Being naked and human

[pastorlenny]

This is just a thought for those who struggle with the authority (which we can distinguish from the literalism) of Genesis.

Let's assume, for the moment, that humankind indeed evolved from some species of ape.  Let us therefore further assume that the account in the opening chapters of Genesis does not literally describe the origins of humankind,

Comments

[mlfoley]

I don't think nakedness is wrong, to be honest. My misshapen, scarred up body notwithstanding. ;D I wear clothes for a more utilitarian reason - it's the law and to keep my body covered up from any possible injury that can be avoided. And, of course, in the winter to keep warm.

But then, I tend to see Genesis as basically 'explanatory mythology.' In other words, it answers questions that the individuals who wrote it had. "Why do we wear clothes?" is one of them. "Why do we fear, yet revere snakes?" and "Why are we clearly more intelligent than animals - more "God-like" as it were?" (Genesis 3:22)

I'm not so sure that the taboo about wearing clothes was universal - the other Middle Eastern countries were more loose in their sexual activities, so I can't imagine they were hung up on clothes. Even today, there are plenty of people who are nudists (and there were constant uprisings of such groups in the Medieval era) so the taboo is not really as universal as one might think.

[pastorlenny]

My point is not the universality of the taboo. I already noted this in the OP. Nor is it modern social and cultural attitudes towards clothing. My point is to raise the issue of whether the first behavioral marker to differentiate a hominid from a human was the donning of a loincloth -- as opposed to the conventional academic markers of language and tool-making.

[mlfoley]

I suppose from a Biblical POV that's true. But it would be impossible to tell. It is more likely that mankind wore loincloths or other articles of clothing after shedding much of its hair and seeking a form of protection, rather than the shame idea that is central to the Genesis account.

[pastorlenny]

Not sure I'd buy the hair thing -- considering we're still doing pretty good in that department around the very area we conceal. Also, if the issue was just physical protection, footwear would precede loincloths. Based on current anthropological observation, that's not the case.

And when you use the term "more likely," are you speaking mathematically? How would you go about calculating the probability of one conjecture compared with another? Have you interviewed any neanderthals about their shame issues? Any other clinical basis for your assertion? Sources?

[thehonorableryu]

What I like is how even their clothing preaches the gospel. :)

When the man and woman realized that they were naked because their consciences had become fully functional, they sewed loincloths out of fig leaves to cover their nakedness (Gen. 3:7). But the Lord basically said, "this won't do" by making coats of animal skin for them (Gen. 3:21), which anticipates the shedding of blood for the covering and forgiveness of sins (cf. Heb. 9:22).

Adam and Eve undoubtedly preached this anticipatory gospel to their children, because Abel--who is specifically named as having faith (cf. Heb. 11:4) which comes through hearing (Rom. 10:17, 14)--knew to tend sheep for his offerings (prior to the commandment that they may eat meat), while Cain merely offered the first of his fruits and vegetables.

Even in the first three chapters of Genesis we see the gospel. God created, humanity fell, but the Lord promised to save.
And there is no creature that is not manifest before Him, but all things are naked and bare to the eyes of Him to whom we are to

[pastorlenny]

Hehe. I figured someone versed in the Christology of the OT would highlight the salvific aspect of the Genesis account.

But, again, my point in this particular post is not the theology of the account. It is its unique descriptive authority. Scripture does not initiate its narrative of Man-in-the-world with toolmaking or language (although one could argue that both were present in Eden). It specifically presents nakedness and awareness of that nakedness as the markers of a turning point in human consciousness. This is a rather striking assertion to me -- regardless of whether specific cultures or individuals buy into the "taboo."

The phenomenon of nudism, in fact, only underscores the point. By specifically associating the pathology of human society with the nakedness taboo, nudists are agreeing with Genesis in a fundamental way.

[alainn_mactire]

"The phenomenon of nudism, in fact, only underscores the point. By specifically associating the pathology of human society with the nakedness taboo, nudists are agreeing with Genesis in a fundamental way."

That's an interesting idea...I'd never really thought much about it ("Husband" is one of those people who would seriously be happy to never get dressed again - it's not a sexual thing, he just kinda hates clothes. Never understood it myself...)

[spyro_prime]

"By specifically associating the pathology of human society with the nakedness taboo, nudists are agreeing with Genesis in a fundamental way."

I don't understand. Before the Fall, it was different; after the Fall, there was vanity;
Real nudists also are naked in front of their kids as some European and Asian cultures still do.

What happened to being appropriate? Christ did not walk around naked, I am confused.

It's an interesting point, but I don't get it.

[efriden]

Well, of course Genesis is authoritative in a unique way! It's part of a little something we Christians refer to as the Word of God, but that's something which YOU would never understand, Jeroboam!

[pastorlenny]

I repent of my waywardness, O Korah most wise!

Seriously, there are a lot of Christians in this community who seem to really struggle with the authority of the OT because they also struggle with its literal veracity. So they wind up not relating to the Hebrew scriptures as divinely inspired in their totality. (We will, for the moment, avoid the use of the particular construction "Word of God"). This is a terrible loss for the Church. My intent here is to help at least one person at least take one step towards reclaiming the revelation of the OT's plenary authority -- regardless of where they're at with its literalism.

[efriden]

Most persons who object to the OT object to the "vengeful God" they find there. When people say things like that, I'm wondering if they've ever read the OT. I mean, how many verses of the OT presents God as a "genocidal maniac" and how many verses present Him as all-loving? Duh! And as for the very few passages that seem to clash with modern science, well, if you have problems with authority of the OT because of those, it's probably because you want to.

I'm the one who's always saying under my breath through clenched teeth, when Evangelicals are handing out the "Biker's Bible", the "Metal Bible" et.c: "That's not the Bible - that's the NT with some testimonies slapped on!"

[pastorlenny]

Well I myself have been known to hand out a Gospel of John from time to time. But that's just because nobody prints a Leviticus-and-Romans! :)

[nobleprolet]

Nice post, Lenny.

Sometimes I wonder a lot about Adam and Eve in Eden ... how happy their life must have been while they were protected from knowing good and evil. I think this bliss is not achievable anymore. And nobody completely knows what it was like.

Well, we can look forward to redemption. To a good future for eternity.

[sybbis]

I really like this! I've been told before, sadly, that not believing in the literality of Genesis meant that I was not a Christian because I didn't believe the Bible was "true". I've always struggled with how to properly explain that just because I don't believe that it happened exactly as described doesn't mean that I think that Genesis is just a work of fiction for entertainment. I'm having a very good time right now reading through the Old Testament now that I've stopped being uncomfortable with it and recognized that yes, it contains very valuable information and I don't have to spend every moment figuring out what I think actually happened and what didn't. From a spiritual perspective, that isn't what's important.

[pastorlenny]

The OT is fully authoritative in all its particulars. One can hold this position regardless of how one wrestles with the literalism of certain passages. I am very glad if you found this post helpful in this regard. Let's pray that the Holy Spirit would reveal to you the full richness in what you're now reading.