Friday, January 3, 2014

Were We Really Naked? An Objective View

I wonder why God asked "Who told you that you were naked?" to Adam when Adam said they were naked and afraid?

One theory was that man had an "aura" about him and lost that aura when he took of the fruit.  But how can they be "clothed with an aura" if they were "naked and not ashamed"? If they were clothed with something (such as light) that was removed, then technically, they were not naked. But they were "naked" according the story.

But then if we make the assumption that "lack of man made clothing" equates to nudity (naked), then I suppose in that light (pun intended), they were naked, that is, they were not wearing man made clothing from the writers perspective. From that perspective, they must be naked, right? But in reality, were they naked in God's sight, even though they look just like us when we are not wearing man made clothing?
God asked "Who told you that you were naked?" Why? Was it because they were NOT naked to God?
Maybe we were not wearing external clothing (cloth, leather, plants, light), but from God's perspective, neither were we naked! So in that sense, even though I am sitting here without any external clothes on, I am not really naked from God's perspective.
Adam and Eve

We have these self referential and subjective ideas that we push on God, which God says "NO" to. So when God saw Adam and Eve thinking outside of God's perspective, he made clothing for them to alleviate their fears. But that is only a temporary fix until the Christ, who came to make all things new again. He restored us, we are born again, made new and no longer under Adams' sin. I can think from God's perspective again!

As for our spiritual nakedness, God is much more concerned about that than he is about our physical nudity.  But Jesus came into our flesh, our humanity and redeemed it and gave us spiritual clothing so we are neither naked physically or spiritually in Christ.  The song "Christ the Solid Rock" says it simply "Dressed in His righteousness alone,  Faultless to stand before the throne."

One time I wrote "I am not naked, I'm just not wearing any clothes". Now I may need to bring back that thought with God's view of my "subjectively nude" body.


  1. Folks in the modern world, at least in the English-speaking parts of it, usually associated nakedness with either sex or shame or both. But the Bible only does so when there's a reason for it. Obviously there was no reason in Eden--at least until the eating of the Fruit.

    1. But the real question is, to God (not mans subject view), was man really naked? It's like a painting of a scene you worked hard on. As an artist, you are complete with the job. But someone else comes along and says, "you missed a spot". Did you? Or are they adding something that is not true about the painting? God did not ask us to critique his work or to make improvements on it, but to "keep it and take care of it". So as far as God is concerned, his question is quite legitimate, even though he was implying that He was certainly not the one who said they were naked.

  2. Additional Comment:
    Because from our point of view (broken humanity), we were naked in the Garden. As it says, "The man and woman was naked and not ashamed". From that point of view, they were naked, but had nothing to be ashamed of. The question in my article is that even though they were not wearing man made clothing, and from the way they look to us as naked, was that "naked" or just "image of God"?

    In a way, we are still seeing a "lack" when we see the image of God, by pronouncing it "naked", when in fact, there is no lack, therefore, not naked. So in a way, being naked is a sin when you look at the definition of naked in God's dictionary. "Naked: meaning lack, or missing something important, such as life eternal, faith, love, joy, peace, patience, etc. Missing the very nature and character of God".

    So receiving the holy spirit, which doesn't just "have" the very nature of God, but "IS" the very nature of God, the Father and Son and the very LIFE of God and God's righteousness, which means we are not only filled with God's nature, but covered and smothered as well, using a Waffle House description.

    So even though I am not wearing any earthly clothing, I am not naked.

    And here I wanted to run around naked. Oh well.

  3. I fully believe Adam & Eve were naked as we see nakedness, BUT their eyes had not been opened to that fact. Gen 3 v 7 "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked"
    Take a look at the animal kingdom. Apart from some pampered domesticated animals, they are all 'naked', BUT, their eyes are not open to that fact because they did not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So to them, how they roam about the earth is the natural (pun intended) way to be.

  4. Colin wrote: "I fully believe Adam & Eve were naked as we see nakedness" and that is exactly true. Yes, as WE see nakedness. And their eyes were opened, but by whom? Satan? Does that make our nudity (as it were) legitimate now that Satan showed us? This would imply that God was hiding a reality from us. But was God hiding a reality? Or was this a false image of man that Satan put into our minds? If someone taught you from birth that a yellow canary is really a purple people eater, you would grow up believing that not only is that creature everyone keeps calling a Canary is really a purple people eater, but every time you see "yellow" you think it's "purple". But is that real? Just because Adam and Eve's eyes were opened does not make what they see is real. They saw God coming into the garden calling for them in the "cool of the day", implying a relaxed, talking, caring Father who wants to see his children and spend time with them. But THEY saw an angry, selfish God who was holding back from them and about to punish them. Which is correct? Yes, our eyes were opened, but to a lie, not the truth. God never said they were right.

  5. Because Bible translators described Adam and Eve's physical condition of being without clothes as "naked", I believe they used the wrong word or set of words. Being "naked" is more than simply "being without clothes", which is really what "nude" means. Before their fall into sin, Adam and Eve were simply clothes-free, or "nude", but after the fall, they were not only "clothes-free", but their spiritual condition of being impoverished (separated from God) became a reality.

    I can smell another post to be written for my blog about the "shame" of their "nakedness".

    1. The translators were not off when they translated "Arom" as "naked", which in the narrators (writer) view point and who this person is writing to (a clothed people), the term "naked" or "nude" would be correct. However, the same writer wrote "Erom", which also means "naked", but in a negative way. The translators saw this as the same word meaning. The "naked and not ashamed" is correct, whereas "I was naked (Erom)", is not a good translation for an English speaking people who has only one word for naked. We could say "exposed" or using an Urban slang "Nekkid". Being without, exposed, uncertain, can all be issues rather than just "nude" or Arom.