8 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. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”10 And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” 11 He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” (Gen 3:8-11).
This has always been a puzzling passage. It's understandable why they tried to hide from God. Although that's comical, they knew less about God than we do. So they might believe they could successfully elude divine detection.
Even so, why did they hide because they were naked? What does nudity have to do with it?
Is it because they were embarrassed to be seen in the buff by God after they ate the forbidden fruit? But once again, what's the logical connection? Perhaps their reaction is inexplicable. When caught redhanded, wrongdoers may react in irrational ways.
It won't do to say the account is fictional, for even fictional stories are supposed to make sense on their own terms. It had to be meaningful to the narrator. Indeed, good fiction has to be more logical than real life because it lacks factuality to lend it plausibility.
God's question implies that Adam wasn't conscious or self-conscious of his nudity until he ate the forbidden fruit. At one level, that's reasonable. Having been made that way, Adam had no point of contrast. No occasion to give his nudity a second thought. That was his exclusive experience.
Perhaps they took shelter in the bushes to provide a barrier against physical harm. Nudity is a vulnerable state which leaves one more exposed to physical harm. There's nothing between you and the elements–or weapons. They were unarmored and unarmed.
If, as Jeffrey Niehaus has argued, the divine visitation is a storm theophany, perhaps they took refuge in the bushes to provide a measure of protection against the approaching storm. Assuming it was a storm theophany, we don't know what form it took. A thunderstorm? A whirlwind?
Perhaps a fire theophany? The Angel of the Lord may assume a luminous appearance or even, according to Exodus, the appearance of a fire whirl. If they saw something like that touch down and head in their direction, it's not surprising that they ran for cover.
I kind of also get the impression that Adam's reaction after eating the fruit wasn't the realization that he wasn't wearing any clothes, but rather a sense of shame associated with that state of being. He seemed to become aware that his nakedness was in some way indecent.
ReplyDeleteBut presumably it wasn't intrinsically indecent, so what's the connection between transgression and nudity as a source of shame? That's why I offer an alternative proposal.
DeleteBy walking I take it that in all likelihood Yehovah (in a pre-incarnate Christophany) was in the habit of appearing in a clothed humanoid form to fellowship with Adam and Eve. They had likely seen various animals who had furry coats that appeared to clothe them, and so the difference between them and God prelapsus wasn't jarring to them. But now that they had sinned their guilt made them feel exposed to God's judgment and enhanced the difference between them who were naked and God who was clothed. So they sewed fig leaves together to make loincloths. But they knew it wasn't good enough to really hide their shame so they additionally hid among the trees of the garden.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly I've heard some Trinitarians (e.g. Anthony Rogers) translate the passage as something like, "and they heard the VOICE of the LORD God walking in the garden". Suggesting it was specifically the Word of Yehovah who periodically visited them in visible form.
Even the 1917 Jewish translation of the Tanakh (JPS version) says, "And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden toward the cool of the day; and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden."
[bold added by me, AP]
I think there's a lot of truth to what John Piper says in his article, The Rebellion of Nudity and the Meaning of Clothing regarding nakedness.
"By walking I take it that in all likelihood Yehovah (in a pre-incarnate Christophany) was in the habit of appearing in a clothed humanoid form to fellowship with Adam and Eve."
Deletei) We don't know that God was in the habit of appearing to them.
ii) We don't know that God was clothed in fabric. Perhaps he was clothed in light.
"Interestingly I've heard some Trinitarians (e.g. Anthony Rogers) translate the passage as something like, 'and they heard the VOICE of the LORD God walking in the garden'."
That's a legitimate alternative rendering.
"Suggesting it was specifically the Word of Yehovah who periodically visited them in visible form."
Again, we don't know that God periodically visited them.
"In the first case, I am self-conscious of my body, and I feel vulnerable to shame because I know Eve has chosen to be independent from God. She has made herself central in the place of God. She is essentially now a selfish person. From this day forward, she will put herself first. She is no longer a servant. So she is not safe. And I feel vulnerable around her, because she is very likely to put me down for her own sake."
There's nothing in the text to support that elaborate psychologizing.
"But the way I experience it in myself is that I feel defiled and guilty and unworthy."
There's no logical connection between feeling shame for wronging and feeling shame for nudity.
"the nakedness of innocence contradicts my unworthiness—I am ashamed of it."
That's backwards. The question at issue isn't the "nakedness of innocence" but the innocence of nakedness.
"One practical implication of this is that public nudity today is not a return to innocence but rebellion against moral reality."
It's true that nudism is not a return to innocence. And it's often an invitation to immorality.
"God ordains clothes to witness to the glory we have lost"
That's not "ordained" in Gen 3.
i) We don't know that God was in the habit of appearing to them.
DeleteMaybe God wasn't in the habit of frequently appearing to fellowship with them, but it seems that He would appear often enough that they could recognize by mere sound that God was around by the way His "walking" made noise. Maybe even accompanied by a "storm theophany" as you suggested. God's question, "where are you?" might also suggest that both parties (1. God and 2. Adam and Eve) knew where they would normally meet. God not seeing them there, and the couple hiding elsewhere might suggest it wasn't the first time God visited them.
ii) We don't know that God was clothed in fabric. Perhaps he was clothed in light.
I didn't intend to imply that God was clothed in cloth. Being clothed in light is definitely a possibility (it being a theophany). In the passage the devil is called a serpent or "nachash" (from the root Nachash, "to shine"). As I think you too have noted it has the connotation of a "shining one". The devil might have intentionally appeared in a luminous fashion to impress Adam and Eve with his status (to better deceive and tempt them) in a way that God might not have appeared in previous encounters with Adam and Eve.
There's nothing in the text to support that elaborate psychologizing.
Piper is of course doing some psychological and theological speculating, but partly based on the fact that Adam blamed Eve for his disobedience. Insinuating her untrustworthiness and (likely) that of God's for giving her to him.
There's no logical connection between feeling shame for wronging and feeling shame for nudity.
It's a psychological one. He was no longer what he ought to have been. As they say, shame is often not primarily feeling bad about the evil one has done [which would be feelings of guilt], but what one is (or fails to be) because of what one has done [i.e. feelings of shame]. So, it makes some psychological sense to hide that with clothing. Even today, many people dress in a way to impress others to make them look better and more important than they actually are and to hide what they aren't or are ashamed of. That might be the same reason the (previously fallen) devil may have appeared to Adam and Eve as a shining speaker of light. While God may not have had to because He was secure in His own holy adequacy.
That's backwards. The question at issue isn't the "nakedness of innocence" but the innocence of nakedness.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean there. But I think they're connected. Because prelapsus Adam and Eve were innocent, they could be naked an unashamed. Whereas postlapsus Adam and Eve naturally wanted to hide "what" they were (or had become).
The question I have is why loincloths? If I'm right about their shame about their 'whatness', then shouldn't they have sewed full body burkas? Maybe because their genitals were the most obvious distinguishing and distinctive features between them, and because one of the most vulnerable and psychologically exposed situations one can ever be is during coitus. Having broken their covenant with God and each other, maybe their sexual differences became the focal point of their shame and so that's why they made loincloths. Besides, the weather might have made wearing something like a burka oppressively hot.
That's not "ordained" in Gen 3.
True. It's not even implicitly ordained there. But assuming that the moral requirement of modesty ante-dates the New Testament, then the command for modesty in dress was likely given early on in human history. If not in explicit special revelation, then in general revelation and/or implanted into the conscience of early man on account of the Fall.
"Maybe God wasn't in the habit of frequently appearing to fellowship with them, but it seems that He would appear often enough that they could recognize by mere sound that God was around by the way His 'walking' made noise."
Deletei) That's not very realistic. More likely, the unusual or alarming sound alerted them to the sudden ominous presence of someone or something, which they could then see approaching.
ii) Moreover, to say they hid themselves from God doesn't imply that they initially knew it was God. Just that what they hid themselves from was God. It's the narrator, not Adam and Eve, who identifies the visitor as God.
"Maybe even accompanied by a "storm theophany" as you suggested."
I didn't suggest that he normally appeared to them in a storm theophany. Rather, that's indexed to divine judgment.
"God's question, 'where are you?' might also suggest that both parties (1. God and 2. Adam and Eve) knew where they would normally meet. God not seeing them there, and the couple hiding elsewhere might suggest it wasn't the first time God visited them."
No, it's a rhetorical question to draw them out.
"Piper is of course doing some psychological and theological speculating, but partly based on the fact that Adam blamed Eve for his disobedience. Insinuating her untrustworthiness and (likely) that of God's for giving her to him."
Which has nothing to do with nudity.
"So, it makes some psychological sense to hide that with clothing."
Asserting that it's psychological assumes the very point at issue: why would they associate nudity with shame?
"Maybe because their genitals were the most obvious distinguishing and distinctive features between them, and because one of the most vulnerable and psychologically exposed situations one can ever be is during coitus."
It's my impression that women are more self-conscious about nudity than men. For women, nudity is a more vulnerable condition.
While coitus implies nudity, nudity does't imply coitus.
"Besides, the weather might have made wearing something like a burka oppressively hot."
True.
"But assuming that the moral requirement of modesty ante-dates the New Testament, then the command for modesty in dress was likely given early on in human history."
That's circular.
"If not in explicit special revelation, then in general revelation and/or implanted into the conscience of early man on account of the Fall."
Lots of tribes in the tropics are nude. Ancient Egyptian art has a fair amount of nudity. Same thing with Greek and Indian art. As well as Chinese and Japanese art (although I know less about that.) It's often related to living in a hot climate.
//ii) Moreover, to say they hid themselves from God doesn't imply that they initially knew it was God. Just that what they hid themselves from was God. It's the narrator, not Adam and Eve, who identifies the visitor as God.//
DeleteIt's possible that Adam was being honest when he said they hid because they identified God's presence by the sound of His walking.
//No, it's a rhetorical question to draw them out.//
I agree that's the primary reason.
//That's circular. //
The incident with Ham seeing Noah's "nakedness" (whatever that might refer to) would suggest that even as early as the patriarchs there existed some sort of understanding of the inappropriateness of viewing of other (adult) people's nudity and/or things connected with their sexuality (e.g. sexual activity) without their consent. That would seem to presuppose some understanding of the idea of modesty as its foundation. The former having to do with other people's response to a person's nudity; the latter with one's own sense of nudity.
Lots of tribes in the tropics are nude. Ancient Egyptian art has a fair amount of nudity. Same thing with Greek and Indian art. As well as Chinese and Japanese art (although I know less about that.) It's often related to living in a hot climate.
The farther people groups are from the geography and cultures where the partriarchs lived as well as from the Special Revelation God gave to the Jews the less they seem to have a concept and/or practice of modesty. That might reflect their loss of the original revelations and/or traditions given to the antediluvians. One of the complaints anti-Christians have about 2000 years of Christian missionaries is that they spread the plague of shame in connection with nudity. But that's just part of Christian evangelism. Teaching non-Christians about true morality and our condition before God. In one sense nudity is natural, but in another sense it has become unnatural due to the Fall.
That physical nakedness has some connection with spiritual nakedness before God is a common theme in the Scriptures. Not just OT, but also NT. For example:
"Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame."- Rev. 16:15
17 Because you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing' --- and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked ---
18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.- Rev. 3:17-18
1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven,
3 if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked.- 2 Cor. 5:1-3
It's also somehow connected with our righteousness either imputed or inherent by use of the figure of wearing a robe or garments.
11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment.
12 So he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless.- Matt. 22:11-12
And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.- Rev. 19:8
13 Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?"
14 And I said to him, "Sir, you know." So he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.- Rev. 7:13-14
[cf. Exo. 20:26; Isa. 47:3; Ezek. 16:36-39; Hos. 2:3, 9; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 4:4; 6:11; 7:9]
"It's possible that Adam was being honest when he said they hid because they identified God's presence by the sound of His walking."
DeleteIt's a compressed account. The theophany has stages, where God appears at a distance, which gives them time to hide. Then it goes over to where they're hiding and speaks to them, to show that God can detect their location. Their evasive maneuvers failed.
"The incident with Ham seeing Noah's 'nakedness' (whatever that might refer to) would suggest that even as early as the patriarchs there existed some sort of understanding of the inappropriateness of viewing of other (adult) people's nudity and/or things connected with their sexuality (e.g. sexual activity) without their consent."
i) "Uncovering nakedness" is an idiomatic euphemism for sex, not seeing someone naked.
ii) BTW, is it inappropriate for brothers to see each other naked? Is it inappropriate for sisters to see each other naked?
"The farther people groups are from the geography and cultures where the partriarchs lived as well as from the Special Revelation God gave to the Jews the less they seem to have a concept and/or practice of modesty. That might reflect their loss of the original revelations and/or traditions given to the antediluvians."
Now you're backpedaling from your original claim that:
"If not in explicit special revelation, then in general revelation and/or implanted into the conscience of early man on account of the Fall."
So you're just making stuff up as you go along, then when that falls flat, you reverse yourself.
"That physical nakedness has some connection with spiritual nakedness before God is a common theme in the Scriptures."
Yeah, nudity as a metaphor, like adultery as a metaphor. Does nothing to explain why Adam would allegedly make that psychological association.