the Guilty-by-Association argument.

As it turns out, “Guilty-by-Association” is the only argument that’s ever been available for use against social nudity, so it’s the only one that anyone has ever heard. It’s been repeated so frequently that no one ever pays attention to the fact that very foundation of the argument is false. Nor do they bother to examine its conclusions and put them under honest hermeneutical scrutiny.

“Guilty-by-Association” is false. It is always false. And it’s high time that solid and trustworthy teachers of the Bible be honest enough about it to lay it aside… even if it means giving up their opposition to nudity.


— Matthew Neal

“Biggest Scriptural Challenge” — The “Shame” of Egypt

In a recent blog post, I requested my readers to submit their Biggest Scriptural Challenge to Naturism to me so that I could address it from my own studies on the topic in the Scriptures.

This Scriptural challenge was sent to me by the editor of the Fig Leaf Forum (FLF) who had reprinted my post in the FLF newsletter. One of the FLF readers wrote to raise this issue:

The scripture is from Isaiah 20:

(NASB)  In the year that the commander came to Ashdod, when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him and he fought against Ashdod and captured it, 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, 4 so 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. 5 Then they will be dismayed and ashamed because of Cush their hope and Egypt their boast. 6 So the inhabitants of this coastland will say in that day, ‘Behold, such is our hope, where we fled for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria; and we, how shall we escape?"

Verse 4 has always bothered me when it says "naked and barefoot with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt."  suggesting it is shameful to be naked and barefoot with buttocks uncovered.  I know what my response to this would be but  I am curious as to what Mathew says about this.

The “Shame” of Egypt

There are several important observations to make on this passage to help us understand what it is and is not saying about shamefulness and nudity.

• First of all, God commanded the prophet Isaiah to go completely naked for three full years.
  • There was no shame for Isaiah in his obedience to God’s personal directive to him.
  • And God would never command one of His prophets to sin.

We can all draw more conclusions about God’s perspective on nudity from this observation, but this one is not really the focus of the question that was raised… which referred to the “shame of Egypt” when all their conquered inhabitants were forced to march out of town completely naked.

• Secondly, the text does not attribute this “shame” to individuals, but to a nation!
  • In the prophetic narrative, Egypt had just been so utterly defeated that all of its citizens lost every last thing they possessed. They literally lost the shirts off their backs… and their own homeland. They marched away without a stitch or a cent to their names.
  • If a nation so utterly fails to protect its people that they are conquered and marched away destitute, that nation has been deeply shamed.
• Finally—and perhaps most astonishingly—the word here translated “shame” is not the OT word for shame at all!
  • The Hebrew word is ervah (H6172), about which I have written extensively. The word that is most frequently translated “nakedness.”
  • This means that the text should more correctly be translated, “the nakedness of Egypt.”

It is this final point that I believe helps us to best understand this passage of Scripture. So my remaining comments will focus on its implications.

The “Nakedness” of Egypt

At first glance, it seems very odd to describe Assyria’s conquest as being “to the nakedness of Egypt.” Consequently, it’s easy to understand why the translators rejected the natural translation of ervah and replaced it with a word that actually means something different, but seems to help the passage make more sense.

I believe that rather than helping us understand Isaiah’s meaning, this “adjusted” translation actually does two things: 1. It betrays the hint of a bias against nudity that considers it shameful, presuming that “shame” and “naked” have enough in common as to be treated synonymously in this passage. 2. It obscures a much more colorful and descriptive meaning that might be evident if we were forced to struggle for the true meaning of the “nakedness of Egypt.”

I’ll lay the evident bias about nakedness aside for this article (read this series for more) and focus on the interpretation that I believe is best for this passage.

The Meaning of Ervah

I’ve posted a blog entry on this topic, and also written a full blown word study on the Hebrew word ervah that explains what I believe the best biblical definition of the word is. If you wonder how I reached that conclusion, I recommend that you read the word study. But for now, let me summarize the word’s definition and apply it to the passage in question here.

Ervah, as used throughout the Old Testament, does indeed refer to nakedness, that is, the state of being unclothed. But it very consistently also implies the active expression of that nakedness, and almost always, that active expression is sexual. So, we can safely interpret the Scriptures understanding that ervah is not just nakedness, but sexually active nakedness.

So… does that help our understanding of Isaiah 20:4? “… to the [sexually active nakedness] of Egypt.”

Not yet, right? But hang in there… I’m not done yet.

The “Rape” of Egypt

Remember that Egypt was conquered. This ervah, or “sexual nakedness” was not voluntary; it was forced! We have a word in English for forced sexual activity… we call it rape.

This suggests a bolder (albeit somewhat startling) translation of the text: “.. to the rape of Egypt.”

In other words, if my reasoning is correct, Isaiah is prophesying that Assyria would rape Egypt. Clearly, this is figurative language, but since there’s no OT Hebrew word for “rape,” it makes complete sense that if Isaiah wanted to invoke that mental image, he would use the word ervah to communicate it. And I believe it does so quite powerfully… and much more potently than “… to the shame of Egypt.”

This is the conclusion that I presented in my word study on ervah, where Isaiah 20 was one of the more significant passages that I addressed.

To me, this is one of those cases where a more accurate definition of the original language word helps us arrive at a much richer interpretation of the biblical text than if we depend on the English translation alone.

Is Nakedness Shameful?

Given the enriched interpretation that I’ve offered here, was does it mean in reference to the notion that simple non-sexual nakedness (“… naked and barefoot with buttocks uncovered”) is shameful?

To my thinking, this passage says nothing at all to that question. Or perhaps more to the point, this passage cannot be invoked to say that any and all public nakedness is shameful. It starts with a prophet obeying God by going publicly nude for three years. It continues with a figurative prophecy about a nation being so utterly defeated that Isaiah could figuratively declare that the nation would be “raped.”

This is one of many passages that have been put forth by Christians who claim that social nudity is wrong. And like all the others, this passage fails to support that claim when it is carefully and thoroughly studied and interpreted with sound hermeneutics.

— Matthew Neal

A Reader’s “Biggest Scriptural Challenge”–Part 1

Jasen’s “Biggest Scriptural Challenge

In my previous post, I invited readers to submit their “Biggest Biblical Challenge” with reference to the practice of naturism by a Christian who genuinely wants to live a godly life.
One reader named Jasen responded with the following:

My problem is not with the concept of social nudity. I believe the Bible makes it clear God intended for us to be naked, and that culturally within Biblical times there was plenty of public nudity that God could have condemned if He'd wanted to but did not, and all the other things your blog so richly explores.

However... Romans 13 tells us to submit to authority, and Romans 14:19 "Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification."

I believe (and I can't put my hand on a nice collection of verses to back it up at the moment) that we are instructed to live at peace within our culture in so far as that culture does not directly contradict God's Word. If I lived in India, I would wear pajamas. If I lived in the Middle East, I would wear a beard. If I lived with a tribe in the Amazon, I'd most likely wear next to nothing (I'd at least give it a try and see how my soft body would handle such exposure).

I currently find myself in the USA. And the USA has a deep cultural aversion to social nudity. The roots of such aversion are incidental; it is the custom of where I live. Therefore I restrict my participation in social nudity, and limit my public advocacy for social nudity. Yes, I believe I have freedom to visit the local nudist resort, or to vacation to a nudity accepting place (like St. Martin or Mallorca or Germany). However, I recognize that if word of my being socially nude got back to people in the USA it would most likely damage my testimony. That is challenging.

Is it worth participating in an activity that I have personal freedom and comfort with Scripturally, knowing that the culture I live in condemns such activity?

A Thoughtful Response to Thoughtful Questions

Well, Jasen, thanks for writing! I suppose it all boils down to that last question, doesn’t it? But to satisfactorily answer that one question, we need sound answers to your other questions.
Let me address your questions just a few at a time.

My problem is not with the concept of social nudity. I believe the Bible makes it clear God intended for us to be naked, and that culturally within Biblical times there was plenty of public nudity that God could have condemned if He'd wanted to but did not, and all the other things your blog so richly explores.

This is a good place to start. Sadly, however, this simple and honest conclusion from an unbiased evaluation of biblical and extra-biblical history is quite rare. Most people approach the entire issue of nudity with such a bias against it that the only conclusion they will even entertain is one that supports their bias. More often than not, they are completely unaware that their bias is the true driver of their conclusion.

However... Romans 13 tells us to submit to authority, and Romans 14:19 "Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification."

Yes, we are commanded to obey our civil authorities… and that would extend to those laws with govern nudity in public. And yes, we should not be looking for opportunities to “stir the pot" just for the sake of being cantankerous.

But… there is a caveat… What if the beliefs that undergird the “law” are false? What if there really is a lie to be opposed? We can’t take this passage to mean that we must pursue peace instead of truth. And the reality is that when a lie has a firm foothold in a culture or in a life, opposing that lie will not result in peace. And the “edification” that comes from promoting truth may not be well received if the lie holds sway in someone’s life.

But I have not actually given you an answer here that you can run with regarding the practice of social nudity or “letting people know” that you practice it. The real question is: “Is this lie worth opposing and exposing?” … or… “Is the lie doing damage to the lives of people, so that opposing the lie is actually a compassionate investment in people’s lives that will potentially result in the promotion of true righteousness?”
Keep those questions in mind… I’ll come back to them.

Live at Peace With All Men…

I believe (and I can't put my hand on a nice collection of verses to back it up at the moment) that we are instructed to live at peace within our culture in so far as that culture does not directly contradict God's Word. If I lived in India, I would wear pajamas. If I lived in the Middle East, I would wear a beard. If I lived with a tribe in the Amazon, I'd most likely wear next to nothing (I'd at least give it a try and see how my soft body would handle such exposure).

I think the verse you’re thinking of is from Rom. 12:17-18…

Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. (Rom 12:17-18)

It definitely is a good thing to be sensitive to the norms of a culture when we’re walking among people of that culture. Adopting the clothing styles and eating the same food as the “locals” will always be a good thing because it minimizes differences between people and expresses respect for the people and customs of those around you.

BUT… if I’m visiting among Indian friends, and when they enter their own house, they take off their shoes and then do homage to their house deity, I’m happy to take off my shoes, but I will not bow down to their god… If my refusal to bow to their god results in a disruption of the “peace,” so be it.

So again… is there an identifiable lie that I must not submit to? Can I follow customs without affirming falsehoods? Do I need to find a way to proclaim truth in order to break the power of the lie in someone’s heart? These are the defining questions that have to drive our decision on how to live in light of the truth we understand about the meaning of the human form.

The Symptom, Not the Disease…

I currently find myself in the USA. And the USA has a deep cultural aversion to social nudity. The roots of such aversion are incidental;…

Ok… gotta stop you there… I would argue that the roots of such an aversion is NOT incidental! Maybe you need to research that a bit more. If that aversion is based upon and continues to promote a lie, doesn’t that matter?

… it is the custom of where I live. Therefore I restrict my participation in social nudity, and limit my public advocacy for social nudity. Yes, I believe I have freedom to visit the local nudist resort, or to vacation to a nudity accepting place (like St. Martin or Mallorca or Germany). However, I recognize that if word of my being socially nude got back to people in the USA it would most likely damage my testimony. That is challenging.

Yes, that is challenging. But I think your focus is off just a bit. It might sound weird for me to say this—I do call myself The Biblical Naturist, after all—but I don’t think that promoting the freedom to practice social nudity should be what we are about!

You see, the rejection of social nudity is the symptom, not the disease. The real theological “disease” is the perception of the human form as only sexual. It is the assumption that our one and only “automatic” response to its sight is sexual arousal and desire. The real issue is that we—the people of God—have utterly rejected the Glory of God as revealed by the unadorned human form, made in God’s Image.

Defining the visible human form only in terms of its impact on the libido is an insult to the One whose image is seen there. But it is ONLY by such a redefinition that anyone can reject social nudity! We correctly discern that God commands sexual purity, but then we assume that since the sight of the naked human form is a sexual experience, we must also reject nudity because it “obviously” promotes impurity.

So, at its core, the rejection of social nudity is evidence that someone has rejected the visible image of God and replaced it with what I would call a pornographic view of the body.

The nudity taboo that springs from that pornographic view of the body is therefore, a false rule; it is man-made. And Col. 2:20-23 tells us that such man-made rules for righteousness are of “no value against fleshly indulgence.”

Why I Do This…

I don’t promote “social nudity.” I promote a biblical understanding of the meaning of the human form.
And I do that for two reasons:

• For the glory of God. We must recover the truth of the Imago Dei…
  • God’s self-revelation in the human form has been rejected by the church today. The prevailing sexualized understanding of the human form is an Insult to God.
  • Only by embracing the full meaning of the Imago Dei and rejecting that pornographic understanding of the natural human form can we see the Glory of God revealed in our bodies as He intended.
• For the pursuit of true Purity. We must reject false, man-made rules that have “the appearance of wisdom… but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.” (Col. 2:20-23)
  • The man-made “nudity taboo” has been the central teaching of the church regarding the pursuit of moral purity for a long time. By any measure, it isn’t working. The church today is less sexually pure than perhaps any time in its history (the secret addiction to online pornography is epidemic).
  • Only by teaching the correct perception of—and response to—the visible human form can we have any hope of seeing real and lasting moral purity in the people of God.

This is my real purpose. This is my real message.

How Then Should We Live?

But as you may have read in my 3-part series, Naturist by Biblical Conviction, It is not credible to reject the falsehood, but then still submit to it in every aspect of my life. If I am truly going to reject a lie, I must live as if the lie is not true.

And this gets back to your issue… if you really reject the lies that undergird others’ adherence to the nudity taboo, should you never even let on that you live by a different understanding of the human form?

What do I recommend for you or anyone else? I’ll put it this way:

• If you only practice naturism because it’s a freedom you have before the Lord which you personally enjoy, then keep it to yourself.
• If you practice naturism as a conviction about living by the truth and opposing the lie in our culture and within the church, then be prepared to proclaim the truth and to be persecuted for it.
• But don’t promote “naturism”… that will not get you anywhere. Proclaim the truth about what our bodies really mean. That’s the real issue.
• And don’t be stupid about it… pray for, look for, prepare for, and anticipate those opportunities where God is at work in someone’s heart, preparing them to embrace a life-transforming truth.
• I have learned that unless God is doing that work in someone, no amount of logical or persuasive words will break the grip of the lie in their heart. Spouting off your beliefs when there is no readiness to receive truth will usually only result in needless conflict.

What About “My Testimony”?

You mentioned the issue of your “testimony.” This is probably a good spot to talk about that a little bit.
First of all, I think that’s often a euphemism for “reputation” or perhaps “credibility.” Here’s why I mention this… often we make decisions in our life with a view to maintain our “testimony” when what’s really happening is that we are making our decisions based on how they are perceived by others. In other words, we are submitting to the moral judgment of others instead of standing before God alone with regard to what is morally right. This is called “the fear of man” in the Bible, and it is also called “a snare” (Prov. 29:25)… a trap.

What really matters is whether or not we are living in the truth before the Lord… not the “truth” as perceived by others. Many prophets in the Old Testament had an awful “testimony”… if you judge by how poorly they were received by the people around them. So long as you are following God and living faithfully according to the truth, your “testimony” is exactly what it should be. Ultimately, people will see that you live consistently with your beliefs, even if they think you’re wrong.

Truly, our real "testimony" is never enhanced by submitting to lies. In fact, when we refuse to embrace, promote, or abide by rules or beliefs that are NOT biblical and NOT part of the gospel and NOT measures of true righteousness, I submit that our credibility goes UP—not down—especially before unbelievers.
Think about it this way: I proclaim an assortment of "truths" to an unbeliever—either by word or by my life. Those truths include the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ. But they also include "truths" that are really culturally adopted lies. In that unbeliever's heart, however, the Holy Spirit is working to draw them to the truth. Unfortunately, however, the Spirit can only confirm some of those "truths" that I'm proclaiming. So that person is left wondering why only some of what we've communicated really rings true (confirmed by the Holy Spirit) in their heart. In other words, our real "testimony"—our impact for God—is damaged by our adherence to the cultural falsehoods. It is not damaged by the criticism of other believers.

If You Have to Hide It, It Must Be Wrong… Right?

Let me change gears here and talk about a related issue. It has been very difficult for my wife to accept the practice of naturism “in secret.” For her, just knowing that people would reject us “if they only knew makes the whole thing seem “wrong” to her. It feels like if we have to hide something, then it must be wrong, because why would we need to hide something we’re doing that is right?

But that’s not really the measure of right and wrong, is it? God’s character and His Word are the measures of right and wrong. Standing firm on what God has revealed to you when it seems like every Christian around you thinks you’re wrong, though, now that can be pretty difficult.

A Very Strange Predicament…

So… do you tell them about your beliefs, or do you not? (that question again…)

It is interesting to me that we can find ourselves facing the rather odd reality on this matter… such that greater openness actually promotes falsehood rather than truth. Here’s why…

Right now, people perceive of my wife and me as a godly couple who serve the Lord faithfully and are raising a family to love and serve God. This, I trust, is genuinely true. It is not diminished in the least by the fact that we have visited naturist resorts and have no requirement for clothing in our home.

But if those facts were known, the same people who view us as godly now might begin to perceive of us as perverse and ungodly people who are damaging our own children and leading them astray—ideas which are patently false.

• So by withholding some information, people continue to believe the truth.
• By revealing information they are not prepared to comprehend, people would believe a lie.

I genuinely wish I could tell everyone about my beliefs about the body and my practice of naturism. I don’t think there has been any other decision in my life (besides my faith in Christ and my marriage) that have had a more profoundly positive impact on my life. And while I’m constantly alert to opportunities to invest related truth in others’ lives, I’ve determined that—at this point in time—full disclosure would be more of a hindrance to truth than a help to it.

And So… Your Question Still Remains…

Is it worth participating in an activity that I have personal freedom and comfort with Scripturally, knowing that the culture I live in condemns such activity?

Ultimately, I think everyone has to answer that for themselves…

But before you answer that question, you might consider framing the question this way:

• Is it worth restricting my freedom just to avoid the condemnation of others?

And there’s another even more important way to think about that question:

• Is there a truth to proclaim that’s worth facing unjust criticism and mistreatment for?

For me, the answer to the first of these two questions is “no,” and the answer to the second is “yes.”

But that doesn’t mean that I’m going to be indiscriminate in the practice of my beliefs, nor am I going to needlessly subject myself and my family to the attacks of others. So, that’s where I stand at the moment.

Sorry… I Can’t Answer For You.

No, I can’t answer the question for you or for anyone else.

I can only urge you to seek the Lord and follow His leading for your life a faithfully as you can.

But, honestly, I hope that you’ll be one of those that He calls to proclaim and live the truth about the real meaning of the human body. The task before us is great, and we are few…

— Matthew Neal

Part 2 (still to come…)

You Can’t Do That! - Introduction

You Can’t Do That! it’s Wrong!

At what point must a Biblical Christian modify his own behavior because someone else thinks that what he is doing is wrong?
I’m not talking about the black and white issues where God has clearly spoken… I’m talking about the “gray” areas that the Bible does not directly speak to. Sometimes, committed Christians study the same Bible, but come to completely opposite conclusions about the morality of a particular activity.
When that happens, does the one who doesn’t conclude that an activity is wrong have a moral obligation before God to refrain from that activity because the other believes that it is? There are three different options in response:

1. Refrain completely, at all times.
2. Refrain while that person’s presence.
3. No obligation to refrain at all.

Of course, one may decide to refrain out of deference to someone else, or to avoid conflict, but that is at the sole option of the individual, and not a matter of moral obligation.

Doesn’t the Bible Teach Us to Do That?

Well… that is the question… Does the Bible teach us to refrain from certain behaviors around others whose beliefs about right and wrong differ?
And, like many questions, the answer is, “It depends.” If it truly is a “gray issue,” then the answer to what a Biblically faithful believer must do is dependent upon the context and the people involved.
Interestingly enough, the Bible IS pretty clear about what our response should be, depending on the various people and contexts. Or to put it another way… The Bible is black and white about “gray areas”!
The problem arises when someone tries to enforce their own views about gray areas upon others. Is there any Biblical justification for that? 
That question is my real target for this series of posts. In the process of answering it, I will show what the Bible really teaches on the topic I raised above.

The Passages in Question

I will be addressing three primary Scriptural commands that are frequently used by some to impose their own view of “gray areas” on others:

The “Appearance of Evil”

1 Thes. 5:22 (KJV)

“Abstain from all appearance of evil.”

The “Weaker Brother” (Causing to Stumble & Giving “Offense”)

Romans 14 (NASB)	“It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.” (v21)
1 Cor. 8 (NASB)	“But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.” (v9)

For “Conscience’ Sake” (Meat offered to Idols)

1 Cor. 10:23-33 (NASB)

“But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake;” (v28)

These are the passages that are frequently misinterpreted and misapplied.
If we desire to be truly Biblical Christians, we need to avoid that mistake.
— Matthew Neal
============
In this Series:
You Can’t Do That! - Introduction
You Can’t Do That! - The “Appearance of Evil”
You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 1)
You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 2)
You Can’t Do That! – “For Conscience’ Sake”

You Can’t Do That! - The “Appearance of Evil”

“You Shouldn’t Do That!!”

Those of us who have been Christians for a lot of years have undoubtedly been told that there are certain things that we must not do… not because they are wrong in and of themselves, but because people might see us and think that we are doing something wrong.

“The Bible tells us to avoid even the appearance of evil!” They would say…

And… well, it is right there in 1 Thes. 5:22… in the King James Version at least.

So, we’ve been taught that if “most people” associate an activity with sin, that we should simply abstain from participation… because of the “appearance of evil.”

This is what we were told about rock music… and playing cards… and dancing… and alcohol… and movies…

But Is That Right?

That’s a very important question! If what we were told is correct, then we need to apply that passage to our lives exactly that way. So, let’s take a closer look at the text. Let’s see if this really is about “appearances.”

Here is the passage in multiple versions:

1 Thessalonians 5:22

KJV	“Abstain from all appearance of evil.”
NKJV	“Abstain from every form of evil.”
NASB	“Abstain from every form of evil.”
NIV	“Avoid every kind of evil.”
Amp	“Abstain from evil [shrink from it and keep aloof from it] in whatever form or whatever kind it may be.”

The underlined words above are each translated from the Greek word, eidos (G1491). It is defined in Strong’s Concordance as “the external or outward appearance, form figure, shape” or “form, kind.” It actually refers to something visible… in other words, it is something actually appearing.

Is “Appearance” Just About “How Things Appear” (but aren’t really)?

The word "appearance," as we use it in English, has the connotation of something which "appears" to be something when in fact it is not. And that’s exactly how it’s been applied to various issues like those I listed above.

But the only English translation that seems to support that idea is the KJV… all of the others seem to go out of their way to avoid wording that leads to that understanding. It’s as if the translators knew that the KJV’s rendering led to a faulty idea about “appearances” so they translated it in a way that show the actual meaning is to avoid real evil, not just something that might be thought by others to be evil.

I would restate Paul’s words this way:

• “Avoid evil, wherever it appears.”
  or (to use the KJV’s word)
• “…wherever evil makes an appearance, abstain from it.”

Dangerous Application…

But what if someone else really believes an activity is sinful? Are we morally obligated to refrain from an activity that we know to be morally pure (or neutral) because someone else thinks it’s wrong?

Let’s put it in more stark terms… Does the Bible teach that we are obligated to follow the moral standards of other?  

Well, that can’t be what 1 Thes. 5:22 means…  Jesus Himself didn’t practice it!

• Religious people of Jesus’ Day considered it “evil” to work on the Sabbath. They had a long list of things which constituted “work.” Jesus was well aware of their list, but did some of those things which had the “appearance of evil” anyway: He allowed His disciples to pick grain (Mark 2:23-24). He healed people (Luke 14:1-6). He told a man to carry his bedroll on a Sabbath (John 5:5-11). When the Pharisees “reminded” Jesus that it was forbidden (read, “sinful”), He rebuked them and rejected their standard of behavior. And He did the “forbidden” thing anyway!
• Religious people of Jesus’ Day knew that it was “evil” to be associated with “sinners.” Jesus knew of their standards yet He spent time directly with “evil” tax-collectors (Matthew 9:9-13) and adulterous women (Luke 7:36-39).
• Religious people of Jesus’ day would never allow themselves to become defiled by touching anything that was “evil” and “unclean.” Yet Jesus touched the dead (Luke 8:40-42,49-54, Luke 7:11-15). He touched and healed lepers (Luke 5:12-13). And rather than rebuke an unclean (bleeding) woman for mixing with the pressing crowd without announcing her uncleanness, He praised her for her faith expressed through her desire to touch Him (Luke 8:43-48).

Why didn’t Jesus avoid the “appearance of evil”? He knew exactly what the religious leaders of His day thought was right or wrong… Why did he blatantly violate their standards?

The answer, of course, is that Jesus was not obligated to follow other peoples’ ideas about right and wrong.

And neither are we.

Avoiding Real Evil

As all the versions besides the KJV show, we are to avoid real evil. In other words, our measure is not others’ opinions, it is God’s Word alone.

And there are things that are truly wrong…

• Premarital sex is wrong (Excellent Biblical treatment of this issue).
• Adultery is wrong. (Exodus 20:14)
• Homosexuality is wrong (Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1:26-27).
• Lust is wrong (Exodus 20:17 "covet"="lust", Prov. 6:25, Matt. 5:28).

As biblically faithful Christians, we must not participate in or condone behaviors that are clearly contrary to God’s Word. At the same time, true Christlikeness means that we are willing to be criticized and persecuted for participating in activities that may “appear evil” to other Christians.

— Matthew Neal

============

In this Series:

You Can’t Do That! - Introduction
You Can’t Do That! - The “Appearance of Evil”
You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 1)
You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 2)
You Can’t Do That! – “For Conscience’ Sake”

You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 1)

Are we really allowed to do that??

So, what about the “weaker brother”? What about Paul’s instructions that we should not eat meat offered to idols because it could cause a brother to stumble?

There are several passages that Paul wrote dealing with this issue. We’re going to look at them in two sections, starting with the passages from Romans 14 and 1 Cor. 8.

Causing a “weak” brother to “stumble”… giving an “offense.”

In that heading, I’ve captured three of the primary terms used by Paul.

The phrase “weaker brother” comes from Romans 14:1-2, where Paul tells us how to treat “gray” areas when we are with someone who is “weak in faith.”

Twice in Rom. 14, Paul mentions “stumbling”… that is, putting an “obstacle or a stumbling block” in a brother’s way or doing something by which a brother “stumbles” (Rom. 14:13,21)

Finally, there’s a mention about giving “offense” (Rom 14:20).

The parallel passage in 1 Cor. 8 also talks about a brother that is “weak” and causing him to “stumble.”

Define the terms!

If we really want to know what Paul means in order to know how to apply this in our lives, we must know what Paul meant by these terms… and what he didn’t mean.

I’m not going to quote and explain the entire passage here, but I will give the definitions that are easily discernable from the text. I encourage all my readers to study the passages for themselves to see that I’m not just twisting it to my own preferred meaning.

Here are the significant terms:

“Weak”	In Rom. 14:2 and in 1 Cor. 8:7,10, we can see that the “weak” brother is one who believes that something is wrong when in fact it is not (this, too, Paul makes clear – 1 Cor. 8:8). But it’s more than just that; the true symptom of his “weakness” is that he is susceptible to influence from others to violate his own conscience by doing that thing which he still believes is wrong.
“Stumble”	In Rom. 14:14, 22-23 and in 1 Cor. 8:8-9, to “stumble” is a euphemism for participating in an activity in violation of one’s own conscience.
“Stumbling block”	in Rom. 14:13,20-21 and in 1 Cor. 8:9-10, the “stumbling block” is the action of the “stronger” brother who has freedom before God to participate in an activity, but when it is seen by the “weaker” brother, that brother decides to go ahead and participate, violating his conscience.
“Offense”	In Rom. 14:10, we can see that it is an “offense” to cause a weaker brother to stumble. It is literally a sin against him.

What the words DON’T mean!

The definitions above are easily discernable from the passage itself (please check my conclusions). These are the only things that these words mean in these passages, but just to be clear, let’s point out some things that these words don’t mean… although there are a lot of people that seem to think they do:

• “Weak” does not mean that someone simply believes an activity is wrong. The person who strongly renounces you for doing something is not “weak,” he’s actually strong! That individual would steadfastly refuse to participate with you in the activity he’s condemning! As Paul said in Rom. 14:5… he’s “fully convinced in his own mind.”
• “Stumble” does not mean that a person is startled, surprised, bothered, uncomfortable, or affronted by your participation in a “gray” activity. Nor is it a sinful response to what you did (more on that in Part 2)
• “Stumbling block” is not the “drama” that can arise when one person does something that another person thinks is wrong.
• “Offense” is not a person “taking offense” that you would “dare do such a thing.” It is not when a person feels insulted by your actions or words (compare Luke 11:37-54 and Matt 15:11-12).

What Paul Really Means:

When we really understand the definitions of the terms as Paul uses them, it’s easy to see what Paul is trying to communicate. Let me summarize:

If you have freedom to do something but your brother does not, if you can discern that he just might go ahead and participate in the activity if he sees you doing it, defer to your brother and don’t do the activity in his presence so that he won’t be tempted to violate his conscience.

The “weaker” brother will not be the one spouting off about how wrong an activity is. In fact, he may say nothing at all. It will take alertness, discernment, and understanding of that brother’s spiritual maturity to detect when an activity should be avoided.

What Paul DIDN’T Mean:

One time, I had a brother who confronted me about my involvement in a “gray area” activity. At one point, he actually told me that I should refrain from it because I should consider HIM to be the “weaker brother.” In other words, he was attempting to use this passage to place restrictions on my behavior in my own home (he lived in a different state!). This is an egregious abuse of Paul’s teaching. The “weaker brother” can never presume to attempt control of others’ behavior based upon this passage.

It also doesn’t mean that whenever people look at us and condemn our actions because they are “offended” by them, that we must stop. We might choose to stop out of politeness or deference, but that’s very different than someone demanding that we abide by their moral convictions.

Making the “Weak” Strong.

Finally, Paul didn’t intend that the stronger brother should never talk about, defend, promote, or even mention the activity in question.

If Paul describes someone as “weak,” what would be his expectation of the “strong” person?

Well, certainly, he does expect the strong brother to voluntarily restrict his own activities while a weak brother cannot yet participate with a clear conscience.

But at the same time, it would be ludicrous to suggest that the “weak” brother has the “right” to remain weak… that he must never be challenged to become stronger regarding what is truly right or wrong.

The strong brother should be prepared to walk a weak brother through the process of reexamining his convictions to ensure that they are based upon truth rather than impressions, misconceptions, or cultural norms.

As the writer of Hebrews indicates in Heb. 5:14, mature (strong) believers will train their consciences to correctly discern what is truly right and what is truly wrong. As a “weak” brother gains strength and matures, this should be happening in his life.

As Biblical Christians, we must be alert to the spiritual maturity of those who look to us for guidance… careful to avoid moving beyond their readiness, but discontent to leave them weak.

— Matthew Neal

============

In this Series:

You Can’t Do That! - Introduction
You Can’t Do That! - The “Appearance of Evil”
You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 1)
You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 2)
You Can’t Do That! – “For Conscience’ Sake”

You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 2)

Causing a Brother to “Stumble”

As we saw in The Weaker Brother” – Part 1, Paul’s instructions to us in Romans 14 and 1 Cor. 8 both tell us to be alert to someone who does not have freedom in their spirit to engage in an activity even the we ourselves do have the freedom from God to do.

To “stumble” means that a brother (or sister) decides to do something in violation of his own conscience because he saw someone else (probably another Christian he respects) doing that thing.

That’s all it means.

But that’s not how a lot of people invoke this teaching. In fact, you almost never hear Bible teachers or preachers explain Paul’s words that way… you almost always hear it applied a very different way.

Does “Causing a Sinful Response” equal “Causing a Brother to Stumble”?

The way we usually hear the admonition to “not cause a brother to stumble” is that we are told to avoid doing something because someone else may exhibit a sinful response to seeing us doing it.

Perhaps the most common case has to do with the false standards of “modesty” that are taught in the church today. It goes like this:

• Women are told that they need to “dress ‘modestly’ so you don’t cause a brother to stumble.”

Right away, it is easy to see that this does not fit what what Paul was trying to teach!

• Women are not being told that if they dress immodestly, all those “weak” men will start dressing the same way… in violation of their own consciences!

But that’s the biblical meaning of “causing a brother to stumble”!!

No, what they are trying to say is that if women dress a certain way, and men see them, those men will not be able to control themselves. Instead, they’ll find themselves fighting mental battles against lust in their hearts. They will simply be unable to avoid thinking (and perhaps acting) in impure ways.

But Isn’t That a Valid Biblical Reason to Not Do Something?

One might suggest that since all those men with raging hormones will go bonkers if they see too much female flesh, that asking the ladies to keep covered will help the men control themselves and avoid fits of lust. Wow! How can anyone argue with that?

Well… I can. Here’s why.

• First of all, man-made rules for righteousness are totally useless for restraining sensual indulgence. Paul’s words in Col. 2:20-23 are so powerfully on point that I don’t need to spell it out here. Just read that scripture passage. To even suggest that the modesty rule helps curb lust at all is to fly directly in the face of God’s revealed truth.
• God never established clothing to abate lust in men or women. If He intended that we use clothing for that purpose, He would have said so… and told us exactly which body parts needed to be covered to get the job done (See The Biblical Purpose of Clothing, particularly Part 7).
  • It doesn’t work, anyhow… a man can lust after a fully dressed woman, too.
• God never puts the blame for a man’s lust on a woman’s shoulders! Why do we?
  • Lust, on the man’s part, is ALWAYS his own sinful choice!
  • Male Medical doctors are expected (!!) to treat their female patients with the utmost respect, dignity, and professional decorum. Not a one is ever permitted the excuse of “I saw her naked, so I couldn’t help myself.”
• Nothing outside of us going into us can ever cause a sinful responses. Ever!! (See Mark 7:14-22). So when anyone has a sinful response to someone else… it’s always a revelation of the impurity that’s already in their heart. It is never something that the other person caused.
  • Did any of the hateful mistreatment to which Jesus was subjected cause Him to have a sinful response? Why not? Simply because there was no impurity in Him!
• “Self-control” is a fruit of the Spirit inside us (Gal. 5:22-24), not the fruit of others’ “modesty.”

So, are “hormones” or “sex drive” adequate “excuses” for a man to look lustfully upon a woman? No.

Does the amount of “skin” showing provide an acceptable “excuse” for a man to look lustfully at a woman? No.

Is the woman ever responsible at all for a sinful response in a man? Think for a moment here… Jesus is our measure of righteousness; Could Jesus could look upon her without lust (regardless of what she’s wearing or her motives)? That must the measure of expectation and responsibility that we hold every man to. So… again, the answer is No.

(This is not to excuse a woman for dressing provocatively. That too is wrong, but she can still only reveal the impurity in a man, never cause it.)

Jesus Did Not Live That Rule.

We have so thoroughly (though incorrectly) applied the “stumble” principle to how women dress, that we’ve redefined what “stumble” even means. Satisfied with that application, we have not bothered to look into Jesus’ life to see if He applied the “stumble” principle the same way in His own life.

We have plenty of occasions where Jesus’ actions “caused” sinful responses in those who observed Him.

The Pharisees didn’t like Jesus (most didn’t, anyway). The more they heard Him, the more they hated Him. The more they watched Him, the more angry they became. The more he openly defied them, their authority, and their teaching, the more they wanted to murder Him. Finally, they did.

Didn’t Jesus have it in his power to act differently? Couldn’t he have chosen His words so as not to  anger the Pharisees? What if He had avoiding locations where the Pharisees exerted their own authority and influence? He could have completely avoided causing all those Pharisees to “stumble” into hatred and murder.

But He didn’t.

Was Jesus responsible for the Pharisees’ sinful responses to Him? No, not at all.

All of that pride, envy, and lust for position and power was already in their hearts; Jesus’ words and actions only exposed it. He could have acted in such a way that they wouldn’t have had that response, but the truth is, God wanted it to be exposed!! Jesus was obeying God; Jesus did not base His actions on whether or not someone would respond sinfully to Him.

What This Means for Us

• If someone’s words, actions, or attire incite a sinful response from or in me, I alone are responsible for that sin.
• If my words, actions, or attire incite a sinful response from or in someone else, they alone are responsible for that sin. (Even if what I did was sin, they are responsible for their own sin… I did not cause it).

Here’s the summary:

If I am doing something in righteousness, I have absolutely no obligation to stop doing it simply because someone else observes me and responds sinfully!

It is an abuse of Scripture to use the “stumbling brother” argument to tell anyone that they must stop what they’re doing simply because someone else responds sinfully.

— Matthew Neal

============

In this Series:

You Can’t Do That! - Introduction
You Can’t Do That! - The “Appearance of Evil”
You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 1)
You Can’t Do That! – the “Weaker Brother” (Part 2)
You Can’t Do That! – “For Conscience’ Sake”