What Do The First Three Chapters Of Genesis Teach About Clothing?
By Ian B. Johnson
This essay will attempt to
answer the following questions, and in the process demonstrate where Christian
tradition has strayed from the truth by following the teachings of pagan
philosophers:
(1) Do the first three chapters
of Genesis teach that God requires people to wear clothing?
(2) If it is assumed that
one of the teachings of these chapters is that clothing is required, is
clothing required because God regards the physical human body as evil?
(3) If it is assumed that
God does not regard the human body as evil, from what source did the requirement
of clothing arise in this passage?
Does The Passage Teach That God Requires Clothing Or Condemns Nakedness?
Religious tradition aside,
the obvious answer is "no." God created man in His own image, and did not
mention creating clothes for man to wear as a necessary part of that image
(Genesis 1.26-27). Moreover, God created man male and female (Genesis 1.26),
and created both halves of man naked (Genesis 2.25). Indeed, while they
were in their state of innocent nakedness, God called man "good" (Genesis
1.30) and blessed them (Genesis 1.28). In his initial state of innocence,
neither man nor wife was ashamed to be naked in the other's presence (Genesis
2.25), and, more importantly, neither felt any shame walking and conversing
with God in this state (compare Genesis 2.15-16, 2.23 and 3.8-11). God
had also commanded man to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1.28) without
giving any command as to the wearing of clothing after children were born.
Although the entrance of sin changed the situation before any children
were born, the Scriptures nowhere state anything which would imply that,
if man had reproduced before sin came, clothing would have been required
for the children's sake. Neither is there anything in Scripture which even
vaguely supports the tradition taught by some churches that man was covered
with a "robe of righteousness" so that Adam and Eve could not see each
other's bodies. This passage clearly says that they were "naked" — not
partially clothed in an opaque spiritual garment — and were not ashamed
(Genesis 2.25).
However, after sin came,
Adam and Eve (who previously had been "man," one being, male and female)
understood they were naked and believed they needed clothing, and sewed
fig leaves together to cover themselves (Genesis 3.7). When God observed
their shame, and their attempt to cover their bodies in shame, He provided
animal skins for them (Genesis 3.21). These skins were a better covering
in the practical sense that they would not wilt like leaves. The use of
animal skins was also designed to teach them that only God could provide
an adequate covering for their sin and that covering of their sins required
the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9.22-23).
It is traditional to infer
from God's act of providing Adam and Eve coats of skins that He has ever
since required people to wear clothing, and generally this inferred requirement
is then associated with some man-made standard of decent or modest dress
which God is said to enjoin in this passage. But it is just as natural
to read this passage as teaching that, when man noticed his own shame and
incorrectly concluded that the shame arose from his body rather than from
the sin in his spirit, God accommodated him by making him durable clothing
to help him overcome that shame and come to Him, even though He knew that
clothing was not the ultimate solution. However, the remainder of this
essay will assume that clothing was, at least in part, God's idea and that,
in making clothing for Adam and Eve, He made it a requirement for everyone.
Does God Regard The Human Body As Evil?
The simple answer to this
question is "no." When God created man, male and female, He called His
creation "very good" (Genesis 1.31). It later says that the man and his
wife were "naked" (Genesis 2.25) without qualifying the first verse
to say only that God saw that all of his creation except these naked
bodies was "very good." From this, it can only be concluded that God regarded
the bodies of the man and his wife that He had created as "very good" even
though they were naked. Moreover, it should be observed that after the
entrance of sin in Chapter 3, God never told either Adam or Eve that they
were naked, and never said anything to them which even inferentially endorsed
Adam's declaration that the problem that separated him from God was a lack
of clothing (as in, "I was afraid because I was naked, and I hid myself").
God created the human body good, and in this passage never gave any even
slight indication that this "good" body, of itself, had been rendered evil
by the entrance of sin.
From What Source Did The Requirement Of Clothing Arise?
As has already been suggested,
the answer to this question is stated quite plainly on the face of the
passage. The serpent had tempted the woman, and through her, the man, with
the lie that, if they ate the fruit, they would "be like God, knowing good
and evil" (Genesis 3.5). This was a lie because it was only partially true
but was presented as wholly true. The truth in it was that man did not
yet know evil. But it was a lie because man already knew all good, since
he walked with God intimately and was already just like God — created in
His image. (Genesis 1.25). Thus, the only thing man stood to "gain" from
eating the forbidden fruit was the knowledge of evil. When he did so, he
willfully exchanged the truth of God for a lie and became a fool (Romans
1.18-23).
When man became a fool and
received the knowledge of evil, the first thing the man and his wife (now
truly separate) noticed was that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves
together to make loin cloths for themselves (Genesis 3.7). They then hid
from God (Genesis 3.8). Adam explained the reason that he made loin cloths
and hid from God by saying that he was "afraid" (note, not "ashamed" or
"embarrassed") because he was naked (Genesis 3.10). He knew God had said
that if he ate the fruit he would surely die, but he had believed the serpent's
lie that this was not true and now sought another explanation for the fear
he felt. The fear was really a response to the judgment Adam knew God had
said He would bring on his sin, but Adam believed the fear arose from what
God might do to him because of the uncovered condition of the "good" body
God had made for him. This was the reasoning of a fool, and God showed
it to be so by asking whether Adam had come to know that he was naked because
he had eaten of the forbidden tree (Genesis 3.11).
The issue was Adam's sin,
not his clothes (or lack of them). The requirement for clothing sprang
from Adam's (and Eve's) incorrect identification of their sin with their
bodies and their consequent unreasonable fear of leaving those bodies uncovered
before God. They sought to cover their sin (something only Jesus could
do) by covering their bodies with fig leaves.
Before moving on from this
passage, one further comment should be made. God's first commandment to
man was to be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it
(Genesis 1.28a). The second commandment was to take dominion over the animal
creation (Genesis 1.26, 28b). The third and last commandment given to Adam
in innocence was not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil (Genesis 2.17). When Adam gave his obedience to a snake,
he abandoned the commandment to exercise dominion over the animals. When
he then ate the fruit he abandoned the command not to eat the fruit. This
left only one command he could fulfill: the command to be fruitful and
multiply. While Scripture nowhere straightforwardly declares this, it appears
likely that his insistence on clothing — specifically, "loincloths" — after
he sinned was an attempt to hide from God the very parts of his and his
wife's bodies which would make it possible for them to fulfill this first
commandment. Stated another way, now that Adam and Eve had abandoned God's
purpose for themselves and become fools, they appear to have mistakenly
believed that the reproductive parts of their bodies were evil, quite possibly
because reproduction was the one part of God's purpose they could still
accomplish. Historically, however, Adam and Eve have not been alone — most
of the great religions of the world have either outright taught that sex
and the sexual parts of the body are offensive to God or have had major
sub-movements within them that taught this. Christianity, unfortunately,
is no exception.
I ask this question, however:
Which is better to believe — God, who called our bodies good, or the corrupt
conscience of Adam, who had become a fool and was hiding from God? Unfortunately,
Christianity as a whole has traditionally insisted that the fool Adam expressed
the mind of God in this matter!
This Web site is printer-friendly.
