Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis

[Mechanical Man]

Why were Adam and Eve naked in the first place?

Why did God have them running around naked at all if he could have clothed them? He was apparently wroth that they realized they were naked as well. Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves and God proceeded to switch out the fig leaves with animal skins which shows that clothing material was important enough to distinguish fiber from skin.

[jimwalton]

The nakedness is an intriguing piece of Genesis 2 & 3, and we're left to interpret it. Let's start with this: The cunning shrewdness of the serpent in Gn. 3.1 is the Hebrew word “'arum” is very close to the word for nakedness in Gn. 2.25 ('arummim), and the two verses are right next to each other (no chapters or verses in the original). So first of all we know it's a word play: The people were naked ('arummim) and the serpent was shrewd ('arum). Their sense of nakedness, then, is in contrast to his cunning deceitfulness, and an indication of their naiveté: it's like the "before" picture that will be contrasted with the "after" picture of 3.7.

Secondly, clothing has great symbolic meaning in the Bible. In specific mentions of clothing, we see symbols of power, vulnerability, status, and even station. We see symbols of morality and spirituality. Read the stories of Joseph, the ordination service of Aaron, the parable of the Prodigal Son, and the whole book of Revelation, and you get an idea. Here the man and woman are completely naked, a clear biblical symbol of their moral innocence.

Calvin Miller makes an appearing statement: "To God obscenity is not uncovered flesh. It is exposed intention. Nakedness is just a state of heart. Was Adam any more unclothed when he discovered shame? Yes."

When Gn. 2.25 says they were naked and felt no shame, we can understand it to mean their relationship with each other was unhindered by guilt, fear, mistrust, domination, or evil. They are portrayed as morally and spiritually "not guilty". So also, and primarily, their relationship with God. Nothing stood between them and God. Their nakedness is a picture of freedom, a state of innocence, and a symbol of uncorrupted relationship.

Their disobedience to God changed the whole picture. They had acted in favor of self rather than out of love. They had chosen disobedience, and in their free will had chosen self-will, and their sudden shame is a symbol, but even more so a consequence and effect of their action. Their first moral judgment was not that being naked was bad; their first moral judgment was to eat the fruit that had been forbidden. The result of that was an awareness (Gn. 3.7 says a realization) of guilt, spiritual culpability, and separation. Obviously their moral awareness found its first target as they looked at themselves and each other. The choice had been made, the damage done, and the consequence obvious. In a sense the serpent had told the truth: their eyes were opened, and they knew good and evil in a completely different way. But instead of being enlightened and being like God, they felt acute shame, guilt, and felt a need to cover, protect, and hide. A tragic anticlimax to a previously hopeful plot line. We can feel their sense of disgrace. The text itself tells us the import of the clothing of fig leaves: cover. It's a physical representation of a spiritual truth: they feel exposed, separated, and in need of cover.

[Afternoon Delight]

Really good!