Does Genesis 3 teach that Adam and Eve's fig-leaf loincloths (v. 7) were unable to cover nakedness?

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
607
193
Washington State
✟103,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hello! In Genesis 3:6-11, the first recorded effect of Adam and Eve's sin is that they realized they were naked. Because of this, they sewed fig leaves together to make loincloths, but this isn't considered enough, and their dialogue with God reveals they were still naked. Instead, in Genesis 3:21, God made them tunics of skin.

While there are many contrasts that can be drawn between the fig-leaf loincloths and the tunics of skin, does the text suggest that the fig leaves were unable to cover nakedness (since it still suggests Adam and Eve were naked in Genesis 3:10)? Thanks!
 

spiritfilledjm

Well-known Member
Supporter
Apr 15, 2007
1,844
1,642
37
Indianapolis, Indiana
✟225,404.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Considering they hid, and it was just leaves, yes. They would have known...or felt, rather, thanks to the new knowledge they obtained...they were still not sufficiently covered to hide their nakedness.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Kilk1
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Hello! In Genesis 3:6-11, the first recorded effect of Adam and Eve's sin is that they realized they were naked. Because of this, they sewed fig leaves together to make loincloths, but this isn't considered enough, and their dialogue with God reveals they were still naked. Instead, in Genesis 3:21, God made them tunics of skin.

While there are many contrasts that can be drawn between the fig-leaf loincloths and the tunics of skin, does the text suggest that the fig leaves were unable to cover nakedness (since it still suggests Adam and Eve were naked in Genesis 3:10)? Thanks!

It says they saw they were naked after they ate the fruit and so to fix that - they sewed leaves to make clothes, since they knew it would be wrong to appear before God naked.

The implication is that prior to falling into sin they had a robe of light such as the angels have - or some other form of covering which was not there after they sinned and so they knew when God saw them with robes of fig leaves He would know something had gone wrong. This means they would have to confess to eating of the tree - since apparently that event resulted in their being naked.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: pdudgeon
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Some versions use the term aprons. I guess it depends on the apron for how well it'd cover them. Possibly their continued nakedness has a spiritual rather than literal meaning.

If it was merely spiritual then a physical robe of leaves would not have addressed the problem. The fact that they had to resort to a physical robe of leaves means the problem they were trying to solve was physical - in addition to the spiritual issue of guilt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kilk1
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
607
193
Washington State
✟103,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It says they saw they were naked after they ate the fruit and so to fix that - they sewed leaves to make clothes, since they knew it would be wrong to appear before God naked.

The implication is that prior to falling into sin they had a robe of light such as the angels have - or some other form of covering which was not there after they sinned and so they knew when God saw them with robes of fig leaves He would know something had gone wrong. This means they would have to confess to eating of the tree - since apparently that event resulted in their being naked.
Thanks for the reply! I'm not sure I'm seeing robes of light anywhere in the passage. In fact, Genesis 2:25 says they were naked without shame. It's after this verse that we read of them falling into sin, when they realize they're naked and try covering. But even after doing so, they hide when God comes, and Adam says the reason for doing so is this: "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself" (Gen. 3:10, NKJV). God replies in verse 11, "Who told you that you were naked?" (NKJV).

Doesn't this imply that the change was that they realized they were naked all long (Genesis 2:25; Genesis 3:7) rather than that they were not naked due to alleged robes of light? The robes-of-light view seems eisegetical rather than exegetical--contradicted by Genesis 2:25, in fact--but I'm open to further explanation. :)
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for the reply! I'm not sure I'm seeing robes of light anywhere in the passage.

The text does not tell us what was solving the problem in their sinless state such that they could appear in God's presence without a problem and were not naked. but it is clear that they knew it would be wrong to do such a thing as appearing naked before God.

The Bible does tell us that the Angels are covered by robes of light - so that is one of the available options for solving the problem.
 
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Hello! In Genesis 3:6-11, the first recorded effect of Adam and Eve's sin is that they realized they were naked. Because of this, they sewed fig leaves together to make loincloths, but this isn't considered enough, and their dialogue with God reveals they were still naked. Instead, in Genesis 3:21, God made them tunics of skin.

While there are many contrasts that can be drawn between the fig-leaf loincloths and the tunics of skin, does the text suggest that the fig leaves were unable to cover nakedness (since it still suggests Adam and Eve were naked in Genesis 3:10)? Thanks!


1) I really think the scripture is hinting at something more. I would compare it to a few chapters later where God rejects the sacrifice of Cain, of fruit etc. that he grew, but accepted Abel's sacrifice of from his flock. Basically the problem of sin etc. is too big to need just a band aid of something easy, it requires a life that will foreshadow the death of Christ.


2) With the OP passage etc. I also think there is some kind of message there about the Sarx / flesh. Like many other passages in the Bible have some kind of allegorical type meanings like Moses being told to take off his sandals (made of leather a form of Sarx) before entering Holy Ground etc, the high priest likewise was forbidden to wear shoes or sandals (which would have been made of leather).

It definitely marks the start of the Flesh being a powerful motivational force, spiritual hindrance etc. and it is linked with our being alienated from God due to rebellion. The self consciousness comes from a loss of Shalom/Peace that comes directly from the breaking of Communion with God.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Until the death of Christ animals were sacrificed as an atonement, or 'covering' for sin. The animal that was killed to cover the sin of Adam and Eve was likely a 'lamb without blemish', killed by God himself. That they now felt a sense of shame because of their nakedness isn't clearly understood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobRyan
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hello! In Genesis 3:6-11, the first recorded effect of Adam and Eve's sin is that they realized they were naked. Because of this, they sewed fig leaves together to make loincloths, but this isn't considered enough, and their dialogue with God reveals they were still naked. Instead, in Genesis 3:21, God made the m tunics of skin.

Naked cannot mean unclothed as there is no sin in being as you were created in the privacy of your own home, so it must be a metaphor for sin as it is used throughout the bible especially Rev 3:17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. which links the use of naked as sinful to being blind to your sin and therefore not ashamed of your sin.

They were naked before they ate and nothing changed about their nakedness when they ate except they were suddenly aware of their sinfulness and were ashamed, just like the law is supposed to work to convict us of sin: 1 Tim 1:9 We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious…etc with
Rom 3:20 For the law merely brings awareness (ie convicts) of sin.

The law is not given to the righteous...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
607
193
Washington State
✟103,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The text does not tell us what was solving the problem in their sinless state such that they could appear in God's presence without a problem and were not naked. but it is clear that they knew it would be wrong to do such a thing as appearing naked before God.

The Bible does tell us that the Angels are covered by robes of light - so that is one of the available options for solving the problem.
From what I've been able to gather, the contrast doesn't seem to be that before eating of the tree, they were clothed with robes of light, while afterward, they became naked. Rather, doesn't the text teach that they already were naked before partaking of the tree but weren't ashamed (Genesis 2:25), and then when they partook of the tree, that opened their eyes to the fact that they were naked (rather than made them become naked in the first place) (Genesis 3:7)?
 
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
607
193
Washington State
✟103,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Naked cannot mean unclothed as there is no sin in being as you were created in the privacy of your own home, so it must be a metaphor for sin as it is used throughout the bible especially Rev 3:17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. which links the use of naked as sinful to being blind to your sin and therefore not ashamed of your sin.

They were naked before they ate and nothing changed about their nakedness when they ate except they were suddenly aware of their sinfulness and were ashamed, just like the law is supposed to work to convict us of sin: 1 Tim 1:9 We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious…etc with
Rom 3:20 For the law merely brings awareness (ie convicts) of sin.

The law is not given to the righteous...
Doesn't Genesis 2:25 suggest they were already naked before eating of the tree (and thus, it's referring not to sin but literal nakedness)? Also, upon realizing their nakedness, isn't their solution to cover themselves with fig leaves (Genesis 3:7)? If so, don't these things suggest we're talking about literal nakedness and literal attempts to cover said nakedness? Granted, their could be a lot of spiritual applications to be made here as well, but isn't the direct meaning of "nakedness" here referring to being improperly clothed?
 
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Doesn't Genesis 2:25 suggest they were already naked before eating of the tree (and thus, it's referring not to sin but literal nakedness)? Also, upon realizing their nakedness, isn't their solution to cover themselves with fig leaves (Genesis 3:7)? If so, don't these things suggest we're talking about literal nakedness and literal attempts to cover said nakedness? Granted, their could be a lot of spiritual applications to be made here as well, but isn't the direct meaning of "nakedness" here referring to being improperly clothed?
Does this not imply that GOD created them lacking in perfection???

If they were sinful and got the command not to eat to open their eyes to their sinfulness in that they could not keep even this simple command then covering themselves with fig leaves would be a metaphor in keeping with their sinfulness being described as being naked, a metaphor for their trying to regain their status with GOD but by their own works outside of HIS grace in Christ as found in the metaphor/type of the skin coats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
607
193
Washington State
✟103,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Does this not imply that GOD created them lacking in perfection???

If they were sinful and got the command not to eat to open their eyes to their sinfulness in that they could not keep even this simple command then covering themselves with fig leaves would be a metaphor in keeping with their sinfulness being described as being naked, a metaphor for their trying to regain their status with GOD but by their own works outside of HIS grace in Christ as found in the metaphor/type of the skin coats.
I think that's a good spiritual application of the story, that trying to cover themselves with fig leaves can represent trying to cover sin without God. As said in the OP, there are many contrasts that can be drawn between the fig-leaf loincloths and the tunics of skin. However, we can't make spiritual applications without knowing the literal statements made, so according to the literal statements made, would the following be accurate?

Adam and Eve were already naked before partaking of the tree (Genesis 2:25). Afterward, they partook of the tree, which opened their eyes to the nakedness they already had (Genesis 3:6-7). To address this, they attempted to make coverings from fig leaves (Genesis 3:7) but were still naked despite these efforts, hiding themselves because they were naked (Genesis 3:8-11). To properly clothe them, God made tunics of skin instead (Genesis 3:21).

The above paragraph sums up what I seem to be reading. Of course, spiritual applications can be made, such as how their failed attempts to address their nakedness—attempts which were properly solved by God—parallel man's failed attempts to address sin—attempts which are properly solved through Christ. However, there seems to be a literal story from which these spiritual applications are made.

I think the main question I'd like to ask you is this: What does Genesis 2:25 mean?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think the main question I'd like to ask you is this: What does Genesis 2:25 mean?
It suggests that they were sinful but not yet convicted of their sinfulness, ie, they still thought they were righteous and so were not ashamed.
 
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
607
193
Washington State
✟103,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It suggests that they were sinful but not yet convicted of their sinfulness, ie, they still thought they were righteous and so were not ashamed.
Wait, but wouldn't that mean that they were sinful before partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
 
Upvote 0