E-MAIL NEWSLETTERS







There was an error processing this request. We cannot subscribe you to newsletters at this time. Please contact technical support with details.
Featured Sponsors
HOME

AVERAGE USER RATING

RATE THIS ARTICLE

  • Email
  • Print
  • Discuss
Search The Bible   
Advanced Search
Product photo

The Rebellion of Nudity and the Meaning of Clothing

John Piper

Desiring God


The first consequence of Adam’s and Eve’s sin mentioned in Genesis 3:7 is that “the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.” 

Suddenly they are self-conscious about their bodies. Before their rebellion against God, there was no shame. “The man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (Genesis 2:25). Now there is shame. Why?

There is no reason to think that it’s because they suddenly became ugly. Their beauty wasn’t the focus in Genesis 2:25, and their ugliness is not the focus here in Genesis 3:7. Why then the shame? Because the foundation of covenant-keeping love collapsed. And with it the sweet, all-trusting security of marriage disappeared forever.

The foundation of covenant-keeping love between a man and a woman is the unbroken covenant between them and God—God governing them for their good and they enjoying him in that security and relying on him. When they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that covenant was broken and the foundation of their own covenant-keeping collapsed.

They experienced this immediately in the corruption of their own covenant love for each other. It happened in two ways. Both relate to the experience of shame. In the first case, the one viewing my nakedness is no longer trustworthy, so I am afraid I will be shamed. In the second, I myself am no longer at peace with God, but I feel guilty and defiled and unworthy—I deserve to be shamed.

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. So suddenly my nakedness is precarious. I don’t trust her any more to love me with pure covenant-keeping love. That’s one source of my shame.

The other source is that Adam himself, not just his spouse, has broken covenant with God. If she is rebellious and selfish, and therefore unsafe, so am I. But the way I experience it in myself is that I feel defiled and guilty and unworthy. That’s, in fact, what I am. Before the Fall, what was and what ought to have been were the same. But now, what is and what ought to be are not the same.

I ought to be humbly and gladly submissive to God. But I am not. This huge gap between what I am and what I ought to be colors everything about me—including how I feel about my body. So my wife might be the safest person in the world, but now my own sense of guilt and unworthiness makes me feel vulnerable. The simple, open nakedness of innocence now feels inconsistent with the guilty person that I am. I feel ashamed.

1 | 2 | Next | All
Most Recent User Comments
caligirl_kiwi
8/23/2008 2:09 PM
I think the author has missed a very important point. The fig leaves were an incomplete covering. God had something bigger in mind than simply covering over their shame. I think the animal skins point to Christ in that the shedding of the innocent blood of the animals was necessary to provide the "complete" covering.

Christ's blood was shed as payment in full for our sins, and as a response, we "put on" the garment of righteousness whereupon we are properly "covered."
IHSfour
6/9/2008 6:12 PM
Well, I certainly agree with this article. In fact, if I understand the original wording correctly, Adam and Eve made themselves "aprons" and God validated their new need for clothing and made "tunics" for them. So, God's provision was even more of a covering than they thought they needed. Interesting and humbling.
mch3172
6/9/2008 8:59 AM
Thanks for a great article, and explanation on why modesty is biblical. We also have Genesis 9:20-26. While Ham is cursed for his disrespect in looking on Noah's nakedness, Shem and Japheth are blessed for covering Noah up (and waling backwards so they wouldn't see him while doing so.)

I remember C.S. Lewis refuted the nudist's argument that we become someehow more sincere when nude, since the etymology of "naked" from the verb "to nake," implies that to be naked is not our natural state (after the Fall) since the action of "naking" would have to take place first. I believe this is in _The Four Loves_.

Sign up to post your comments

It's quick and easy to register with Crosswalk.com! Just fill out the short form below. You'll have the opportunity to post comments, and be more involved in our community and forums. Plus, with this one account, you can sign in anywhere in our network of sites displaying the Salem All-Pass logo, including Oneplace.com, Christianity.com, Lightsource.com, Crosscards.com, and more!