Did Isaiah Really Go Around Naked for Three Years?!

I take that extra explanation -- with was not referenced regarding Isaiah -- to suggest that Isaiah's buttocks was not uncovered. What Isaiah pictured in type -- naked and barefoot -- would happen in a complete way for t he Egyptians -- not just "naked and barefoot" in the way Isaiah, was but even with their buttocks uncovered.

There are obviously times in the Bible when naked means completely so (as in Genesis 2:25, or as the babe in Job 1:21; there the emphasis seems to be "without anything" in the second case). Sometimes though being uncovered or naked seems to be kind of like in the undergarments. As when Michal described David as being uncovered, but he had on a linen ephod (II Samuel 6:14-20). In contrast, Exodus 28 seems to mention what seems to me to be an undergarment (linen breeches) to cover the nakedness of the priests even when dressed in their robes and coats. There are some other cases where naked may not mean naked to the skin with no clothes at all (I Samuel 19:24; John 21:7).

This may be a case where we read the way we commonly use the word into the meaning every time we see or hear "naked". In addition to "nude, without clothing" I think almost every English dictionary gives as the secondary meaning something like "without adequate clothing" or "without proper clothing" or even "scantily clad".

 

Checked my commentaries. Goldingay says just barefoot and shirtless.

Barry Webb says that is most likely, but doesn't rule out true nakedness. He also seems to take the opposite of rlvaughn and says the buttocks were most likely uncovered. He finishes by saying that Isaiah may have appeared in public naked at least once eah day as a sign, and not stayed naked the whole three years.

 

I looked at a number of commentaries, about a dozen. If we were weighing the evidence or taking a poll, "not completely nude" would definitely be the winner. There probably are Christian teachers who believe this was nudity, but I didn't find one among those commentaries I looked at. I found one skeptic site online that said it had to be nudity and were bashing Christians for not believing it was. Seems like they somehow thought it demolished our faith if it were nudity.

I think the preponderance of commentators also did not think that Isaiah went this way every day of the entire three years. That is what the text seems to say, but I think there is room to interpret it differently. For example, I could see if being every time he was exercising his prophetic office during this period.

 

We are getting close to Isaiah 20 in our church Bible study. Looked up the text in a few of the "hard copy" commentaries I have that aren't available online. They favor the "barely clad" idea as well, but Alec Motyer did say this:

"Sackcloth was apparently Isaiah's normal wear...Stripped is (lit.) 'naked'. Did Isaiah really go 'naked' or is the NIV correct in safeguarding the proprieties with stripped? The general use of the word (‘ārôm) suggests the former." p. 171

 

I mentioned previously that we were coming up on Isaiah chapter 20 in our Bible study. One of the ladies pointed out to my wife that "shoe" and "foot" are singular and wanted to know if Isaiah went around with one shoe on and one shoe off. My inclination is that this is a figure of speech (synecdoche, maybe) rather than instructions to go barefoot with one foot. I don't think any commentator has deigned to notice it.

Thoughts?

 

Yes, and standard English says "barefoot" when it means "barefeet"!

 

Although going around with one shoe on and one shoe off would be an attention-getter.