Warped Images

III. LOSS OF INNOCENCE

God's dominion is first on display through creation, but after creating things, he names them. Then, after giving Adam some orders about how to conduct himself in the Garden, God gives Adam authority to name every creature on Earth (Genesis 2:19). This is a great gift, to be delegated authority to not only rule over the things that God created, but to give them names. Think of the significance of names within the Bible, in the third Commandment, we're told not to take the Lord's name in vain. Think of the man who the Apostles rebuked, who was casting out unclean spirits in Christ's name (Luke 9:49). If we consider the gravity of being able to name something, it gives us a chance to really consider what sort of significance there was behind Adam being allowed to also name call the first woman, "Woman" (Genesis 2:23). Then, after being cast out, Adam gave the woman a new name based on her role: Eve, because she was the mother of all living (Genesis 3:20). 

Adam and Eve had been removed from the Garden, simply for eating a fruit. We could say, "they were kicked out for disobeying God" and be correct, but there's more to be seen here. The fruit they ate was from the Tree of Knowing Good and Evil (Genesis 3:5). The question that might be asked is, "Why would God not want them to know?" This is a reasonable question, as it seems a loving God might not want to keep his people in ignorance. Well, one very useful interpretation, which I originally heard from The Bible Project, is that God had created all things, and after creation, he designated their status as "good." The serpent approaches Eve and tells her that eating the fruit will open her eyes, and she will "be as gods" (Genesis 3:5). When God was creating, he would say, for example, "the light was good," where was good is translated from the Hebrew word "towb." When Eve looks upon the tree, the first observation she makes is "that the tree towb for food." Eve judged the tree to be good for food on her own, and had thus chosen to define moral judgments by her own standards, not by the standards set forth by God.

The fallout from this action is that Adam and Eve immediately realize that they're naked, and hide themselves from God. One thing that seems worth pondering is whether the state of being nude is being indicated to be sinful here, or if there's something else at play. If we presume that God hadn't created them and let them run around in a sinful state, we can conclude that it's not nudity itself which is the sin, but because of their new perception, it had become sinful. This is simple to understand when we think of children, who often are bathed together with their siblings, but after their "loss of innocence" this is no longer appropriate. Adam and Eve had lost their innocence, and so they understood their nudity to be inappropriate.

At this point, a concept comes to mind from Paul's letter to the Romans that might be worth exploring. The context is Paul discussing the eating of meat that was sacrificed to idols. The general assessment is that servants of Christ are fine in doing so, unless we're with someone who would be upset by us eating it, in which case we ought not, because it would be uncharitable (Romans 14:15). His rationale is for us not to act as stumbling blocks for the faith of others (Romans 14:13), and if someone else believes that eating meat is sinful, and they see you do it, they might be persuaded to do something they find sinful. Well, what does it matter whether or not he finds it sinful? If it's sinful it's sinful, if it's not, it's not, right? Paul then tells us something monumental to our conception of sin:

I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. (Romans 14:14)

Paul follows this by explaining that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost (Romans 14:17). He wants us to make peace, and improve each other's faith; he believes that we should do nothing to hinder someone else's faith (Romans 14:17-21).

Paul could be taken as solely referring to food and drink, but he does seem to indicate a broader intent in the end. He's already stated that we should not do anything that would hinder someone else's faith, and it seems faulty to suggest that we ought to limit the scope of this to food and drink. If we did that, we would be suggesting that Paul has a specific issue with us creating stumbling blocks when it comes to food and drink, but has no issue with stumbling blocks created elsewhere. The more likely understanding is that Paul is actually meaning it when he says "anything," and is telling us that if we do anything at all to make someone else stumble in faith, we're wrong. If we can accept this broad distinction, then the next two verses become even more bold:

Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (Romans 14:22-23)

We can then take this as Paul telling us that if we do anything, and it's not from faith, it's a sin. If we do anything, and it's from faith, it's righteous. So, what's the upper limit on this concept? Could I murder someone and have it not counted as sin? The answer seems to be yes, but only if you can do it from a place of pure faith. Now, I'm going to go on a limb and suggest that you will not, and presumably cannot commit a murder as an act of pure faith, so don't test the waters. So, in one sense, it's extremely freeing, but in another, it's extremely restrictive. Because while it tells us that we could theoretically get away with any physical action, it also indicates that we could be condemned by any physical action! If you are about to take any action, and you doubt for a second that you're doing so in faith, you're damned.

This is what seems to have occurred with Adam and Eve when they saw that they were naked. They'd always been naked, being naked was no issue, but once they had lost their innocence, they saw it as sinful, and were ashamed. Once they'd lost that innocence, they could not be naked around each other in good faith, and thus the fact that they were naked became a sinful state. Obviously, the act of taking the fruit was a violation of God's commandment, so to do so was a violation of the faith they had that God knew what was best for them.