He Didn’t Hear a Word I Said...

Well, my email debate opponent (from my last post) was good to his word!

He published an entirely new article taking on the notion of Nude Baptism to “debunk” it. You can find it here: Did Real Christians Practice Nude Baptism?

Interestingly enough, he only spouted the same arguments that he attempted to use with me.

The most disturbing thing I saw there was that he completely ignored my refutation of his misuse of Scripture to demonstrate that nudity was wrong. He didn’t even try to strengthen his presentation of those passages! He just misused them again!

Oh, well...

Helping people overcome the deeply held belief that our bodies are principally sexual objects — and that men (in particular) are incapable of responding to the sight of a nude body with anything other than lust — is nigh on an impossible task.

In fact, I have concluded that unless the Lord does a work in someone’s heart to soften it to the truth, the best articulated truth will still fail to convince those so committed to defending the deception.

But, at the same time, I've seen God do that work in someone’s heart... most notably in my own wife!

Moral of the story, folks?

Pray.

• If you are a Christian, but not a naturist... Pray.
  
  Ask God to reveal to you what is true, and what is false. If you really honestly pray for His truth, He will show you. And you may well be surprised by what you learn.
  
  
• If you are a Christian Naturist... Pray.
  
  No amount of “convincing” you may try to do will ever convince those enslaved to a lie. God can and will open hearts in response to prayer.
  
  
• For anyone else... Pray.
  
  The God who IS will reveal Himself to those who honestly and sincerely seek to know Him as He is.

The last three years of my life (since I embraced naturism) have been the most difficult and emotionally trying years of my life, without a close second. To this day, I live with the disrespect and scorn of most of my extended family. I told my wife just this morning...

“If it were not true, it wouldn’t be worth it.”

Don’t become a proponent for Christian Naturism if you like the praise of men. Trust me, it’s a really dumb route to popularity...

Matthew Neal

Nude Baptism in the Early Church? You Decide.

The other day, I happened upon an article where the author made a special point of declaring that baptism in the early church was indeed performed with clothes on. Here’s the quote:

Baptism was mostly done out of doors, but sometimes inside, but always by immersion. And clothed.

The special mention of baptism being clothed—and making a special point of it (in case some people thought that it was NOT true)—caught my eye. It told me that the writer was aware of the claims that baptism was indeed performed nude. All the descriptions of baptism from the early church that I had ever read claimed that they were performed nude, if any mention of attire was made at all.
So, I thought I'd write the fellow and ask him about him about his documentation for that claim. What follows is my email conversation with the man. Let me say up front that I really appreciated the respectfulness with which he treated me.
I did not mention that I was a naturist because that was not germaine to the conversation at all. This was all about claims made about historical fact and what documentation there was to support it.
I apologize for the length of this blog post, but I didn't want to put all the emails in separate posts. I've tried to format it so that it's easy to follow. The legend is as follows:
Blue = My words.
Red = His words.
Black = quotations from external sources

Nude Baptism in the Early Church
The Cases For and Against

My first email to him:

Hello. I happened upon your article about "Baptism" and I was struck by a statement you made which was contrary to what my research has revealed. Baptism was mostly done out of doors, but sometimes inside, but always by immersion. And clothed. You claimed that early church baptism was performed clothed. Yet this is contrary to the uniform testimony of the early church fathers who wrote of their practices. You went on to claim that "Another bizarre practice that some claim used to be involved with "Christianity" was nude baptism." I recognize that the very idea seems "bizarre" to us in our day and age, but if indeed it was the common practice of the time, then it really no more bizarre than taking the bread and cup and utilizing them to remember a very cruel death. It seems to me that the question of how "strange" the practice was must be answered according to the context of the early church practices, rather than in comparison to today's practices and mores. You also said: As the Bible in no way endorses (nor records) nude baptism, the above demonstrates that pagan practices were used for people who professed, but apparently did not understand, Christ. I don't see how you can conclude that simply because a practice is not mentioned in the Bible, that it "demonstrates" that the practice was pagan. My understanding is that in the Jewish faith, the practice of the mikveh dates back all the way to the OT law where "washing with water" was a Scriptural requirement in many different circumstances. Tradition confirms that the mikveh was prescribed to be performed nude, even to the point of requiring no jewelry, unbraided hair, and clean fingernails. That tradition continues today, for in the modern mikveh, the Jewish believer still must enter into the waters completely nude. Among other things, conversion to Judaism required the waters of the mikveh. The baptism of John was almost certainly an expression of the mikveh. If so, then it too would have been performed on nude believers. It is not at all surprising that the early church would also adopt a very Jewish ritual practice for the baptismal rite. Therefore, to say that nude baptism is a "pagan" practice is to simply dismiss the reality of the Jewish tradition of the mikveh and its influence on Christian baptism. =========== In my research, I came across the following quote, and verified its source as from Robert Robinson's work, "The History of Baptism." I have attached screenshots from Mr. Robinson's book which I found on Googlebooks. Let it be observed, next, that the primitive Christians baptized naked. Nothing is easier than to give proof of this by quotations from the authentick writings of the men who administered baptism, and who certainly knew in what way the themselves performed it. There is no ancient historical fact better authenticated than this. The evidence doth not go on the meaning of the single word naked; for then a reader might suspect allegory; but on many facts reported, and many reasons assigned for the practice. ... The reasons assigned for the practice are, that christians ought to put off the old man before they put on a profession of christianity; that as men came naked into the world, so they ought to come naked into the church, for rich men could not enter the kingdom of heaven; that it was an imitation of Christ, who laid aside his glory, and made himself of no reputation for them; and that Adam had forfeited all, and Christians ought to profess to be restored to the enjoyment of all only by Jesus Christ. That most learned and accurate historian, James Basnage, thanwhom no man understood church history better, said, When artist threw garments over the pictures of the baptized, they consulted the taste of spectators more that the truth of the fact. This quotation was only one of many that I uncovered in my research. Furthermore, I found a large number of sacred works of art (15+) which represent nude baptisms, including works showing the Lord Jesus being baptized unclothed. These certainly are not inspired or authoritative, but the very idea that so many different artists from different times and traditions would portray baptism as being performed nude is strong confirming evidence that the notion of nude baptism in the early church has its roots in fact. I have included three such images with this email. If you have evidence that supports your assertions, I would love to see it, for I have no interest in embracing a falsehood as truth. As it stands at this moment, however, I find the documentation that I have uncovered to be more convincing than your claim. Thank you for your time. Matthew Neal

Here are the attachments that I mentioned in the email above (click to see full size):

Very quickly, I received the following response:

Dear Matthew: Thank so much for your email and comments. In all due respect, however, in your email, you stated "You claimed that early church baptism was performed clothed. Yet this is contrary to the uniform testimony of the early church fathers who wrote of their practices." That is simply not true. It is true that it sometime did happen, but my article admits that. But the EARLY CHRISTIAN writers simply did not do so. While it is true that some apostates mentioned it, that is all. Do you have an actual early primary source that confirms your assertion? I have read about all the non-Gnostic 2nd century "Christian" writings that have been translated into English and simply have not seen what you are indicating. And as far as proof, I am not particularly interested in modern third person interpretations. If you have such primary source information, please provide the precise citations as I certainly do not wish that my articles contain errors. But as of now, I have not seen information that suggests that my contention is in error. But if my article is in factual error, I will change it. Furthermore, I would like to add that the idea of nude baptism would be contrary to the New Testament admonitions against lust and towards modesty. Thus, I do not believe that actual Christians really practiced nude baptism--though again, some who claimed Christ apparently did. Best regards, Bob _________

So I composed my next response.

Hello. Thank you for your prompt reply. Allow me to respond. The "early primary sources" I have to offer are as follows: The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome. If you read down to section 21, you'll see the portion describing the practice. As I understand it, this was written in 217 AD. Sometime in 400 AD, Theodor of Mopsuestia wrote concerning baptism. His writings on the topic are found here: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/theodore_of_mopsuestia_lordsprayer_02_text.htm You will find the instructions in "Chapter IV," 10th and 11th paragraphs. Another work, The History Of The Christian Church - Vol II Ante-Nicene Christianity AD 100-325 speaks of nude baptism as a matter of simple fact. http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofthechri009648mbp/historyofthechri009648mbp_djvu.txt The mention of it is found on page 248 in section 70, The Celebration of Baptism. While written more recently, it cites several early church writers and sources. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote in the 4th century AD. In his work, you can find his descriptions of the rite of Baptism and how it was performed. The text can be found here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.xxiv.html. He assigns tremendous theological significance to baptismal nudity his his writings. My questions to you are these... Do you have any source where early church fathers ever mentioned and condemned the practice of nude baptism as being a pagan practice? Do you have any early Christian writers who describe how the rite of baptism was performed in the early church which affirm that it was indeed performed clothed? Do you have any explanation for the common incidence of baptisms being portrayed as nude in ancient sacred art? (I've attached some more images, three of which are intended to be portrayals of the baptism of Christ.) =============== You did not address my point about the mikveh. This article, http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-mikveh/ vouches for the fact that the mikveh is still in use to day, and still requires full nudity. In this article by Ron Mosley of the Arkansas Institute of Holy Land Studies, we read of the clear heritage of Christian Baptism being found in the Jewish mikveh. http://www.haydid.org/ronimmer.htm (archived). If this is true, then it would not at all be unlikely that they would have adopted the requirement of nudity as well. Indeed, it would seem odd if they had not. I know that these articles about the mikveh are contemporary articles about ancient practices, but I do believe that they are credible sources... at least credible enough to warrant a further search into the matter. ============= Regarding Gnosticism, I would argue that the notion that the body is lewd or indecent and cannot be seen is more akin to Gnostic teaching than not. The Gnostics taught that the spirit was good and the body was evil. This teaching today is expressed by excessive prudery and an unbiblical definition of "modesty." Biblical modesty is not at all about making sure that certain parts (utterly undesignated in the Scriptures) must always be covered, but that clothing must not be used to draw attention to oneself, or for self-aggrandizement. This is the clear teaching of 1 Timothy 2:9. 1 Peter 3:3 teaches exactly the same thing. In neither passage is there any emphasis or definition at all on what must be worn. I have an article that a pastor I know wrote about 1 Timothy 2 that gives a clear exegetical understanding of the passage within the Scriptural context. It exposes how this passage has been traditionally misunderstood and misapplied. I'd be happy to send it to you if you would like. I'm sure he would appreciate a scholarly review. =============== You said that nude baptism would be contrary to the NT's admonitions against lust and towards modesty. Aside from 1 Timothy 2:9 (which does not have anything to do with requiring clothing), I know of no other NT passage which teaches at all about modesty in our attire. And I know of no passage anywhere in the NT which defines for us what parts of our body are to be covered. Regarding lust, Jesus certainly taught against lust, but he did not lay the blame at the feet of the woman at all. It is entirely within the man where lust is born. In fact, Jesus' teaching in Mark 7:18-23 clearly teaches that lust and other sexual sins are not the result of what "enters a man" (by mouth or by eye). Nothing outside a man, Jesus taught, can defile the man, but that which comes from within defiles him. Is there anything that needs to be corrected in these statements? I look forward to your response. Thank you for your time. Matthew

Here are the attachments that I mentioned in the email above (click to see full size):

Again, his response:

Dear Matthew: Thank you for your detailed response. I looked over your references and none of those you cited were from individuals who held to original Christianity. All of those early individuals had accepted compromises with non-biblical practices. And the earliest one was from the third century. Certain MIthratic and other pagan practices had been adopted by those in Rome by that time (and that worsened in the fourth century). Now I will try to answer your questions, though you may not agree that my answers fulfill your curiosity. 1) The early Church leaders simply do not have writings of every pagan practice that they condemned. However, if you read my upcoming book, The Beginning and the End of the Christian Church Eras, you will see that many practices that mainstream "Christianity" now accepts were condemned by early "Fathers" yet are still practiced. The earliest non-biblical writings (second century) that may have been Christian that mention baptism state: 6:2... Let your baptism abide with you as you shield (Ignatius's Letter to Polycarp. J.B. Lightfoot translation). 1:2...truly born of a virgin and baptized by John that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him...8:2 It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast (Ignatius's Letter to the Smyrnaeans. J.B. Lightfoot translation). 18:2 For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived in the womb by Mary according to a dispensation, of the seed of David but also of the Holy Ghost; and He was born and was baptized that by His passion He might cleanse water (Ignatius's Letter to the Ephesians. J.B. Lightfoot translation). 6:9 But if even such righteous men as these cannot by their righteous deeds deliver their children, with what confidence will we, if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, enter into the kingdom of God? Or who will be our advocate, unless we be found having holy and righteous works? (Ancient Christian Sermon, sometimes improperly titled 2 Clement) Publicly nudity would seem to be inconsistent with the idea of baptism being a shield, pure, and undefiled. Perhaps I should add that Melito of Sardis mentions Christ's baptism (On the Nature of Christ) and the heretic Irenaeus in his writings does as well, but they are consistent with the previously listed passages. Again, there is nothing in what appears to be Christian writings that endorse nude baptism in the second century. 2) The only practices that we have recorded are in the Bible, starting with John the Baptist, including his baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3). There is no indication that He removed His clothes, nor is there any biblical indication that anyone ever did. And that addresses your other point, "You did not address my point about the mikveh. This article, http://www.sinaibrookline.org/page.php/id/1288 vouches for the fact that the mikveh is still in use to day, and still requires full nudity. In this article by Ron Mosley of the Arkansas Institute of Holy Land Studies, we read of the clear heritage of Christian Baptism being found in the Jewish mikveh. http://www.haydid.org/ronimmer.htm If this is true, then it would not at all be unlikely that they would have adopted the requirement of nudity as well. Indeed, it would seem odd if they had not." There is simply NO indication that Jesus and others were nude when baptized. Thus, whatever Jewish traditions were employed by John the Baptist and Jesus' followers simply did not have removal of clothes. Furthermore, the reference you provided from Hippolytus 4:11 suggests that the elder and/or deacon may have been nude (I say hints because this is a translation from the Greek and as I do not have the original Greek I can not be totally sure of the translation). But the Bible indicates that John the Baptist was clothed when he worked: 5 And all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. 6 Now John was clothed with camel's hair and with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. (Mark 1:5-6) Notice a record of baptism in the New Testament: 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" 37 Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:35-39) The idea of clothes being removed for baptism is completely foreign to scripture. Also notice the following two accounts: 31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household. (Acts 16:30-34) 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other (1 Corinthians 1:16). The Old Testament clearly condemns viewing the nakedness of various close relatives (Leviticus 18:6-18), hence it makes no sense that new converts to Christianity violated those admonitions in regards to baptism. The figurative baptism that Paul refers to about the children of Israel being baptized under a cloud at the time of Moses (I Corinthians 10:1-2) literally did not involve the removal of clothes--the only time massive clothing removal was mentioned in the Bible it was to shame those who had improper practices (Exodus 25:32). Furthermore, the context related to the "baptism by the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:4-5, 2:1-4) suggests that the Apostles were clothed when this occurred. I would also suggest that when thousands were baptized shortly thereafter (Acts 2:41), that there would have been a massive backlash and outcry if all were baptized nude. Furthermore, you claimed, "Biblical modesty is not at all about making sure that certain parts (utterly undesignated in the Scriptures) must always be covered, but that clothing must not be used to draw attention to oneself, or for self-aggrandizement. This is the clear teaching of 1 Timothy 2:9. 1 Peter 3:3 teaches exactly the same thing". Yet, notice a passage that you apparently overlooked: 23 And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, 24 but our presentable parts have no need (1 Corinthians 12:22-24). Notice that there are parts of the body that are not publicly presentable. Hence, I contend that those who decided to adopt nude baptism were doing so in violation of scripture. 3) Last year, I visited Cappadocia to view some of the claimed earliest "sacred art", and also saw some in Rome in June of this year. In all due respect, there is no such thing as "sacred art". Idolatry was condemned in the New Testament and the so-called "sacred art" did not start to appear until some time in the third century and was not accepted even by the Greco-Romans until after Constantine in the fourth century. I recently consulted with a Greek Orthodox scholar who admitted to me that the acceptance of this type of "art" as well as icons was a gradual development and that no such "art" exists in the first or second centuries. Furthermore, the earliest that I have seen (which was in the catacombs) looks about the same as the pagan art associated with pagan burials, thus it is little surprise that some pagan "converts" decided to be buried with some "art" like their ancestors were. To summarize, the Old Testament and New Testament are opposed to public nudity. The record of scripture never even hints of nude baptism, nor are there any 2nd century writings that I have seen that do. The fact that the Greco-Roman churches compromised on many matters and apparently temporarily endorsed nude baptism does not mean that it ever was a practice of true Christians. Best regards, Bob _________

My next response:

Thank you again for your reply. Once again, I will respond. In your first set of quotations, I noted no indication that the mode of baptism included the mention of clothing during the actual baptismal rite. The reference to baptism abiding "as a shield" is clearly a simile and not a literal reference to a shield. And in truth, baptism (clothed or not) is not about clothing and certainly it is not about a defensive armor. Therefore, that first quote can in no way indicate anything about the mode of baptism. The second quote seems to me to have no bearing on the issue either. The third quotation holds forth baptism in purity and without defilement, but that says nothing about the presence or absence of clothing. In response to that, however, you said, "Publicly nudity would seem to be inconsistent with the idea of baptism being a shield, pure, and undefiled." I would submit to you that your statement only reveals your own bias regarding the nature of the unclad human form, rather than objective truth. Indeed your own words betray the lack of surety of your statement for you said, "would seem." But things which seem to be in our culture today have absolutely no bearing on how things were perceived or the values and practices held in the first century. You said in your first email that you are "not particularly interested in modern third person interpretations." yet in your statement here, are you not depending more on your own perceptions than on historical evidence? I would assert again that in reality, your statement reflects a very Gnostic view of our bodies, for you are assuming that to see the unclad human form will lead to impurity. In other words, you are treating the body as if it is "evil" while maintaining that the spiritual matters are what is really important. In response to the mikveh, you said, "There is simply NO indication that Jesus and others were nude when baptized. Thus, whatever Jewish traditions were employed by John the Baptist and Jesus' followers simply did not hve removal of clothes." I would point out that this is faulty logic, for your statement presumes that if something was not overtly mentioned in the Bible, then it did not happen. I'm rather confident that you would never assert that as actually being true, but that is the force of your argument here. Equally plausible (if not more so) is that if baptisms were always performed without clothing (the mikveh, and Christian baptism), then to overtly mention it would be utterly unnecessary. We bathe without clothing, and baptism is certainly a picture of bathing, among other things. You then referenced John the Baptist: But the Bible indicates that John the Baptist was clothed when he worked: 5 And all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. 6 Now John was clothed with camel's hair and with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. (Mark 1:5-6) John wore camel's hair, which distinguished him from the tunic/robe that most people wore. That is why it is mentioned here. This passage does not lmean that he wore that always wore that outfit while baptizing any more than it means that he always ate locusts and wild honey while baptizing. In this and every other account you offered in the NT regarding baptism, I will concur than none specifically mention that those being baptized were nude. But by the very same token, none of them declares that they were not unclothed. Therefore, from the Scripture text itself, we can reach no conclusion whatsoever regarding the clothed state of those being baptized. To do anything else amounts to eisegesis. Leviticus 18 is not speaking about simple nudity. Any attempt to read it that way will leave the honest reader shaking his head about what some of the verses mean. Contextually, it is impossible to avoid the fact that in every case, sexual activity is assumed. In short, the passage defines and forbids incest. As there is no word in Hebrew for "incest," the phrase "uncover the nakedness of..." was used to reference it. When understood this way, the entire passage makes perfect sense. It simply is not a passage teaching about nakedness, it is teaching about incest. You mentioned "figurative baptism" in Paul's writings and in the book of Acts. Figurative references are just that. They are not intended to teach about physical realities, therefore, you cannot infer from the fact that the disciples were clothed when baptized by the Holy Spirit that they were also clothed during the rite of water baptism. Regarding 1 Cor. 12:22-24. I have studied the passage carefully. I have noted that the translation of the Greek word aschemon as "unpresentable" is really quite interpretive. The word is much better translated "uncomely" as the KJV translates it. The word simply means that something is not all that pretty to look at. Some people's noses are not all that pretty, but we don't for that reason require them to be covered from view. Furthermore, the word translated "modesty" in your quotation simply does not mean "modesty" as we use it in English. The KJV again translates the word and its context as "our uncomely [parts] have more abundant comeliness." How that could be translated into something meaning "we keep them covered" is something I cannot comprehend nor defend. Literally, the text says that the parts of our body that we would naturally consider "dishonorable," we treat as highly honored, and those parts that we might naturally consider "ugly" are treated as if they are very beautiful indeed. We do not insist on beautiful things being covered. Therefore, the suggestion that this passage supports keeping certain parts of our body covered is not fidelity to the text, but rather a "modern third person interpretation." Like you, I have no interest in such interpretations. No sacred art? Touche. Point taken. However, there is art that intentionally portrays Biblical events and themes. If nothing else, they do reflect the thinking, values, theology, and practices of the time and religious heritage from which they came. Question, where in the OT and NT is there any clear opposition to public nudity? I know that most people claim that its true, but from my examination of the Words of Scripture, I have not found convincing exegetical evidence for that claim. Where do you find it? In your summarizing remarks, you said again that the Scriptures never even hint at nude baptism, nor the earliest Christian writings. That I would acknowledge. But I would also acknowledge that they do not contradict the claim, either. So from these observations alone, we can draw no firm conclusion. Also, while it is apt to note that the Greco-Roman churches contained theological and practical compromise, it would be be inappropriate to take that fact as a proof that everything they practiced was therefore false. In conclusion, I find in your words no historical evidence that clothing was used in early church baptism, nor have I seen you present any concrete evidence that nude baptism had its source in pagan practices. In contrast, I have seen the writings of the (admittedly compromised, but not entirely false) church leaders from as late as the 5th century AD which described their practices. I have also found evidence that nude baptism has its roots not in pagan practices, but in Jewish ritual cleansing. Finally, I have encountered cultural evidence from the arts that reveals the apparent belief within the church historically that Jesus was in fact baptized without clothing. Indeed, I do remain unconvinced that your perspective is more historically accurate than mine. Do you have any more evidence that I should consider? Thanks again for your time. Matthew

Here was his next response:

Question, where in the OT and NT is there any clear opposition to public nudity? I know that most people claim that its true, but from my examination of the Words of Scripture, I have not found convincing exegetical evidence for that claim. Where do you find it?...Indeed, I do remain unconvinced that your perspective is more historically accurate than mine. Do you have any more evidence that I should consider? Dear Matthew: Again thank you for your detailed response. Now, I cited previously, but did not quote, the following: 6 'None of you shall approach anyone who is near of kin to him, to uncover his nakedness: I am the LORD. 7 The nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover. She is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of your father's wife you shall not uncover; it is your father's nakedness. 9 The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or elsewhere, their nakedness you shall not uncover. 10 The nakedness of your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for theirs is your own nakedness. 11 The nakedness of your father's wife's daughter, begotten by your father--she is your sister--you shall not uncover her nakedness. 12 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is near of kin to your father. 13 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister, for she is near of kin to your mother. 14 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's brother. You shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. 15 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law--she is your son's wife--you shall not uncover her nakedness. 16 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother's wife; it is your brother's nakedness. 17 You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, nor shall you take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness. They are near of kin to her. It is wickedness. 18 Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive. (Leviticus 18:6-18) And while you may say that this is an admonition only against uncovering nakedness directly (or incest as your last email states), I would submit that it was also an admonition against public nudity. You are entitled to your own opinion, but should realize that Jesus also taught: 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28) Thus, I contend that public nudity by females, which can incite lust, is prohibited. Furthermore, notice what the Apostles Paul and John wrote: 13 Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy (Romans 13:13). 16 For all that is in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--is not of the Father but is of the world (1 John 2:16). Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but you still have failed to cite one scripture, nor actual Christian writer, that condoned nude baptism. I contend that members of the true Church of God did not participate in nude baptism and that there is no evidence that this ever happened. Hence, while some Greco-Romans did, that does not change my position. On the other hand, because of our discourse, I probably will expand my section on nude baptism to deal with some of the issues you raised. So in that way, perhaps this has been a profitable exchange. Best regards, Bob _________

Then my final email to him.

If I may summarize your points, you claimed that public nudity was forbidden because of two reasons: 1. Leviticus 18:6-18 speaks not only of incest (which I would understand you to agree with me about), but also of public nakedness of any other kind. 2. Jesus' teaching that looking at a woman to lust was equivalent to adultery means that public female nudity is forbidden because it can incite lust. I point out that neither of these passages say that public nudity is forbidden. Let me take them one at a time to demonstrate why that presumption is logically flawed. 1. If we read Leviticus 18 as literally addressing simple nudity, then we must conclude that it is only the nudity of close relatives that we are not permitted to see. This, of course, is counterintuitive, since in the course of one's lifespan, the ones they are most likely to see unclothed in the natural course of life were those they lived with. They slept in the same room (actually a tent when this passage was written to the Jews). Mothers would see their children throughout their lives. Bathing was done outdoors where the water was. Aged parents would be personally nursed in the home until their deaths.Furthermore, the text in no way forbids the public nudity of men, for in every case, it is specifically declared that it is the nakedness of a woman that is not to be uncovered.If God intended to forbid public nudity, then He could have clearly said in one verse, "You shall not uncover the nakedness of anyone besides your own wife." Case closed. But this is not the command God gave us. Unfortunately, however, it has become the "command" that men preach.God never even hinted that you could not "uncover the nakedness" of anyone who was not a close relative. In almost every case, the very reason given in the text is that you must not uncover the nakedness of ______ because they are a close relative!! If the reason we cannot see the nakedness of someone is because they are closely related to us, then by contrast, those that do not fall into the category of "close relative" must be excluded! Yet your statement insists that they are included. That is not logically defensible.Finally, it is an exegetical mistake to take a phrase which is used over and over in a passage like this and assign it two different meanings... according to our own whim. Otherwise, how could we be confident of which meaning is called for in each verse? As I mentioned before, if we read "uncovering the nakedness of" as a euphemism for "incest" throughout the passage, the passage is absolutely clear and consistent with no need for any contrasting definition. However, if you take the phrase literally, it is impossible to make sense of every verse.It is exegetically irresponsible to assign two distinct meanings to the phrase when one meaning satisfies the context and obvious intent of the passage. Therefore, to suggest that the passage also forbids public nudity is not sound treatment of the text.(For the record, I have studied this passage in detail. I would be happy to provide examples of where the literal meaning of "uncovering nakedness" simply does not make any sense) 2. Jesus' teaching on lust did not address women at all! However, for the sake of the discussion, I'll ask this... What parts of a woman's beauty must be covered? Does the Bible ever tell us? If her beauty "can incite lust," then shouldn't we respond to that beauty as the orthodox Muslims do, and require our women to cover ALL of their bodies, and especially their faces, which are so beautiful? In such circumstances, you can be sure that even the glimpse of a woman's cheek could incite lust. When we decide that a body part should be covered, we are also deciding which parts incite lust. It is completely subjective and utterly foreign to the Word of God, but it is also self-fulfilling! In essence we have given men permission to lust if they see "too much" of a woman's body, and then inadvertently allow them to blame the woman!Is there anything particularly sexually enticing about a woman's mammary glands? God provided them to feed babies, not to cause men to stumble. It is our culture that has defined them so, not God's Word. Interestingly enough, God never told women that men must never see their breasts, or even see them breastfeeding their babies, even though every mother who's ever lived has had to make choices about where they nurse and who sees them. They are forced to make those choices without any guidance at all from God's Word. I submit to you that God did not "forget" or "neglect" to tell women to take such care with their breasts. God must be ambivalent about it. Your presumption that seeing a woman's body "can incite lust" implies three things which are all false: 1. That the presence of clothing mitigates the possibility of a man lusting after a woman. 2. That if a man sees a woman's unclothed body that lust is inevitable (How do godly doctor's do it?). and 3. God is really responsible for our lust, for He's the one who made women so beautiful that men can't help but lust when they see one. Another important issue for you to consider: In the Bible, "lust" and "covetousness" are synonyms. In the OT, the word for "covet" used in the tenth commandment is also used to describe lust (and it is so translated in Proverbs 6:25). In the NT, the word used by Jesus meaning "lust" was used by Paul to quote the commandment against coveting. The question is, why then do we suggest that the solution to "lust" is to avoid seeing a woman's body while the solution to "covetousness" is not taught as attempting to avoid seeing my neighbor's house or his servants or his animals? In all cases, the solution to covetousness is contentment with what God has given to me while rejoicing with my neighbor because of what God has given to him. The solution to covetousness IS the solution to lust. Finally, I remind you again of Jesus' words in Mark 7:18-23. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") 20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'" Jesus said that "nothing" that enters a man from the outside can defile him. He then applied it to the eating of food, but verse 20 clearly demonstrates that the even the defilements of "evil thoughts," "sexual immorality," "adultery" (mental or otherwise), and "lewdness" all originate INSIDE a man! Therefore we cannot claim that the source of lust is to be found in what a man sees! That is simply not what Jesus was teaching.Jesus addressed the men, not the women. He told them not to lust, he didn't tell the women to cover up. Your claim that Jesus' words forbid female nudity is not exegetically or logically sound. In your closing statements, you have used a logical fallacy to support your conclusion. You have used circular reasoning to invalidate any evidence contrary to the position you already hold. Here's what I mean. You state that no member of the "true church of God" participated in nude baptism. At the same time, you acknowledge that there is historical evidence that nude baptisms were practiced. But you have no way to know that these were mutually exclusive! In reality, what you have done is to declare Christians who practiced nude baptism as not part of the true church because they practiced nude baptism! Or to put it more simply, True Christians didn't baptize nude. Those who did so were not true Christians. We know this because true Christians did not baptize nude. It is circular reasoning and is not proof of anything because your argument is based upon the presumption of that which are trying to prove! This also allows you to simply disregard any "evidence" to the contrary that might exist by the simply claim, "They were not part of the true church of God." What is the evidence that they were not? They baptized nude, of course. There is, therefore, no evidence that could ever be valid for you. This in spite of the fact that you have not one shred of historical evidence that "the true church" practiced it any differently. In truth, you don't really need any evidence to support your position when any evidence against your position can be so easily dismissed. Ultimately, you have offered me nothing of substance to invalidate my understanding about nude baptism which I had before I wrote to you. Think about it. Thanks for your time and the very respectful interaction. Matt

And his final response.

Dear Matthew: In all due respect, you were the one who originally started this by stating: You claimed that early church baptism was performed clothed. Yet this is contrary to the uniform testimony of the early church fathers who wrote of their practices. And my response was that neither the Bible nor writings of actual true Christians supports your contention. You then wrote the following in your last email: You state that no member of the "true church of God" participated in nude baptism. At the same time, you acknowledge that there is historical evidence that nude baptisms were practiced. But you have no way to know that these were mutually exclusive! In reality, what you have done is to declare Christians who practiced nude baptism as not part of the true church because they practiced nude baptism! Or to put it more simply, True Christians didn't baptize nude. Those who did so were not true Christians. We know this because true Christians did not baptize nude. It is circular reasoning and is not proof of anything because yourargument is based upon the presumption of that which are trying to prove! In all due respect, it is you who have misunderstood my writings. I am not using circular reasoning. If you actually read my other writings, I make it perfectly clear who we in the Living Church of God believed were real Christians in the early writings. People such as Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates, etc. And this is based upon our history and doctrines. All the early writers you cited have ALWAYS been considered apostates by us, hence I did not use the type of circular reasoning that you are accusing me of. The FACT that the BIBLE NEVER indicates that people were baptized nude, nor DID ANY ONE WE IN LCG CONSIDER to actually be a Christian endorse it, combined with New Testament concepts of modesty is sufficient for us. You want to accept the practices of those we consider to be apostates as proof that we have an erroneous understanding. Anyway, I do appreciate the detail you attempted, but disagree that the biblical and historical facts support the idea that true Christians practiced nude baptism. Best regards, Bob _________

To this last email, I have not responded.

So... what's the verdict? Whose evidence and argument was more compelling?

Feel free to comment.
Matthew Neal

Does the Bible Ever Condone Social Nudity?

In my previous post (Asking the Right Question – Part 2), I took two questions to trial to discern which question was the correct one to ask when approaching the issue of God’s attitude towards Social Nudity. The two questions were:

#1: Where does the Bible ever condone social nudity?

#2: Where does the Bible ever condemn social nudity?

The first question – used here as the title of this post – was found to have incorrect presuppositions and therefore not trustworthy to find a valid answer.

Initially, we suggested that the answer to both questions was “Nowhere.” But then I promised to tackle the first question and see if I could indeed demonstrate an affirmative answer.

There are several passages that Christian Naturists have consistently used to try and show that the Bible condones social nudity, but generally, they are all renounced by non-naturists for a variety of reasons. Here’s a quick review of such passages and their rebuttals off the top of my head.

• Socially Nude Setting: Adam and Eve, were created and lived nude in the Garden (Gen. 1-2). There they were described as “naked and unashamed” (Gen. 2:25) and all of creation – including the nude couple – was pronounced “very good.” by the Creator (Gen. 1:31). In other words, social nudity was God’s original intent.

  • Rebuttal: That was all before the fall into sin. Mankind can no longer look upon nakedness in innocence. Furthermore, God Himself provided clothing to address their need to keep their nakedness covered thereafter.

(Note: I do not find this rebuttal convincing, and I would normally be happy to expose its flaws, but that’s not the purpose of this post, so I’ll resist the urge... for now...)

• Socially Nude Setting: King Saul came under the influence of the Spirit of God and stripped naked while prophesying before Samuel and the “company of the prophets” (1 Sam. 19:20-24). His nakedness among the prophets did not create a stir among his kingdom subjects except to wonder if he had changed occupations. Evidently, they were accustomed to seeing nude prophets, because they noted that Saul was acting like a prophet. Social nudity among the godliest servants of God was completely acceptable.

  • Rebuttal: Saul was not acting on his own accord here, and he had a history of being demonized. God struck him here with a form of insanity... that’s why he stripped naked. Besides, there’s no indication that there were any women who saw him.

(Update: for a more complete answer to this rebuttal, see Unclothed and in His Right Mind.)
 

• Socially Nude Setting: Peter fished naked in the boat after Jesus’ resurrection (John 21:3-7). It is quite unlikely that he alone was naked. More likely, this was the customary way for all fishermen to do a rather dirty job that would be very hard on what little clothing they possessed (see the photo below). He—and probably they—were nude in a boat within sight (and earshot) of land. This is social nudity in a working environment.

  • Rebuttal: It only tells us that Peter was naked. But even if it was more than just he, it was still only men, and this was not a recreational social setting. Furthermore, when Peter swam to shore to meet the Lord, he knew very well that he dare not meet Jesus naked.

I found the picture above in a Bible-History book in my church library. It is a 2nd or 3rd century stone relief showing three boats and their sailors battling a rough sea. Note that all of the sailors are completely nude. Click the picture to see it full size.

• Socially Nude Setting: When the author of the book of Hebrews seeks to communicate to us the importance of being completely committed to “victory” in our Christian lives (Heb. 12:1), he invokes the mental image of a culturally relevant sporting event to illustrate his point. It is documented historical fact that the runners in the Greek “Olympic” races ran nude. The author suggests that we lay aside the sin which could entangle us, just as (or so it seems) the runners lay aside all the clothing which could entangle them while running. It is a clear reference to a socially nude context, and it is used as a positive illustration.

  • Rebuttal: It doesn’t say that the runners were nude and that’s not the point anyway. Nudity is not even mentioned in the passage, and neither are the Greek Olympics. This is not at all condoning social nudity.

Those are not all, but those are the primary offerings in support of social nudity in the Bible, along with their common rebuttals. None seem to be sufficiently convincing to the non-naturist Christian, and evidently the nay-sayers are satisfied with the rebuttals.

But there is another passage which condones social nudity... in my opinion, more strongly than any I’ve already presented. Perhaps there will be adequate “rebuttal” to satisfy those unwilling to accept social nudity, but I’ll present it nonetheless, for it is Scripture.

Let me start this way...

What does the Bible say about physical exercise? The passage that comes to mind for me is 1 Tim. 4:8. Let me quote it here in the NIV:

For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.

The other versions are worth looking at by way of comparison, but the NIV here captures the idea that there is indeed some value in physical training or exercise. I’m quick to point out that this verse teaches that it is nowhere near as valuable as godliness – and that is the point of this passage – but there is still an acknowledgment of value in physical exercise.

On that point, I doubt any would disagree. I don’t think anyone would suggest that we should pursue godliness to the exclusion of exercise. Certainly this verse does not teach that exercise is in conflict with godliness. Both are valuable, godliness is more so.

Now that that point is agreed upon, let’s look at the Greek terms used here.

The word here translated “training” (or in the KJV, “exercise”) is the Greek word gymnasia. You will see the relationship with our English word, “gymnasium.” Those who are familiar with Greek will also see that it is based upon the Greek word, gymnos, which is the NT word for “naked.”

If we look at the definition of these Greek words found at BlueLetterBible.org, we find that gymnasia is a noun, and its first definition is given as “the exercise of the body in a palaestra or school of athletics.” It comes from the verb, gymnazo, which is defined as “to exercise naked (in a palaestra or school of athletics).” And as I already mentioned, both of these words are based on the Greek word, gymnos, meaning “naked.”

A little historical snooping will reveal that the palaestra was the wide open field (larger than a football field) within the walls of the ancient gymnasiums which were a central part of Hellenistic culture and life in NT times. As the name implies, nudity was the norm in the gymnasiums for men and for women.

Every major Greek city in the first century had a gymnasium... even Jerusalem (built in 175 B.C, it was in active use while Jesus roamed the streets of Jerusalem!).

Here’s my point... the gymnasium was where people went to exercise in the first century. And exercise in the gymnasium was always done in the nude. Nudity was so closely related to exercise that the word for "exercise" in Greek reflects the fact that it was practiced naked.

We cannot see that in the English translation. But that does not change the fact that the word God used to affirm exercise is a word that would clearly denote a naked activity to any Greek reader.

I would like to coin a word to help us see and hear in English what this would have sounded like to the original audience of the NT. I would suggest “nudercise,” meaning “to exercise naked” just like the original Greek term used in the Bible. Just like in the Greek, I've used a word denoting nudity as the foundation for this new word for "exercise."

So, let’s read the passage in English again, only this time with the more culturally accurate new word in the place of “training” or “exercise.”

For physical nudercise is of some value, but godliness has value for all things...

The nudercising Paul had in mind was the activity that happened down at the local nudenasium, for that’s where everyone went to nudercise.

Again, to even mention “exercise” in Greek was to invoke the concept of nudity, much like I did in the verse and paragraph above.

Since this is the case, we can conclude that the words of Paul in 1 Tim 4:8 are an affirmation of value in a socially nude activity. Paul was – quite literally – condoning social nudity.

Was that Paul’s primary point? No, it wasn’t.

Was Paul even thinking about affirming social nudity when he wrote that? No, he wasn’t.

But at the same time, he invoked a word overtly referring to social nude activity without so much as batting an eye. And he certainly did not offer any sort of disclaimer or warning to avoid the gymnos part of the gymnasia. He simply affirmed the value of a socially nude activity – almost in passing – while making a more significant spiritual point.

God never does command social nudity. Nudity is certainly not ever promoted as a measure of righteousness (neither is staying dressed!). But here in Paul’s words to Timothy we see a passing reference to social nudity in a positive light. Not so strong that we would be compelled to strip here and now, but clear enough for us to know that God has no qualms about our chaste involvement in socially nude activities.

Will this convince the antagonist? I doubt it.

Will it enlighten the seeker? I hope so.

Perhaps for all of us, it will give visibility into some nuances of God’s Word that we’ve never seen before.

++++++++++++

I am indebted to the author of FollowTheRabbi.com, Ray Vander Laan, for much of the historical research which led me to discover this passage and its implication regarding social nudity. Just to be clear, Ray Vander Laan is not a naturist. He simply does accurate historical research for the express purpose of helping us understand the Scriptures better.

I would especially recommend the article on Hellenism: Center of the Universe for its eye-opening explanation of the influence Hellenism had in the first century. It also reveals the central role which the Gymnasiums played in public life while the NT was being written (they were also the universities of the day!).

I’ll close with a quote from that article... the very paragraph that turned on this lightbulb for me (emphasis mine).

The Bible does not mention the gymnasium though it was a significant institution of from 300 B.C. until well beyond the New Testament time. Paul hints at its existence in his letter to his friend Timothy writing, “For physical training is of some value...” (1 Tim. 4:8). The expression “physical training” is based on the Greek root word for gymnasium. In addition he used metaphors (1 Cor. 9:24-27 — boxing and physical training; Gal. 2:2 — running; Gal. 5:7 — running; Phil. 2:16 — running) activities taught in the gymnasium and not in the synagogue school of the religious Jews.

Matthew Neal

Asking the Right Question — Part 2.

My last post (What DOES God think about my body?) opened with the idea that many people ask the wrong question, so they tend to get the wrong answer.

Well, this is the same song, second verse.

When it comes to the question of social nudity, most people approach God’s Word asking this question:

“Where in the Bible does it ever condone social nudity??”

But that may not be the right question. An alternative question would be:

“Where in the Bible does it ever condemn social nudity??”

Interestingly enough, the honest answer to both questions is probably “Nowhere.” God never prescribes nor prohibits social nudity.

It is no surprise that non-naturists ask the first question, while naturists ask the second one. The result is, of course, that both feel their position is vindicated by the obvious answer – “Nowhere” – because it affirms them in their beliefs.

But simple logic tells us that both cannot be correct, for the two conclusions are diametrically opposed to one another. One of the parties is asking the wrong question. Naturally then, that party is also getting the wrong answer.

Let’s put the questions on trial... and see which one proves to be the impostor.

Question Number 1... Tell us your presuppositions!

• I presume that if God does not condone something, He must condemn it.

• I presume that if most people believe something is wrong, that it must be wrong unless the Bible tells us otherwise.

Question Number 2... Tell us your presuppositions!

• I presume that God has revealed to us those things which are offensive to him.

• I presume that the measure of moral absolutes is not the opinion of the majority, but the express revelation of God.

Are there any witnesses?

Question Number 2 responds... “I have a witness, your Honor.”

Question Number 2... You may call your witness.

I call Pastor Charles Swindoll to the stand. Tell us, Mr. Swindoll, How can we know if something is morally wrong from our study of the Scriptures?

• “Nothing that is not specifically designated as evil in Scripture is evil — but rather a matter of one’s personal preference or taste.” (commenting on Romans 14:13-18 in his book The Grace Awakening, Word Publishing, 1990 – p. 167)

Question Number 1... Have you any witness?

I have no witness, your Honor.

Ok, I have to break character here and apologize to those who support Question Number 1 as the correct question. I acknowledge here that I do not know of any credible bible teacher who would support the presuppositions which undergird Question Number 1. And I’m unwilling to fabricate one which would surely be seen as a “Straw Man.” Honestly, I would welcome the responses from anyone who would wish to bring a witness in support of it. Having said that... I return to the “trial.”

The Judge has issued a ruling:

Question Number 1 has been found wanting. It is the opinion of the court that the burden of proof must lay with the one who claims that God is offended by a practice, not on those who claim God’s neutrality on the practice.

Furthermore, the court would reject any claim that the Bible is silent on the issue of social nudity because nudity was not an issue in Bible times. Every human being that has ever lived has had to face the question of how to treat his or her own nudity. The notion that God simply neglected to inform humanity that they must always keep their bodies covered is simply not credible.

God has given us all we need to live godly lives (2 Peter 1:3). Since God gave us no instructions requiring clothing to live a righteous life, then we have no Scriptural basis to claim that clothing is required for righteousness. God’s intentional silence on the topic speaks volumes.

Question Number 1 presumes that we know God’s mind and will for mankind instinctively. It presumes that the mind of man naturally perceives God’s moral law without God actively communicating it. This is in direct conflict with God’s Word in Isaiah 55:8-9...

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

Question Number 1 will not lead us to a trustworthy answer.

However, the court also acknowledges that Question Number 2 is not the end of the discussion; it is simply the right question as we begin an exploration of the topic at hand.

This ruling only allows the discussion to remain open, for there is much more biblical instruction to consider.

“Your Honor, may I indulge the court with some further discussion?” (Question Number 2 has spoken)

Question Number 2, what else do you have to add?

“I would like the opportunity to address the challenge raised by Question Number 1”

Do you mean to say that you believe that God does condone social nudity in the Bible?

“Yes, your Honor, I do. And I believe that I can demonstrate it.”

I was under the impression that it had been agreed that the answer to both questions was “Nowhere.” But now you are claiming you can demonstrate that’s not the case? Sounds like a rather difficult proposition to prove.

“I know, your Honor. The English translation of the Bible actually obscures the implications of a passage of Scripture written by the Apostle Paul. However, those implications would have been abundantly clear to the original audience who heard or read the text in Greek.”

Very well. I will grant this petition. Court is adjourned until the next Blog Post.

— Matthew Neal —

Nudity in Early Christianity - Part 1

Frankly, at this point I do not know how many parts this subject will take. I would like to keep it at three but it may easily slip to four or five. Everything depends on how verbose I become when I began to get into the meat of things.

I realize that some of you will wonder why I am approaching the subject of nudity in early Christianity by first presenting principles of how to determine what is consistent with Biblical truth and what isn’t. The reason is that some early Church Fathers disagreed as to whether Christian should partake in public bathing but all agreed to the necessity of being baptized in the nude. Why did they disagree? And how can we — in the 21st century — determine that which is Biblically consistent in our lives and that which is not?

In this first part, I will discuss three principles that need to be accounted for when you are doing any Bible study. In the next blog I will discuss the final two from the list below

Principle 1-There is a difference between exegesis and eisegesis.

Principle 2-There is a difference between biblical interpretation and biblical application.

Principle 3-Culture today is different from culture in biblical times.

Principle 4-Tradition or early writings give insight as to what Christians believed at the time when those traditions began or when the writings were produced. These writings or traditions may or may not be consistent with biblical truths.

Principle 5-Rules tell people how to respond to a particular situation. Principles tell people how to apply biblical truths to the situation so that they are consistent with other biblical truths.

Exegesis and Eisegesis

When people study the Bible, they are looking for biblical truth. The process of finding that truth is known as "exegesis." Exegesis comes from a Greek word meaning, "to lead out of." So when you exegete a particular scriptural passage, you are taking the meaning out of that section of Scripture. Bible study should always start with exegesis of the Scripture passage to find out exactly what it means.

Eisegesis comes from the same Greek word except for the prefix eis-. The Greek prefix eis- means, "to go into." Therefore, eisegesis is an application to your own life and is personal rather than a principle. We can find a good illustration of the difference between the two words in John 21:15-17.

The context of this passage is post resurrection and prior to the ascension. Jesus is speaking to Peter and He asks him three times "do you love me?" Without going into a deep Bible study about the meanings of various words it is obvious that Peter is to protect and nurture the believers after Jesus ascends to heaven. That is the exegesis of the passage.

The eisegesis of the passage could be a number of things. We can say that Jesus was upset with Peter. Another view would be that Jesus had a flock of sheep and wanted Peter to take care of them. A third view might be that only people named Peter could minister in the way that Jesus wanted. You will notice that eisegesis can tend to come up with any number of different "truths" about a particular passage of Scripture. Never is eisegesis an acceptable way to pull biblical truth from the Scriptures, because it is, by definition, infusing external meaning into the Scriptures.

When someone attempts to force a particular subject into the interpretation of a Bible passage, he or she is practicing eisegesis instead of exegesis. For that reason, with the topic at hand, it would be wrong to try to justify nudity just because Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:12 that "all things are legal" to him. That passage is speaking about something very different.

Interpretation vs. Application

There is a difference between what you do when you interpret Scripture versus when you apply Scripture to your life. Good application comes only after good interpretation.

Interpretation answers this question: "What did the author intend the original recipients of the book/letter/prophecy/Psalm to understand?" Good Biblical interpretation always relies on an "historical/grammatical" viewpoint of the passage (we'll address what that means in another blog post).

Application, on the other hand, relies on your subjective experience and the leading of the Holy Spirit in your day-to-day Christian walk. Application tends to begin with the words "I" or "we." In contrast, Interpretation should never begin with the word "I."

Examples of interpretation and application are found in 1 Corinthians 6:19. The context of the verse actually starts in chapter 5. Paul is discussing some of the things in which the Corinthian Christians are participating. Verse 19 begins a summary of those 2 chapters.

When I first accepted Christ I was taught the Bible said you should not smoke because 1 Corinthians 6:19 states that my body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, since smoking anything (this was the 60s and 70s after all) was damaging to my body, any such activity was not allowed, "according to the Bible." This is a perfect example of eisegesis. Since my body was a temple of the Holy Spirit then anything I did in the realm of smoking was "against the rules." While that might be a good application, it is not the correct interpretation of the verse. The interpretation of the verse is specifically focusing on a sexual sin issue in the Corinthian church.

When we begin to look at nudity in the Bible, we must stay in the historical and textual context of the Scripture. If we were going to exegete a particular passage we must remember to view it as those who were receiving it would have viewed it. While we certainly can make an application after exegeting the Scripture, we cannot say something like "the Bible teaches _____" without it specifically teaching that.

Culture Then vs. Culture Today

We live in a culture, which is a utterly different from any time in the Old or New Testament. Very few of us live in an agricultural environment. Very few of us are fishermen or tent makers. I could go on, but the point is that we do not live today as any other Christian has ever lived in history. Each generation is different. Certain things pass from one generation to another, but other things are lost forever because of a lack of functionality or need.

Functional things such as clothing, food, and shelter are predominantly determined by the environment around us. We are the first generation who are able to dramatically change that environment. Air-conditioning, central heat, and electricity have changed not only our habits, but also fundamentally changed our lives and how we view life in general.

I am a fan of the TV show Survivor. The contestants occasionally have to determine the winner by having a tie breaker. They will see who can build a fire the fastest using flint, steel, and straw. If we were back in the 1800’s no one would have held a contest like that. Most people would know how to accomplish the task of building a fire. For some reason in Survivor they don’t know how.

In the same way, we cannot force our current practices and perspectives into a centuries-dead culture. For example, the public bath so common in New Testament times has all but vanished from today's cultures. What the Church Fathers (pre-700 A.D.) said about the bath (some were for and some were against) is no longer directly relevant to our lives. Also, our athletes do not practice without any clothes as the early Greeks did, nor do women today walk around with one breast exposed.

Therefore, Biblical principles must rely on unchanging truth... not culture or public opinion. Naturism must be shown to be acceptable within carefully and correctly discerned Biblical truth... and not just because someone "feels closer to God" when they are naked.

In future blogs I will explore nudity as practiced in early Christianity and see if it is consistent with Biblical truth.

Athanasius