Isn’t Jeremiah a poor source to argue about the inappropriateness of speedos?
Question:
I came across Preaching Like Jeremiah while researching Jeremiah. There's a lot of good stuff here, thanks. However, I was amused that you invoked Jeremiah to defend your apparent stance against speedos; considering the dirty underwear incident at the beginning Jeremiah 13. I'm now wondering if there's a page on your site that invokes David to argue against dancing in speedos I did find several pages discussing your dancing stance. It is very well thought out and has some very good points. It seems to imply the stance is that there is a 'time and place for every purpose unto heaven' and that the time for dancing is 'never again.'
As for the speedos, personally I believe thoughts about nudity have been totally reversed by modern society from the original shame it represented. Adam and Eve did see each other and scream 'ahh! cover yourself, you are assaulting me with your shame!' They were concerned about their own shame. And their own censorship policy didn't help, suggesting again that it was about shame, not nudity. Of course, 'time and place,' Isaiah (chapter 20), Micah (1), David (II Samuel 6). I realize that at all times out of wedlock, lust is a sin. Anyhow, I'm way off the subject. Since non-Christians visit that page and do not necessarily have an inherent understanding of the 'time and place' argument, you may want to pick someone besides Jeremiah to defend the anti-speedos policy.
Answer:
"Therefore the showers have been withheld, And there has been no latter rain. You have had a harlot's forehead; You refuse to be ashamed" (Jeremiah 3:3).
""Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed; Nor did they know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; At the time I punish them, They shall be cast down," says the LORD" (Jeremiah 6:15).
I've always found the ways people avoid clear statements to be interesting. But let's first address Jeremiah 13.
"Thus the LORD said to me: "Go and get yourself a linen sash, and put it around your waist, but do not put it in water." So I got a sash according to the word of the LORD, and put it around my waist. And the word of the LORD came to me the second time, saying, "Take the sash that you acquired, which is around your waist, and arise, go to the Euphrates, and hide it there in a hole in the rock." So I went and hid it by the Euphrates, as the LORD commanded me" (Jeremiah 13:1-5).
God had Jeremiah prepare an illustration for a point He wanted to be made a bit later in the chapter -- that Israel had ruined themselves and had become useless. The Hebrew word 'ezowr, translated here as "sash," refers to a belt worn around the waist. You assumed it was under Jeremiah's clothing, that is a loincloth, but such is not demanded, nor is it the usual translation. The same wording is used in "So they answered him, 'A hairy man wearing a leather belt around his waist.' And he said, 'It is Elijah the Tishbite'" (II Kings 1:8) where it is clear that a belt used to hold clothing against the body is being discussed. To make an argument upon an assumption is to be in an unstable position. There is no indication in this chapter that Jeremiah was scantily clothed.
Your argument regarding Adam and Eve, while filled with sophistry, is contradicted by Adam's own words: "So he said, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself"" (Genesis 3:10). Adam's shame was in his nakedness, which is stated several times in Genesis 3. The word "nakedness" translates the Hebrew word 'eyrom which means nakedness or nudity.
Isaiah was commanded by God to illustrate shame. "At the same time the LORD spoke by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, "Go, and remove the sackcloth from your body, and take your sandals off your feet." And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. Then the LORD said, "Just as My servant Isaiah has walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and a wonder against Egypt and Ethiopia, so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians as prisoners and the Ethiopians as captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt" (Isaiah 20:2-4). It was an embarrassment to walk around without clothing. Yet you seem to be claiming it should not have been a big deal.
Micah too talked about the shame of nudity. "Therefore I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked; I will make a wailing like the jackals and a mourning like the ostriches, ... Pass by in naked shame, you inhabitant of Shaphir; the inhabitant of Zaanan does not go out. Beth Ezel mourns; its place to stand is taken away from you" (Micah 1:8, 11).
In regards to David, some care must be taken. "Then David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was wearing a linen ephod" (II Samuel 6:14). There is some debate about exactly what style of garment an ephod was, but we do know that priests wore them. "But Samuel ministered before the LORD, even as a child, wearing a linen ephod" (I Samuel 2:18). What does need to be noted is the person who objected hated David. "Now as the ark of the LORD came into the City of David, Michal, Saul's daughter, looked through a window and saw King David leaping and whirling before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart. ...Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, 'How glorious was the king of Israel today, uncovering himself today in the eyes of the maids of his servants, as one of the base fellows shamelessly uncovers himself!'" (II Samuel 6:16, 20). The charge seems odd because if it were true, then Israel's priests would be uncovered as well. Therefore, this incident, which would be an exception at best, does not condone nudity.
You also missed the points made about dancing, but I'll let the articles stand on their own merit since you did not directly attack their content.
