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

But We’ll Wear ROBES in Heaven!!

It goes something like this:
“The Bible describes God and Jesus and the saints and everyone else in heaven as wearing clothes! So, obviously, God intends for us to wear clothes here and now!”
It’s an argument against naturism that I haven’t yet addressed on this blog. This was pointed out this some time ago by a reader who commented on my previous post. Thankfully, he was much more articulate and less dogmatic than my characterization above, but he did correctly identify that this was an issue I had not yet covered. Here’s what he wrote:

I have appreciated getting your perspectives as they have challenged assumptions in how I understand Scripture. I have a question that I don't think has been addressed on your blog so far.
Scripture uses a robe as a symbol for our righteous standing before God. Christ's perfect righteousness had been imputed to us to cover our sin, and this is symbolized as a robe of righteousness from God. Also, based on the Book of Revelation, it seems that there will still be clothes in eternity as it mentions people wearing white robes. Even though we will no longer have sin, our clothes may help remind us that we were once sinful and that Christ came to clothe us with his righteousness. Given the symbolic significance of clothing in our salvation, does this undermine the idealizing of nudity?
Thanks so much!

To this reader I say, Thanks for writing! And thanks for your kind words about how the blog has challenged you!
There are more than one thing that I need to say in response to your questions, so let me now address them.

Symbolism Has Its Limits…

The first point is that while the Bible does use physical items symbolically, it is a mistake to treat that item as if it cannot have any other meaning, or that we must be reminded of that spiritual meaning every time we are physically exposed to that item.
For example, Christ used the bread and wine as symbols to remind of His suffering for us on the cross. They are powerful symbols reminding us of His death and shed blood. Yet bread and wine are not without any other meaning and we are under no obligation to remember Christ every time we have a bite of bread or take a drink of grape juice or wine. Bread is used symbolically in other ways in the Bible, and so is wine. And sometime, bread and wine are just food and drink.

In like manner, the fact that we see clothing used symbolically to represent honor and glory—or a “righteous standing before God”—does not mean that that’s the only meaning or purpose of clothing, nor do we have an obligation to intentionally remember or portray that symbolism every time we put on some clothing. The fact is that clothing has many purposes (I did an entire series on that point). Sometimes it shows the greatness of a person, but sometime it tells all that the person is in mourning.

Symbolism is Culturally interpreted!

In perhaps a surprising observation, we see in the Bible that much—if not all—of the symbolism invoked in the Bible actually has to be interpreted within a cultural context in order to understand what God is intending to communicate. In other words, God saw fit to portray human cultural patterns and conventions to communicate to mankind through symbols. Let me give some examples:

• “… I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple.”  (Isa. 6:1)
  • Exactly why does God need to wear a robe? And why a robe with a train? God has no body… right? He needs no robe to keep warm, nor to cover for “modesty’s sake.” And the “train” of any robe has absolutely NO functional use at all… except to draw admiring attention to its wearer. The train comes from a time and culture far removed from ours, and would be completely lost on western culture if not for the fact that brides often wear dresses with a long train at their weddings (for the same purpose).
  • Note, if human culture hadn’t developed kingdoms with royalty wearing extravagantly ornate and decorated clothing to portray their greatness (including robes with long trains), there would be nothing of meaning in God’s “robe” and it’s “train.”
• “Behold, I stand at the door and knock;” (Rev. 3:20)
  • What is a door but a human invention? What is knocking to seek entry but a human convention?
  • While God has always been eager to fellowship with men and women, the statement found in Rev. 3:20 could not have been spoken with any real meaning by Jesus before doors and knocking became a part of human cultural experience. Doors—we can probably assume—are not a reality in the spirit realm, given the very fact that they are a physical,material device.

So… clothing is used to convey as spiritual meaning… but I don’t believe it will be helpful to explore the various valid meanings for clothing here. The point that is important to make here is that symbolism picturing spiritual truth does not translate into moral requirements about the physical elements utilized for the symbolism.

Symbolism Utilizes Human Constructs.

Undoubtedly, there is some symbolic language in the bible which refers to completely natural events (the sunrise) or entities (animals) to make a symbolic application, but in the main—and certainly with reference to clothing—symbolism representing spiritual truth is based upon some sort of human invention or pattern. In other words, God is using human things to communicate with humans.

This truth explains why we must consider culture when interpreting the meaning of a symbol. Since mankind created the physical picture, (doors, bread, wine, clothing, mansions), God can then use those objects to illustrate heavenly truths.

Here’s the point… the spiritual “pictures” do not define the physical meaning of things—nor do they prescribe their usage—but the physical gives its meaning of the spiritual picture. This is why we can’t use the “clothing of heaven” to conclude any sort of moral obligation for clothing in the here-and-now.

But Obviously, There IS Clothing in Heaven!

Ok… so descriptions of Heaven include descriptions of clothing… shouldn’t we ask what the clothing in heaven for?

Clothing on earth has a variety of purposes (see this series regarding The Biblical Purposes of Clothing), but could the purpose for heavenly clothing be the same as on earth?

• Is it for warmth? For protection of the body?
  • I highly doubt it.
• What about for moral purposes… might God be offended by “unclothed” spirits? Will He be offended by an unclothed glorified human body?
  • Just pondering that for a moment reveals how silly that suggestion is.
• Will it be to constrain sexual lust??
  • That’s not even a biblically valid purpose for clothing in the physical realm, but the suggestion that it would still apply in heaven—after we have been glorified and delivered from the presence of sin in our lives—is also inconceivable.
  • Notwithstanding the ludicrousness of this notion, people still will put forth the apparent presence of clothing on the inhabitants of heaven as evidence that we must also wear clothing to live a righteous life here on earth.
• Does the clothing of heaven communicate something about the wearers?
  • Ah, now here we have a clear match in the probable purpose of clothing in heaven. The human inhabitants of heaven have been washed by the blood of Christ, and as the bride of Christ, they will wear “white linen” garments… pictures of how their lives have been “clothed” with the righteousness of Christ (the robes are said in that verse to actually be “the righteous acts of the saints,” clearly non-physical in nature.).

Beyond just its “purpose,” exactly what do we imagine that the clothing of heaven is even made of? As I just mentioned, in Rev. 19:8 we’re told that they were white “linen” (reiterated in Rev. 19:14) Linen is made from plants… physical plants. But does that mean that there’s an earthly textile industry with a contract for millions of white linen garments for the hosts of heaven? Isn’t that a question worth asking? Are we really supposed to conclude that this imagery speaks of literal organic linen garments? I don’t think so! That’s not at all the point of the picture. Again, the descriptions of clothing of heaven are given to communicate something about heaven, not to prescribe them for earth.

Actually Naked In Heaven?

Will we morally object to nudity in heaven as we seem to here on earth? There’s no basis to claim so… and I certainly hope that we no longer have hang-ups about the God’s beautiful design of the human form in heaven.

C.S. Lewis effectively communicated the uncertainty of the meaning and purpose—and the substance—of heavenly clothing in his book, The Great Divorce, where he writes of a “bright spirit” seen by his protagonist, who describers her this way:

I cannot now remember whether she was naked or clothed. If she were naked, then it must have been the almost visible penumbra of her courtesy and joy which produces in my memory the illusion of a great and shining train that followed her across the happy grass. If she were clothed, then the illusion of nakedness is doubtless due to the clarity with which her inmost spirit shone through the clothes. For clothes in that country are not a disguise: the spiritual body lives along each thread and turns them into living organs. A robe or a crown is there as much one of the wearer's features as a lip or an eye. (The Great Divorce, chapter 12)

While Lewis’ imaginations about what heaven will be like are no more “inspired” than anyone else’s, it’s clear the he realized that clothing in heaven must have a completely different meaning and essence than clothing as we know it today.

Again, this acknowledgement underscores the futility of attempting to derive moral absolutes about clothing in the here and now based upon the descriptions of clothing from biblical scenes of heaven.

Are We Supposed to “Remember our Sin”??

You suggested in your comments that clothing in heaven “may help remind us” of our sin… but do you really think that’s something God wants for us to do for all eternity? Don’t you think he would rather we persist for eternity in the righteousness of Christ, restored to sinless fellowship as God intended right from the beginning in Eden? Sin should be nothing more than a distant memory… if a memory at all! Doesn’t even God say that he will “remember” our sins no more?
Finally, you implied that I “idealize” nudity. I’m not sure I would concur with that characterization of my position. I think the problem is that people “idealize” (or is it “idolize”?) clothing… giving it an importance and a moral significance that it simply does not deserve.
The refusal to reject nudity (by idealizing clothing) is not by itself the idealization of nudity.
What I would idealize is the ability—even in a fallen world—to be “naked and not ashamed.” (honestly, that sounds like the Bible “idealizes” nudity at least in some measure!). To be free from shame is God’s ideal for us. To be free from man-made rules of righteousness (such as a moral requirement for clothing) is also a biblical ideal.
So, do I idealize nudity? No. I idealize the casting off of false constraints and beliefs about our unclothed bodies. It only follows then that if we cast off the false, we must choose to live contrary to the false, or else we’re still submitting to the lie (and that is the foundation of my assertion that I am a Naturist By Biblical Conviction).
Thanks again for writing! I welcome your feedback!
— Matt

I Don’t Promote Naturism

Does that come as a surprise?

I call myself “The Biblical Naturist” but I don’t promote Naturism…

…perhaps I should explain!

The Back Story

Like Most Christians, I was taught all my life that Naturism (the practice of social nudity) is sinful and forbidden by God. In point of fact, it was never really discussed because the nudity taboo was so completely assumed as true that there was no need to discuss the ethics of social nudity (See The Unchallenged Belief).

But when I was first exposed to Christians who claimed to be “Naturist,” and offered a biblical “justification” of their practice, I was pretty surprised. And I was quite sure they were abusing the Scriptures to defend their “sin.”

To my surprise, however, my initial examination of their claims revealed that I could not immediately refute their arguments if I was truly honest about what the Scriptures do and do not say. In the end, I had to admit that the nudity-taboo had no basis in the Bible, and I was compelled to reject it in my own belief system. And since I rejected the taboo, I also had to live contrary to it. That’s why I became a Naturist By Biblical Conviction.

But I Still Don’t Promote Naturism!

Instead…

I promote Biblical TRUTH.

And I oppose Biblical ERROR.

I write to prove that the Bible—where it speaks on the human body and human nudity—does not mean what we have been told that it means. I write to show how all of the passages that have been put forward with the claim that “God forbids nudity” fail to make that case. And I also write to demonstrate how there are a number of passages that have been ignored—or even mistranslated—because (I believe) they actually speak positively of human nudity in a public setting.

So, I think you can say that I defend naturism; I defend it from false condemnation based upon false interpretations of Scripture.

Primarily, I defend naturism so that Christians who are exploring the morality of social nudity can consider an honest and accurate treatment of the Scriptures that have been used to condemn it, and examine an interpretation that is hermeneutically sound and which demonstrates that the condemnation of naturism is Scripturally unfounded.

I Cannot Convince Anyone!

It has been over 7 years since I originally studied the Scriptures regarding nudity and reached the conclusions that compelled me to embrace Naturism. In all that time, I don’t think I’ve ever convinced anyone of the things I have come to believe.

To be sure, my discussions and my writings have influenced people who have been seeking the truth, but if God has not been working in their hearts before they read my work, there has been no change in their beliefs.

I’m thankful that my writings have made a difference for those whom God has called to explore Naturism while committed to remaining faithful to God’s revealed truth. I trust that my words have given them assurance that embracing naturism is not a rejection of God’s ways. And I hope that they can pass my work along to others in their lives where they see that God is also working.

But First of All, Pray!

If you find my writings helpful to you, that’s great… but please don’t depend upon them to convince anyone; they won’t work for you any better than they have for me.

Instead, pray that God will begin the same work in their hearts as he has already been doing in yours.

A Battle Rages…

There is a battle for truth in our world today as it pertains to the meaning of the human body. I believe that Satan has successfully placed his distorted view of the human body into the fabric of our society. That of course is to be expected; he is the “ruler of this world,” the Bible tells us (John 12:31).

But the tragic reality is that Satan has also infiltrated Christian theology with his distortion… to such a degree that when someone openly rejects it within the church, they are presumed to have rejected righteousness itself. This demonic stronghold will not be broken by rhetoric alone… whether written or spoken. It will only be broken by men and women of God whose lives are submitted to God and aligned with the truth… who pray until God begins to break that stronghold.

And when that stronghold is truly broken, we won’t even NEED “Naturism” any more!

So, no, I’m not about promoting “Naturism”… I’m promoting something much more world-changing… Truth!

It’s a new year… Who’s with me?

— 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

Your Biggest Scriptural Challenge to Naturism…

I’m a Christian Naturist

If you’ve been following this blog over the years, you know that I’ve not only claimed to be a Christian Naturist, but also a Naturist By Biblical Conviction.

Of course, having been raised like just about every other Christian in the United States, I was taught from childhood that social nudity was forbidden by God and that only in the context of marriage (or the doctor’s office) was it permitted to allow our unclothed bodies to be seen by anyone of the opposite gender.

When I first considered the claims of so-called “Christian Naturists” (which seemed an oxymoron at first), I had to evaluate them in light of the teachings of Scripture. And there were a bunch of Scriptures that I “knew” taught against social nudity.

The Scripture Test

Because I believe the Scriptures are inspired by God, I believe that they are true and authoritative. Consequently, my evaluation of naturism began by seeking to discern what God had revealed about His perspective on nudity. Whatever God revealed about the issue, that’s what I wanted my position to be.

And let me be very clear… My approach to Scripture on this matter was never to defend naturism, but rather to know what the Bible really teaches. And if that ever means my long-held views must be laid aside, then that’s what I’m committed to do.

So… when I began my study, I purposed to look at every passage that mentioned or implied nudity. I especially focused on those passages which had always been put forth to “prove” that God forbade social or casual nudity. I reexamined them to discern if we had been correct in our interpretation of them as it applies to the nudity issue.

I Was Quite Surprised…

To my surprise, not just one or two of the “anti-nudity” Scriptures turned out to be misinterpreted or misapplied, but every last one of them had been!

In other words, when I examined each and every passage that has been used to support a claim that social nudity is wrong, not a single one of them—when correctly and honestly interpreted—could satisfactorily justify a moral absolute that forbids social or casual nudity.

Some Passages Are More Challenging Than Others

As I pursued this study of God’s perspective on nudity, there certainly were some passages that seemed to be more antagonistic towards nudity than others, and as such, they presented more of a challenge to work through and discern if that’s really what they were teaching us.

I suspect that I’m not alone here in this observation… So, I’m asking you as my readers…

What’s been the most troubling or difficult passage of Scripture for you in reference to the practice of naturism by a Christian who wants to live in harmony with God’s Word?

• Maybe you’re an naturist already, but there’s one passage that’s still bugging you… Let me know and I’ll tell you what I have concluded on it.
• Maybe you’re just considering naturism, but you still can’t reconcile the practice with one or two verses in the Bible… Let me know what they are and I’ll share with you my perspective on them.
• Maybe you’re still pretty sure I’m dead wrong on my interpretation of the Scriptures in regards to nudity… tell me which passage or passages you believe most clearly and conclusively prove me wrong, and I’ll show you why I believe they have been misinterpreted and misapplied. If you still disagree, you are then invited to answer back. I always welcome honest dialog!

Everyone Points to a Different Scripture…

One of the interesting things I’ve observed over the past 7 or so years since I became a naturist is that those who oppose it “on Scriptural grounds” never seem to be in agreement on which Scripture most most clearly demonstrates that nudity is wrong. One person will stand immovably on one passage, while the next person is absolutely convinced that some other passage is “all the proof they need.”

To me, this underscores the fact that there simply IS no scripture passage that clearly teaches against social nudity… else everyone would automatically present the same passage. Consider these questions on morality and where we turn to declare God’s mind on the issue:

• Is adultery wrong? Yep. Exodus 20:14
• Is lying wrong? Yep. Exodus 20:16
• Murder? Exodus 20:13
• Theft? Exodus 20:15
• Homosexual sex? Leviticus 20:13
• Incest? Leviticus 18
• Lust? Matthew 5:28
• Social Nudity? … ah…. well… there’s no agreement on which specific scripture forbids it… but everyone knows that the Bible is against it, right?

See what I mean? We’ve been sold on the idea that nudity MUST BE forbidden in the Bible. And Everyone knows it, so we don’t need a specific passage that actually SAYS SO! If you need one to give to someone, just pick the one you like best. One is as good as the next… provided you don’t evaluate it very carefully.

Nonetheless, I welcome anyone who wishes to hear where I stand on the passage they find most difficult for naturists to “dodge.” And I promise… I won’t dodge!

It’s Been a Dry Spell for The Biblical Naturist.

I haven’t written on this blog recently… and it’s pretty much because I’ve addressed all the topics I set out to cover when I began the blog. So, I need some direction from you—the readers—to tell me what you’d like for me to cover next.

I look forward to hearing from you!

— Matthew Neal

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”

You Can’t Do That! – “For Conscience’ Sake”

For Conscience’ Sake??

This phrase comes from 1 Cor. 10:23-30…

It’s similar to the passages about “stumbling,” but in this case, the other person is not a follower of Christ.

Here’s the Context:

Often, animals that had been offered as sacrifices to pagan idols would then be taken and the meat sold in the market. You could very likely wind up purchasing some meat that been “offered to idols” without actually knowing it.

Paul says that’s no problem… just don’t ask (v25)… for conscience’ sake.

The next point Paul makes is that if you’re having dinner at the home of another person, who is not a believer, then here again, don’t ask… just eat what you’re served. BUT… if the guy tells you that it was offered to an idol, then don’t eat it… for conscience’ sake (v28).

But here’s the key point… Paul is not talking about our own consciences here, he’s talking about the other guy’s conscience (v29a)!!

Paul is telling us here that refraining from eating “meat offered to idols” was not a moral absolute, but a contextual decision… and a voluntary one, at that! Act in deference towards others, he seems to be teaching.

A Principle to Grab Hold Of!

And then comes a most surprising yet very relevant statement by Paul… a clear principle that we can apply to a LOT of different situations

…for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? (v29b)

Just in case someone might want to say, “You can’t do that, other people believe that it is wrong,” Paul states it pretty plainly… My freedom before God to to do something is NOT determined by other peoples’ faulty consciences about it.

A Good Place to Close

Whether it’s “The appearance of evil,” “causing to ‘stumble,’” or a matter of “conscience,” acting in deference towards others is a good thing, but allowing other peoples’ moral standards to dictate what we do and do not have freedom before the Lord to do… that is something else.

If anyone attempts to twist Paul’s words in order to make them say, You can’t do that!… we need to respond with Paul’s very clear and un-twisted rhetorical question:

Why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience?

Rest assured… it isn’t.

Back to My Opening Question

In the Introduction to this series, I asked this question:

At what point must a Biblical Christian modify his own behavior because someone else thinks that what he is doing is wrong?

I mentioned that there were 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.

The answer, according to Paul, is actually #3. At the same time, he encourages us to be alert to contexts where deference towards others would be better than simply expressing our freedom, but that only applies to those who are not believers or who are weak in their faith… never the ones who do nothing more than condemn us.

— 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”

Modesty, the Early Church, & Sexual Immorality

A few days ago, I received a comment on my article, The Objectification of Women – Part 1.

The man who posted the comment did so respectfully and thoughtfully. His answered deserved more of a response than just another comment on the blog, so I told him that I would address his questions in a new post altogether. Here are his comments in full:

Hi, My name is Kwame and I read over your blog posts on Biblical naturalists and nudity. I had a few questions. Firstly, I didn't do a thorough in-depth review of your site and beliefs so forgive me if I misquote, misrepresent or don't accurately capture where you stand: 1. Since we are in a fallen world, do you advocate that women should not pursue dressing modestly and covering the areas that cultures, churches and certain ethnicities, religions objectify? 2. Yes, God created us naked and we were to live in paradise as such but when Christ came and rose the early church still had clothes and they still warned women to adorn themselves in modesty. So how does that factor in to your call of men to lead the way in explaining this naturist path? 3. I agree with you, men ought to clean up their minds more and succumb their passions and desires to the greater good who is God. However, we know not all are in the same place in this Christian race and should we not care and be on best behavior towards our brothers who are weakest in Christ? 4. When Paul says that our body's are not our own and to flee from sexual immorality. Aren't these safe practices (dress code) the church has taken to make this possible? In Christ, Kwame

Now allow me to respond one paragraph at a time…

My name is Kwame and I read over your blog posts on Biblical naturalists and nudity. I had a few questions. Firstly, I didn't do a thorough in-depth review of your site and beliefs so forgive me if I misquote, misrepresent or don't accurately capture where you stand:

Thanks for mentioning that. I hope you will take the time to read more of the articles on the site. You might consider starting from the beginning, since the articles are not time-related, so the older posts are still as “current” as the latest ones.

1. Since we are in a fallen world, do you advocate that women should not pursue dressing modestly and covering the areas that cultures, churches and certain ethnicities, religions objectify?

Let me point out two assumptions in your question which I believe are in error:

1. You assume that God gives us instructions about clothing to address the fact that we’re “fallen.” Look again… you will not find in the Bible. Some take Gen. 3:21 and interpret it that way, but the biblical text does not support it (see The Biblical Purpose of Clothing where I address God’s purpose for clothing Adam and Eve in a multi-part series).
2. You also assume that our standards of conduct should be based on cultural, ecclesiastical, ethnic, or religious standards. The truth is that if any of those contexts teach something that is contrary to God’s Word, we have no obligation to abide by it. The fact that we are pretty much forced (legally) to abide by those false standards in our culture does not make those standards right or healthy.

2. Yes, God created us naked and we were to live in paradise as such but when Christ came and rose the early church still had clothes and they still warned women to adorn themselves in modesty. So how does that factor in to your call of men to lead the way in explaining this naturist path?

Clothing has been used throughout human history… including the time of Christ on the earth. However, the assumption that nudity is indecent and forbidden is historically quite recent. In Christ’s day, Jewish and (later) Christian baptisms were performed nude (read this). Fishermen fished nude (read this). In the OT, prophets evidently were regularly nude (read this). No, the Bible never tells us that we must be nude, but neither does it tell us that we must be clothed.

It is also important to note that simply because something was practiced in bible times does not mean that it is a requirement for our practices today (should we still have arranged marriages or slavery?)

Regarding “modesty,” there’s only one verse in all the Bible that talks about modesty (1 Tim. 2:9-10) and Paul wasn’t talking at all about making sure the body is covered… he was talking about wearing things to show off one’s wealth (Read this and C. S. Lewis on Modesty/Chastity). Furthermore, even the translation of that passage as “modest clothing” is difficult to defend when you really examine the underlying Greek text (Rightly Dividing 1 Tim. 2:9).

3. I agree with you, men ought to clean up their minds more and succumb their passions and desires to the greater good who is God. However, we know not all are in the same place in this Christian race and should we not care and be on best behavior towards our brothers who are weakest in Christ?

If a brother is “weaker,” we are supposed to be sensitive to that, but should we not make the effort to turn a “weak” brother into a “strong” one? Often, I fear this passage is misused to tell someone that they cannot do something that someone else thinks is wrong! That’s not what Paul was trying to communicate in Rom. 14 and 1 Cor. 10. But I have another blog post in the works that addresses those passages specifically.

How do we help men “clean up their minds”? Men think that whenever they see a woman’s body that they will automatically have a sexual/lustful response. So… we never let them see a woman’s body. Does that help them clean up their minds? No… it only confirms and strengthens their sexualized view of a woman’s body. They never ever see a woman’s body except when they are having sex with their own wife, or using pornography to sexually gratify themselves. Does that help them clean up their minds? No, it only reinforces their view that nudity is all about sex.

The fastest way a man can get to the point of treating the sight of a woman’s body with respect—remembering that she is a person and not an object—is if he actually has the opportunity to see a woman’s body in a non-sexual context where he is compelled by simple courtesy to treat her with the dignity she deserves.

You know how they train young doctors to treat the nudity of their patients with respect, avoiding a sexual response? They don’t.They simply let them serve their patients. They discover immediately that the “automatic” response isn’t automatic at all (read My View of Nakedness by a male obstetric nurse who’s also a pastor.

4. When Paul says that our body's are not our own and to flee from sexual immorality. Aren't these safe practices (dress code) the church has taken to make this possible?

You’re assuming that a “dress code” actually works… but does it? Does the sight of unclothed human flesh “automatically” result in sexual arousal? Or is that a conditioned response? Is that a biblically valid purpose for clothing? Does God ever command clothing to abate or prevent lust? (Read this)

The truth is that that notion is completely man-made. Paul told us in Colossians 2:20-23 that man-made rules will never help us to suppress fleshly indulgence… no matter how “wise” the rules appear.

Quite frankly, I believe the exact opposite is true… when we treat the unclothed human form as if it is lust-inducing and only sexual, we actually ensure that people will struggle with sexual sin. Simple curiosity about the human form is interpreted as “sexual” interest, yet that curiosity is actually God-given and quite normal! Why shouldn’t be be drawn to the beauty of God’s highest creation?

But you tell me that it’s wrong to see it… you tell me that observing it is a sexual event… I now expect to experience sexual responses, so I do. Now I have no recourse but to assume that I have a disordered sexual interests that I can’t shake free of.

You asked me your questions because you read The Objectification of Women – Part 1. But did you read Part 2? It speaks to the fact that if there are certain parts of a woman’s body that must be covered in order for me to avoid lust, then those parts of a woman’s body are what I am objectifying.

Jesus wouldn’t have lusted after a woman even if he saw her completely naked. Instead, He would treat her with respect and dignity. If we aim to be Christ-like, then we must make that same response our standard of behavior… nothing less.

Why I am a Naturist…

Some might wonder why I am a naturist. It is not because I have an unhealthy or sinful interest in nudity. Rather it is for two primary reasons:

1. The Glory of God
   
   God is insulted by the fact that we have so redefined His image as found in the unclothed human form that we only see a temptation to sexual misconduct, rather than seeing His glory on display
   
2. Moral Purity
   
   You have assumed that clothing is needed is to promote sexual purity, but I believe that frank, respectful exposure has the very best chance of achieving that goal… in my life, the life of my children, and anyone who is willing to let go of their pornographic view of the body.

These reasons and others are developed in much more detail in my three part work called Naturist by Biblical Conviction???. I also talk about the various reasons that would NOT motivate me to be a naturist in I would NOT Be a Naturist If… 

— Matthew Neal