# Nudity



## Peairtach (Aug 15, 2011)

> Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?" And he said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself." He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" (Genesis 3:7-11, ESV)



I'm reading Calvin's commentary on Genesis. Calvin relates Adam and Eve's awareness of being naked only to the fact that they were hiding from God. Was there more to Adam and Eve's awareness that they were naked than that they were hiding from God? What do other commentators say?


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 15, 2011)

Matthew Henry - 

"(2.) What was the effect and evidence of their fear: They hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God - a sad change! Before they had sinned, if they had heard the voice of the Lord God coming towards them, they would have run to meet him, and with a humble joy welcomed his gracious visits. But, now that it was otherwise, God had become a terror to them, and then no marvel that they had become a terror to themselves, and were full of confusion. Their own consciences accused them, and set their sin before them in its proper colours. Their fig-leaves failed them, and would do them no service. God had come forth against them as an enemy, and the whole creation was at war with them; and as yet they knew not of any mediator between them and an angry God, so that nothing remained but a certain fearful looking for of judgment. In this fright they hid themselves among the bushes; having offended, they fled for the same. Knowing themselves guilty, they durst not stand a trial, but absconded, and fled from justice. See here, [1.] The falsehood of the tempter, and the frauds and fallacies of his temptations. He promised them they should be safe, but now they cannot so much as think themselves so; he said they should not die, and yet now they are forced to fly or their lives; he promised them they should be advanced, but they see themselves abased - never did they seem so little as now; he promised them they should be knowing, but they see themselves at a loss, and know not so much as where to hide themselves; he promised them they should be as gods, great, and bold, and daring, but they are as criminals discovered, trembling, pale, and anxious to escape: they would not be subjects, and so they are prisoners. [2.] The folly of sinners, to think it either possible or desirable to hide themselves from God: can they conceal themselves from the Father of lights? Psa_139:7, etc.; Jer_23:24. Will they withdraw themselves from the fountain of life, who alone can give help and happiness? Jon_2:8. [3.] The fear that attends sin. All that amazing fear of God's appearances, the accusations of conscience, the approaches of trouble, the assaults of inferior creatures, and the arrests of death, which is common among men, is the effect of sin. Adam and Eve, who were partners in the sin, were sharers in the shame and fear that attended it; and though hand joined in hand (hands so lately joined in marriage), yet could they not animate nor fortify one another: miserable comforters they had become to each other!"


----------



## Grimmson (Aug 15, 2011)

There were some ancient commentators, Ephraem, that thought Adam and Eve were clothed in glorious light that became dark when they sinned. I will for some examples right now.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 15, 2011)

No way. There was shame at their nakedness in relation to each other. (Which is why they sewed fig leaves together.)

My guess: All their blemishes, fat rolls, saggy parts, etc., were suddenly understood within their newly acquired sinful natures to be undesirable. And thus they were ashamed of themselves.


----------



## AThornquist (Aug 15, 2011)

SolaScriptura said:


> My guess: All their blemishes, fat rolls, saggy parts, etc., were suddenly understood within their newly acquired sinful natures to be undesirable. And thus they were ashamed of themselves.



The second sin committed by man was Adam's response to Eve after she asked, "Does this leaf make me look fat?"


----------



## Tim (Aug 15, 2011)

Ben, are you suggesting that they would have had undesireable physical characteristics before the fall as well? Or just after?

I wouldn't think that they would have any unsightly physical characteristics, because they had perfect genetics unaffected by any mistakes over many generations. Immediately after the fall, their genetics became subject to degragation, but it would be a while before that would manifest as something easily visible. I would rather suggest that it was a private part kind of thing. For example, Adam may have recognized in some way, perhaps subconsciously, that his procreative organ would be the physical means by which he would be the father of a race of fallen, sinful descendants. Thus, it became a body part of shame.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 15, 2011)

Tim said:


> Ben, are you suggesting that they would have had undesireable physical characteristics before the fall as well?



Your question is riddled with the very thing to which I refer. Post-fall we see things as being "undesireable." They were human beings. With mortal bodies. And as soon as their corrupted natures felt guilt and shame (and pride of life!) then suddenly their bodies became a source of shame.

You can theologize and speculate all you want. But the fact is that a normal straight-forward reading of the text naturally lends itself to seeing that their physical nakedness was the source of shame - shame in regards to each other and also God.

---------- Post added at 06:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 PM ----------




Tim said:


> For example, Adam may have recognized in some way, perhaps subconsciously, that his procreative organ would be the physical means by which he would be the father of a race of fallen, sinful descendants.



Highly unlikely. Indeed, had not God told him he would die if he ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? His shame _is prior to_ God pronouncing a stay of execution and announcing that the human race would indeed continue despite Adam and Eve's sin. Thus if anything, if we want to speculate, based upon the last word on the subject from God, Adam may have hid from God because he was afraid that God would kill him. For prior to God's pronouncement, he had more reason to believe that God would kill him then and there than to think that he was going to perpetuate a race of sinful descendants.


----------



## TimV (Aug 15, 2011)

Tim why do you think Adam's "procreative organ" was what was covered?


----------



## Grimmson (Aug 15, 2011)

Here a couple promised quotes:


> Following this it says, “the two of them were naked, but they were not ashamed.” It was not because they were ignorant of what shame was that they were not ashamed; for had they been infants as the pagans say, Scripture would not have said that “they were naked but were not ashamed,” nor would it have spoken of “Adam and his wife” had they not been adults. The names which Adam gave should convince us of his wisdom, and the fact that it says that “he was to work it and guard it” is to indicate strength. Likewise, the law laid down for them is meant to testify to their adulthood—and the transgression of the law to testify their arrogance. It was because of the glory in which they were wrapped that they were not ashamed. Once this had been taken away from them, after the transgression of the commandment, they were ashamed because they were stripped of it, and the two of them rushed to the leaves to cover not so much their bodies as their shameful members. Having spoken of their naked State—which, because it was adorned with a heavenly raiment. Ephrem, Hymns of Paradise, Commentary on Genesis, Trans by Sebastian Brock 14-5.
> 
> And in the garment of light they return him to Eden. –Ephrem, Hymns of Virginity 16:9.
> 
> You see, before this they had enjoyed such confidence and were not aware that they happened to be naked (actually, they were not really naked: the glory from above garbed them better then any garment), whereas after eating – that is, after transgression of what had been commanded—they fell into such baseness that they then looked for some covering though not being able to bear their shame, You se, transgression of the command entered the scene and snatched away the novel and remarkable garment—I mean the glory and favor from above enveloping them – and it both lent them an awareness of their nakedness and also clad them in unspeakable shame. Chrysostom, Homily 16.14 on Genesis.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 15, 2011)

I think the nakedness thing and the making of a covering of leaves seems to be more than them hiding from God and having a bad conscience - although that may be involved. The hiding from God seems to be more expressed in their hiding behind the trees and bushes of Eden. 

Has some kind of imperfection entered the marriage relation - or their view of it - that was not there before, even although it is said


> Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: (Heb 13:4) ?



Has the presence of sin marred this, even in some mysterious, indefineable, way?



> My guess: All their blemishes, fat rolls, saggy parts, etc., were suddenly understood within their newly acquired sinful natures to be undesirable. And thus they were ashamed of themselves.



I don't think this would be the case, as presumably their bodies were perfect specimens.

Maybe they realised that it was always God's intention that men wear clothes. Our bodies are not naturally clothed like some other creatures, e.g. cats and dogs, because God knew that we would be able to form stylish, or unstylish, clothes for ourselves.

The combination of being aware of being exposed to God's displeasure; being even slightly aware of being in a new and dangerous environment; and the presence of sin, maybe subconsciously, marring the perfection of conjugal sexuality, may have been enough to make them instinctively make makeshift clothes for themselves.


----------



## Rufus (Aug 15, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> I don't think this would be the case, as presumably their bodies were perfect specimens



Not only that but they would have no standard of which to compare themselves if they where ugly, why would something be unattractive if there was no other person to look at to compare them too?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 15, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> I don't think this would be the case, as presumably their bodies were perfect specimens.



"Presumably?"

And what, pray tell, does a perfect specimen look like? 

I reject the idea that they looked gorgeous.

Indeed, if they were created as fully mature adults, it is at least possible if not likely that their bodies would have possessed the appearance of actually being mature, rather than possessing perfect skin, luscious hair, perfect body fat to muscle ratio, etc.

---------- Post added at 08:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 PM ----------




Rufus said:


> Not only that but they would have no standard of which to compare themselves if they where ugly, why would something be unattractive if there was no other person to look at to compare them too?



Possible, but I don't think so. They'd already become self-aware about their own nakedness - no one told them this. People know what "beauty" is and isn't, and one's self perception has nothing really to do with an outside standard. For evidence, think of all the gorgeous ladies who have an internal "beauty compass" that tells them they're ugly even though they're not. One's appraisal of one's body is based upon one's heart condition. And the fact of the matter is, the text is clear that something about their awareness of their physical nakedness - even though it was only the two of them and the animals - compelled them to make clothes. The real world grittiness of it is compelling.


----------



## Tim (Aug 15, 2011)

SolaScriptura said:


> Indeed, if they were created as fully mature adults, it is at least possible if not likely that their bodies would have possessed the appearance of actually being mature, rather than possessing perfect skin, luscious hair, perfect body fat to muscle ratio, etc.



I don't think maturity is what you are suggesting. Maturity would include things like having attained a full height, bone structure, hip width for women, muscle mass, etc., rather than the presence of age-associated decline. Immediately after the fall, Adam and Eve would have been fully mature, but not aged in anyway, since that would not show up until time had passed in the post-fall era. They had perfect genetics that would ensure ideal body development in every way. The proportions and balance and symmetry of their physical selves would have been ideal. And I do think there is an ideal beauty, although countless generations of genetic mistakes and imperfections have rendered this less likely today for most people. 

But I do acknowledge that it is a bit of speculation regarding what I said about private parts. Feel free to discuss.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 16, 2011)

*Ben*


> Possible, but I don't think so. They'd already become self-aware about their own nakedness - no one told them this. People know what "beauty" is and isn't, and one's self perception has nothing really to do with an outside standard. For evidence, think of all the gorgeous ladies who have an internal "beauty compass" that tells them they're ugly even though they're not. One's appraisal of one's body is based upon one's heart condition. And the fact of the matter is, the text is clear that something about their awareness of their physical nakedness - even though it was only the two of them and the animals - compelled them to make clothes. The real world grittiness of it is compelling.



Yes. There is a template for beauty written on man's heart, no doubt ultimately related to God as the standard of beauty Himself.

Those interested in aesthetic philososophy have noted how "the golden ratio" keeps cropping up. No doubt the first pair had the golden ratio in oodles.

Golden ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Golden Section, Golden Ratio or Divine Proportion based on Phi, 1.618: Constructions and Applications


----------



## Tim (Aug 16, 2011)

Exactly. The golden ratio is one of the things that I had in mind when I mentioned balance, symmetry, and proportion.


----------



## FCC (Aug 16, 2011)

An interesting topic indeed, given the rise of nakedness in our own culture. Matthew Henry wrote, "The trembling answer which Adam gave to this question: I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, v. 10. He does not own his guilt, and yet in effect confesses it by owning his shame and fear; but it is the common fault and folly of those that have done an ill thing, when they are questioned about it, to acknowledge no more than what is so manifest that they cannot deny it. Adam was afraid, because he was naked; not only unarmed, and therefore afraid to contend with God, but unclothed, and therefore afraid so much as to appear before him. We have reason to be afraid of approaching to God if we be not clothed and fenced with the righteousness of Christ, for nothing but this will be armour of proof and cover the shame of our nakedness. Let us therefore put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and then draw near with humble boldness."

To me the issue of Adam's nakedness is more of a sudden spiritual understanding that he had sinned against His Creator and shame came in with that sin. It is interesting that it focused immediately on the outward rather than the inward as evidenced in the later lack of open confession of sin. Adam and Eve sought to hide their nakedness by creating for themselves fig coverings, which is an allusion to our attempting to remedy sins effects with our own works by several commentators. God corrected their wrong understanding by providing them with garments suitable and of His own handiwork, even as He provides salvation for us in a suitable and glorious manner in our Lord Jesus Christ. 

To me their attempt to cover their nakedness doesn't depend on what they looked like in their physical bodies, but what they now saw in their spiritual lives. It plays out today as we try to strip more and more clothing. Isn't it our cultures attempt to deny the sin that is coursing through our very natures? Adam and Eve acknowledged their sin by attempting to cover their nakedness! We forsake any knowledge of sin by exposing our nakedness. Nakedness is shameful because of sin and we need to be clothed in the righteous robes of our Lord! 

No matter what they looked like, their spirits were now dead before the Lord. They knew this and attempted to hide in the forest and to cover their nakedness because of this knowledge.


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 16, 2011)

I think brother David Biser is hitting pretty close to the truth here. It was not so much about their physical appearance, it was about the Holy Spirit exposing their conscience to sin and they felt it as a need for physical covering. Physical covering (clothes) are a reminder that we need a savior. Modesty is a sense of God's nearness and a proper feeling of shame for our sin and a need for atonement.

The reason Hollywood and the culture embrace nakedness is part of our suppression of truth in unrighteousness. To expose the body immodestly is to self justify our sin and declare to God and man that we don't need a savior, we feel no shame, we have no need for shame. The shame that Adam and Eve felt was FAR more important than the nakedness. The prevailing culture has lost the ability to feel shame and we are suffering a moral collapse as a result. I tell my children that clothes have a definite spiritual aspect - clothes are another of God's gracious reminders that we need a savior. Modesty is not about covering nakedness, but about understanding that we don't give voice to every thought or action to every urge. Shame is our guardian of a godly and godward orderliness.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 16, 2011)

They'd just committed cosmic treason, their pride is such that when confronted by God they both pass the buck (with Adam having the audacity to try to lay some of the blame with God himself!), from the get-go humans suppress the truth in unrighteousness, entire civilizations of the ancient world took great pride in sexuality,(it is no modern novelty! In fact, we have not come anywhere near the level of cultural sexualization that attended the ancient world.) but yet Adam and Eve are, despite their unwillingness and inability to repent and seek forgiveness and their aforementioned attempt to blame God himself, are somehow keenly aware of "sin" and their guilt and the spiritual alienation sin brings. Right.


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 16, 2011)

I wasn't saying that our cultural sexualization is unique Ben, but in the US, in my lifetime, I have watched a great slide and growing shamelessness take over the media and culture. Last week, Britain's Cameron said that they need to find a way to reverse the "slow motion moral collapse" in Europe. I say, "HELLO???!!!!"


----------



## FCC (Aug 16, 2011)

It has been a slide into depravity that sometimes takes one off guard. I live in a small town and the rise in nudity has been rather astouding! It is not new, nothing really is (Eccl. 1:9), but it is a very loud proclamation of our rebellion against God!


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 16, 2011)

BobVigneault said:


> I wasn't saying that our cultural sexualization is unique Ben, but in the US, in my lifetime, I have watched a great slide and growing shamelessness take over the media and culture. Last week, Britain's Cameron said that they need to find a way to reverse the "slow motion moral collapse" in Europe. I say, "HELLO???!!!!"



"slow motion" moral collapse? I'm sure glad that it is not any faster!


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 16, 2011)

*Dennis*


> "slow motion" moral collapse? I'm sure glad that it is not any faster!



David Cameron doesn't have a clue. He's just responding to the amorality that was apparent in last weeks riots in London and other cities.

*David*


> To me their attempt to cover their nakedness doesn't depend on what they looked like in their physical bodies, but what they now saw in their spiritual lives. It plays out today as we try to strip more and more clothing. Isn't it our cultures attempt to deny the sin that is coursing through our very natures? Adam and Eve acknowledged their sin by attempting to cover their nakedness! We forsake any knowledge of sin by exposing our nakedness. Nakedness is shameful because of sin and we need to be clothed in the righteous robes of our Lord!



You don't think that their making of clothes had, also, anything to do with their sexuality being tainted by the presence of sin?

The presence of sin taints everything but they may have been peculiarly sensitive to an awareness of it intruding into their sacred relationship to one another.


----------



## FCC (Aug 16, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> You don't think that their making of clothes had, also, anything to do with their sexuality being tainted by the presence of sin?
> 
> The presence of sin taints everything but they may have been peculiarly sensitive to an awareness of it intruding into their sacred relationship to one another.



I think that would have been included in the whole. Since sin affects every aspect of humanities being, it would certainly have directly affected their sexuality. The Scriptures do not tell us exactly what was covered by their fig leaf aprons, but it was apparently not enough, since God clothed them properly.


----------

