Did You Eat From That Tree?

I, in my finite mind, always equated nakedness with the lack of clothes. It's amazing how much we take for granted, until our own reasoning is challenged. I had read the story of Adam and Eve many times, and it never dawned on me to question why they were so shook up behind realizing their nakedness. After all, they had always been naked. So I went over the account again, and there it was.

God, right after the fall of Adam, asked Adam two questions, one of which he never answered. I've often heard men and women preach and teach on the second question, and how Adam passed the buck to the woman, and how she passed it to the serpent. But, to my recollection, I have never heard anyone preach or teach on the first question.

The two questions that burned in Adams mind are found in the third chapter of Genesis; He said, " Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" I kind of equated that first question with the lack of clothing. Wrong! They lacked material clothing from the very beginning, that kind of nakedness was not a sudden new found awareness. Therefore, when Adam said, " I heard the sound of thee in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked: and I hid myself", he was not talking about material clothing. Notice that in verse seven (7) they had already provided themselves with aprons made from sewn fig leaves. So when Adam said he was afraid because he was naked, he already had a type of covering. So, if he was not referring to material clothing, or physical nakedness, what was he referring to?

We know when God created Adam he was a perfect immortal being, clothed in God's own righteousness. When Adam fell, or sinned, he was changed from immortal to mortal, and Gods' righteousness was withdrawn from him. Adam was now spiritually naked, as well as spiritually dead.

God, through his written word, tells us that we need to be clothed (spiritually). God, inspiring John to write to the Church at Laodicea said this, "therefore I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, that you may be rich, and white garments to clothe you and to keep the shame of your nakedness from being seen, ...." Revelation 3:18.

Adam never answered that first question because he didn't have to. No one had to tell him he was naked, he knew.

We know too. When we do things that go against our better judgement, against our conscious, against all conventional wisdom, no one have to tell us, we know.

The Bible says, " let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready; it was granted her to be clothed with fine linen, bright and pure - for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints", Revelation 19:7, 8 RSV.

More by this Author

  • He Did It Himself

    I want to tell you something that you need to know, It happened two thousand years ago, There was a man in the middle...


        “Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.” Mark 3:35 CSB Of all the institutions in the earth, ‘Family’ is among the most misunderstood....

Comments 55 comments

Iðunn 9 years ago

excellent hub. I hadn't thought of it that way before but it makes sense. your hubs are always thought-provoking.

Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 9 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Thank you IAunn. I appreciate you for reading it, and I'm glad you find it thought provoking.

Sophisticated Paperboy 9 years ago

Thanks for referring me to your hub. Quite provoking.

Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 9 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Thank you for visiting Sophisticated Paperboy.

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 9 years ago from Southern California

My understanding of what it means be 'naked' in this biblical sense, is to be *without* knowledge. In order to be one with knowledge, we must have truth, as well as personal experience with opposition, to confirm that which is true.

When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden, they were filled with truth and light. They were created of truth and light. Until opposition entered the Garden and they were placed in a position to now choose -- whether or not they would keep the commandment that God had given them in the Garden, they had no knowledge of evil.

God has ALL knowledge.

Good thoughts,


Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 9 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Thank you for your comments LdsNana-AskMormon. I am a little perplexed at part of your comment though. It sounds like you're saying that 'Naked', in the verse in question, implies being without knowledge of evil. If that is what you're saying, then Adam was without knowledge of evil before and after he transgressed, since he spoke of his nakedness after.

LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 9 years ago from Southern California

Hello Wehzo,

Yes he does discuss his nakedness with God. He was being made to account for his choice and that which caused him to realize this lack of knowledge. In his choice, Adam chose Satan over God. In making this choice, Adam now felt the consequences that come to those who lose the Spirit or light. When He heard the voice of God, this was a contrast that Adam had not felt before... this nakedness or knowledge of being without the Spirit.

And also having to feel the discomfort of being chastised by God... all of this new knowledge now clothes Adam and Eve, with the ability to choose better in their future.

In these verses, being naked is spoken of in the past tense...

Gen. 3:

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they *knew* that they *were* naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

10 And he said, I *heard* thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I *was* naked; and I hid myself.

11 And he said, Who told thee that thou *wast* naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

21 Unto Adam also and to his wife *did the LORD God make coats of skins*, and clothed them.

(this has reference to the sacrifice of animals, taught in the OT, which is in similitude of Jesus Christ as an offering for our sins. The atonement of Jesus Christ, symbolically covers our sins... He was the lamb that was offered on our behalf. The skin of animal offering represents the atonement. Those who accept Jesus Christ have knowledge of their need for Him, and thus become covered)

22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is *become as one of us,* to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Also, isn't it interesting that God cursed the ground, for Adam's sake? You can often take the words 'without knowledge' and apply this understanding to most verses where you find the word 'naked', and see how well this application works for a better understanding...

I hope this helps explain my understanding of to be without knowledge a bit better.


Kenny Wordsmith profile image

Kenny Wordsmith 9 years ago from Chennai

I always got it in the traditional sense. Like a loss of childhood. A child will romp about naked, without knowing he was that. Then adults tell him that's wrong and he's aware of his nakedness, and learns to feel shame.

For me, now, returning to innocence is returning to Eden, and I'm trying to do that. 

I can't kill my memories or make my body younger, 

but I can learnt o think like i was, when I didn't have knowledge and logic and science and I blindly believed in God. 

Looking at it that way, I can agree with you since I equate spirituality with being nearer to God 

and being nearer to God with being naked as a child in His presence,

without shame, without my layers of wordly knowledge.

Your hub is spiritually provocative! :) 

Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 9 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

I appreciate the contributions that you all make to this discussion, and they all have merit. What LdsNana-AskMormon bring to the discussion is a worthy perspective, and yes, as Kenny pointed out, this hub is provocative. I think that is a good thing. Thank you all, and have a Blessed New Year.

NightFlower profile image

NightFlower 9 years ago

Very provocative and when I get more time i'm coming back to it.

Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 9 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Thank you NightFlower, I appreciate your comments very much.

David Thompson 7 years ago

May I suggest that the nakedness Adam and Eve experienced was their new found knowledge of their "self". They became self aware and self-absorbed. They became selfish. They noticed the difference in their genitals and were embarrassed. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover their genitals. They then viewed good and evil from their own self perspective, looking upon the outward appearance of their bodies. What was good for Adam was not necessarily good for Eve and vice-versa. Selfishness is the root of all sin. It is the seed of the satanic serpent that was imparted into their DNA. Selfish-mindedness is the same as carnal-mindedness that Romans 8:6 says is death. After they ate from the forbidden tree, Adam and Eve were still alive physically but they were dead mentally (It was impossible for them to die spiritually) having their own self perspective being separated from God' s knowledge and perspective. As living souls they still had God' s spirit in them that gave them physical life. When they finally died physically many hundreds of years later, their spirits returned to God and their bodies returned to the dust of the earth from whence they were made.

Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 7 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Good perspective David Thompson. Thank you for your gracious comment and contribution to this hub.

God Bless

LarrySalter@aol.com 6 years ago

You missed that Adam & Eve were in an Unawakened State before they partook of the " Knowing Experience"....

When they Partook... They were Awakened to

Self Awareness....& their Ability to Choose between Good

& Not So Good.

Awakened from their Naievety Dream State to be Responsible. Reality.

" I Knew--- I Chose & it was Good --- I know I did Wrong---

I am Exposed--- I can't cover myself from You God... !!!

jordan 6 years ago

Please lets hear some discussion on the way young people are turning to porno and sex before mariage as a way to find a stisfaction God has deemed forbidden.

What is the fulfilment we are missing?

Is no one ataining this intamacy with God and spouse?


david 6 years ago

Wehzo, that was a very thought provoking answer but you are quite ill-informed. For you to even think on this level is highly commendable. We just take in knowledge from these churches and never question the logic. Its good to see you questioning that logic. One sincerely needs to have good reading comprehension.

Adam actually does answer both questions although as you said the church only harps on the second question. If you read carefully you understand the answer Adam gives. When God asked "Who told you that you were naked?" Adams' reply is "the woman you gave to be with me". When God asked "Have you eaten from the forbidden tree?" Adams' reply is "she gave me fruit so I ate". Adam clearly answers both questions!! He may have sinned but he would never DISRESPECT GOD by ignoring or even refusing to answer!!! There should be a comma in the middle of Adams' reply showing the seperation in the answers. Its through punctuation that all are deceived by this passage. A comma denotes the end of a thought and the beginning of a new! We all learned this in English class but this type of practical wisdom goes right out the door when we enter the church and become SNAKE BITTEN!!! Eve though was very DISRESPECTFUL because when GOD asked her "What have you done?" she proceeded to blame the serpent!! She didn't answer God!!

She didn't say what she had done! VERY DISRESPECTFUL!! That is why she is not permitted to speak in GOD'S presence or in a Holy Place!!! She's DISRESPECTFUL AND HAS EVEN LIED TO GOD'S FACE!! SHE TOLD ADAM HE WAS NAKED!! But, what did she mean by that? This nakedness that she had put over on Adam was what made him take from the tree. So, what was this nakedness spoken of by Eve all about? Hmmmmmmm?

RevDr. profile image

RevDr. 6 years ago from Florida

When Adam referred to himself as naked, he meant not having physical clothes for sure. When he and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge, they grew a second separate conscience from the one they had with God. Now they were of Flesh and Spirit when they were only Spirit before. The fleshly conscience allowed them to see differences, tell lies and notice they were not wearing clothes. So man's law saying you have to wear clothes stands because Adam and Eve were kicked out of The Garden of Eden (a Spiritual place) and cast into a physical place.

Wehzo 6 years ago

Thank you RevDr. for your gracious comment. I appreciate your contribution to this hub.

God Bless You

david 5 years ago

Revdr what I am alluding to is the question asked by GOD. When God asked where Adam was, Adam responded "I was naked so I hid myself". God then asked 1)"Who told you you were naked?" then 2) "Have you ate from the tree from which I commanded you not? Adam's response to the 1st question was "The woman whom you gave to be with me". Through his answer we come to understand that Eve told Adam he was naked. See, some sort of change took place when Eve ate from the tree. She chronologically, partook before Adam. She also knew that death was the penalty for the crime. She did not try to prevent Adam from eating from the tree but used the knowledge she gained by eating of the tree to make Adam feel inadequate about himself. This prompted him to do likewise. Understand this, Adam was the 1st to do everything up to this point. He was the lead. When she ate of the tree, she took the lead. The nakedness she made him feel had to do w/ leader and follower. Because she ran ahead of him she made him feel inadequate as a husband and leader. The reason she ate from the tree was to be leader. It was not until the serpent said "you can be just like God" that death became appealling. For what reason did she want to be like God? To be His rival or to imitate God? It was to be God's rival because in no such way did she act Christlike. Christ was to the point of absolute obedience. Not so in her case. Adam's nakedness was based on her usurping him from his God appointed position as leader and head. That is why the scriptures say that 'man is head', 'a woman is not to demonstrate any type of authority over a man in God's house'. Why? Because as Paul says "woman was not put here for the sake of man" and "woman came from man not man from woman". God is a God of absolute order, this should never be took for granted as Eve and Adam did.

david 5 years ago

Adam's nakedness came from him feeling as a failure as a leader because Eve stole his role as MAN/Leader. Adam named everything, defined everything, even her. He told her who she was - woman - because she came from man. Adam was already defined and pronounced as MAN by God Himself. He was created 1st and had done all things 1st. 1st is the definition of man! She came along and opposed God's definition of MAN and Adam's identity before all Creation. She threw off the balance of all Creation. She influenced all living things w/ her opposition. Understand this my brothers, her disobedience occurred after or when she touched the tree. Her opposition preceeded the act! Its what prompted her to disobedience! That's why James writes "Let no one say they are drawn out and enticed by God. Everyone is drawn out and enticed by their own desires, these desires give birth to sin and sin brings forth death". Her OPPOSITION was her 'desire' to lead, her SIN was 'touching the tree' and death is suffered by all living. That's why Adam named her Eve, because as it is written "she HAD to become mother to all living". HAD is the operative word meaning she had no choice in the matter. She had set all Creation on a path of death and this sin, she bore in her name. She was the leader in opposition to God before breaking His commandment "not to touch, much less, eat from the tree". Eve's nakedness came from her failure as a leader, a follower and exposure as an EVILDOER! Knowing that she did wrong, she could have prevented Adam from eating from the tree - if she was remorseful, but she wasn't. This is evidenced in her answer to God when asked "What have you done?" Instead of saying what she had done she says "the serpent deceived me". Well, if you knew that the serpent deceived you when you ate from the tree, you had an adequate amount of knowledge to prevent Adam from making the same mistake, but you encouraged him to do the same. Even in trying to avoid an answer or lie the truth is still evident! She's not fit to lead! This was not God's purpose for creating her! This is why Paul writes that "all creation moans and groans as it waits on the sons of God to be revealed".

Wehzo 5 years ago

Hi David,

You have a very interesting perspective, some of which I agree. I don't think you can say she could have prevented Adam from eating of the tree since she bore the intent and influence of the enemy (serpent) to her husband. Adam's fall rested solely with himself, since God had given him the authority to refuse the enemy's advances.

As far as the commas and other punctuations you say should be in the text, my reply is this:

In the original text there were 'NO' punctuations. Punctuations, chapters and verses are a later addition to the bible.

The bible is to be understood via it's divine concepts not by any common language. Whatever language the bible is being read in (including english) is simply to express the concept, not the other way around. That's why the Holy Scripture cannot be corrupted, it doesn't rely on languages, it relies on 'Divine' concepts that remain true in 'ALL' languages.

God Bless,

david 5 years ago

Wehzo, you are absolutely correct, Adam's sin does rest solely on his head. Paul writes

"Adam willingfully ate from the tree". He could have refused but he decided to follow his desire, the path of his wife. So Paul then writes "a married man is anxious for the approval of his wife" and again "a married woman is anxious for her husband's approval". Both are willing to please the other half before pleasing God, as was the case w/ Adam and Eve.(1 Cor. 7:32-34)

But Wehzo, she could have prevented Adam. The power was in her hand to stop the bleeding right there. It reads in Gen. 3:6 that "she gave some also to her husband when he was w/ her". Did she have to, knowing that she had been deceived? NO!! That was just pure Evil! That's why God asked "What have you done?" She also did something outside of listening to the serpent. Understand this, no one can talk you into doing something that you really don't want to do. That's just plain practical knowledge. If you do it, its because its crossed your mind before and that desire is there. Can't no friend of mine's convince me to jump off the Brooklyn bridge w/ him and kill myself. The only way this appeals to me is if I'm suicidal too. The tree was not appealing to Eve until the serpent said "you can become just like God". To become like God meant to give orders, not take them. Let me enlighten you to something else. What did Eve see upon her being created? She saw creation. She saw the plants, birds, animals etc.. What else did she see? She saw that the most beautiful of creation were the most dominate. When she looked closer she saw that they had things hanging between their legs. When she looked

at the dominated she saw nothing there. When she looked between her legs, she saw nothing.

At that point she became aware of her placement as "helpmeet". She knew she was created to be dominated by Man. She rejected this! She is like the pot trying to tell the potter what purpose it wants to be made for.

That's crazy! We know it had everything to do w/ who was going to be the dominate force because when God punishes her, He puts within her a craving for her husband and Says "he will dominate you". She was after dominance and Almighty nullified her!

As you can see, there was a lot going on before the serpent appeared. The Devil just

sits back and watches people, looking for inconsistencies in their desires and then makes the opportunity available to them. Remember, James writes "we are drawn out and enticed by OUR OWN desires".

Also, thanks for the heads up on the punctuation bit. I knew that chapters and verses were added to the bible later but I didn't know punctuation was also a later enhancement. Punctuation is an integral part of comprehension.

Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 5 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Thank you David for your insightful comments; I must say that it is indeed a pleasure to converse with an open mind such as yours. Like it says in proverbs, "Like iron sharpens iron, so does man sharpen man". I most certainly enjoy adding to my learning, thank you.

God Bless,

david 5 years ago

Likewise Brother, but never forget to inculcate practical wisdom to your understanding of the bible. You are alive and living just as I am. It is because of this blessing of life that we are here to bear witness to the scriptures. We bear witness through living. That's why Solomon writes "there is nothing new under the sun".

Why, because through living we experience life and understand situations because we've lived it. It matters not that it happened 6,000 years ago. The earth is still the earth and human beings are still human beings. We have all inherited the same situation and circumstance. Through life we understand situations and chronology through reasoning. We can visually put ourselves there. Life is the only thing that makes it possible to understand earthly things. Why?Because the Holy Spirit is Alive!

I sincerely appreciate you allowing me to write to your post Wehzo. I love learning and talking about Godly things!

Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 5 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Thank you my brother, and the pleasure is all mine.

God bless you and your family,

Ent 5 years ago

So, according to your previous discussions, what are your views on women leading in the church? Woman pastors, etc.? David? Wehzo?

Look forward to discussing this.


Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 5 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Hi Ent,

I have no problem with women leading in the church. There are a number of examples where women were leaders in the church, in fact, even started churches in their home. Such as Lydia.

david 5 years ago

Woman was not put here to lead man but man to lead woman. That's why Paul writes "man was put here for the sake of woman not woman for man" and again "woman came from man not man from woman". God is a God of ORDER! The order is this - the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man and the head of Christ is God!(1 Cor.11:3) For woman to assume such roles is to say there was no problem in the Garden of Eden, woman was man's rightful leader. False, as evidenced by God's punishment of man and woman for forsaking their rightful roles/purpose. Esau forsook his role as firstborn and what did it net him? You have to stay within the limitations and make the most of what you have to work with, simple and plain. Make lemonade with the lemons!

The bible states that Lydia assembled w/ devout WOMEN outside the city. She did not start a church. They would assemble but she was not the leader/pastor. It says that when Paul spoke about Christ to them her heart opened up and she entreated them to come to her home. That's all. Women can minister to other women and children and even men (believing and non-believing) but not in the church when all members are present. Only when the designated pastorial member/members are not there!(1 Cor.14:23-25) At this time she is to wear a head covering as a sign of respect to God and the Angels! (1 Cor.11:3-16) Otherwise such a act is disgraceful! Paul writes that "she should be silent" and "question her husband at home if she wants to learn something".(1 Cor.14:31-35)

Verse 33 says its like this "in all the churches of the holy ones". He also writes in vs. 36 "Was it from you that the word of God came, or was it only as far as you that it reached?" This is in reference to the situation in the Garden. Paul also writes in the book of Titus that "woman is not suppose to exercise authority over a man" especially in God's house! (Tit.2:3-5) It goes against God's divine order/purpose for the creation of the human being! God is a God of order, not chaos!

Phoebe was also said to have been a minister

but she was not over the church. Paul did not say the church was to receive instructions from her but "was to help and assist her".

Know this, Eve was a minister! She ministered to the serpent God's commandment concerning the tree! But what was the end result? She was deceived. Why?

Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 5 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Hi David,

Sorry for the slow response, but I didn't get a chance to get on my computer yesterday.

I believe you are correct in regard to the order of creation, but I think we are passing each other on the same road. There is an order of leadership that men are ordained to assume, but women are not excluded entirely. Look at the husband and wife team of Priscilla and Aquila. Their names are mentioned some 6 times in scripture: Acts 18 - 19; Romans 16; I Corinthians 16 and in 2 Timothy. Out of those 6 mentions Priscilla's name is mentioned 'first' 4 times. Suggesting she and her husband worked as a team, she more than likely took the leadership role when ministering to women. Nevertheless, her having a leadership role is evident, with name placement speaking to that effect.

Let's not forget the Old Testament. God, like he had on other occasions, heard the cry of His people and sent a deliverer: DEBORAH

This is her song from the book of Judges:

"When the princes in Israel take the lead,

when the people willingly offer themselves,

Praise the LorD!

Hear this, you kings!

Listen, you rulers!

I will sing to the LorD,

I will sing,

I will make music to the LorD,

the GoD of Israel ....

village life in Israel ceased,

ceased until I, Deborah, arose,

arose a mother in Israel".

Deborah arose and called the people to battle, leading them out of idolatry and restoring their dignity as God's chosen one's, and Deborah had a husband.

There are other examples of women's leadership roles in scripture, but I don't think it would be necessary to list them all. I believe where there is a man who is called and willing to lead then he is the leader apparent, but if there is none who is called and willing then I believe God has and will use women in leadership positions.

God Bless

david 5 years ago

You are right Wehzo! Whenever no able-bodied man is available! 1 Cor.14:23-25 There were non available in Deborah's case. They were scary! But, anyone trying to give more credence to women based on this is out of line! This is where man has led himself to damnation, just like Adam! Instead of reproving her they just let her go! This is what the church has done! The church has simply ignored God's word! So how are they gonna teach God's word? They can't but still like Peter writes "the people like to have their earlobes tickled! Whatever puts the money in the collection plate is what they are gonna preach. And who is the primary 1 in attendence? Women, and they influence what is being taught. Preach the message like God said preach the message and see how many remain in attendence. You can't take an example or two and try to make a meal of it, the bible does not allow it! It cuts you off! There are a multitude of references to that in which I speak of. All of it is written as I myself disseminate it. The scriptures speak extensively on this subject in the New Testament. Why? Because this is after the Son Of God comes and directly manifest the order of things. This is when the REAL CHURCH was established. The temple and the ways of the Old Testament was done away with. Hence, Messiah says "I will tear this temple down and rebuild it in 3 days" and also, the curtain was rent in 2. I don't understand how the bible can go into so much detail and speak so simple and plain on a matter - not in parables - and people still try to find a way to turn a blind eye to it! The scriptures are abundant in that which I speak of. The words are in plain English. These are not words in which I'm making up, they were written almost 2,000 years ago. If you oppose these words you're not in opposition to me but to the 1 that established the order. If its not written and expounded on then its not a Godly but a man/woman's teaching!

I disagree w/ you on Priscilla and Aquila. They were a husband and wife team working w/ Paul. How could that in which you speak of be possible, while they are w/ Paul, the 1 whom wrote the words of order, and manifest such behavior? For that in which you speak of to be possible Paul's words would have to be of NO CONSEQUENCE! But how could such be possible when he was the 1 writing about Priscilla and Aquila too! Paul words were meant for everyone else but Priscilla and Aquila, huh? Look at me, I've referenced them twice and both times I used her name 1st. My implication is not that she was the head of her husband. This rule of who's name is 1st obviously does not apply here, Wehzo. Simple reasoning dispels this therom.

david 5 years ago

Also, do you know what Paul is saying when he writes "Was it from you that the word of God came, or only as far as you it reached?"

! Cor.14:36

Also, to expound on my last comment briefly 1Cor.14:33 says this is the way it is in "ALL

THE CHURCHES OF THE HOLY ONES". This does not imply any church but "THE CHURCHES OF THE HOLY ONES". Not churches whereas anybody shows up or comes in but THE CHURCH! GOD'S CHURCH! Bear that in mind.

Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 5 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Hi David,

Let me first address the issue with Priscilla and Aquila. Mentioning Priscilla's name first 4 out of the 6 times mentioned in scripture in 'NO' way implies 'HEADSHIP', nor did I insinuate that. Aquila is the head of his wife. The bible is very clear on that. My point was dealing with 'Leaderhip' not 'Headship'. The two are not synonymous. One can be a leader without being the head. The two of them were leaders in the Christian community. I would like to bring one other point to bear on this discussion if I may; I'm sure you know of Huldah the prophetess, well, listen to this: "So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe;(now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college;) and they communed with her. And she said unto them, Thus saith the LorD God of Israel, Tell the man that sent you to me, Thus saith the LorD, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read:...." 2 Kings 22:14-16.

Though prophets like Jeremiah and Zaphaniah were also active at the time, King Josiah consulted Huldah about the amazing discovery of the Book of the Law. Not only that but a 'priest' was among those that consulted her, and she was married. Don't you find that amazing? She was not the head of her home or marriage, but she clearly was a God ordained leader.

david 5 years ago

Yes, but all these examples in which you reference take place OUTSIDE of the church.

Ent's question was about them excercising leadership and authority WITHIN the church.

All of your examples give credence to the fact that they should not because they all take place outside of the church.

Also, w/ reference to Priscilla and Aquila,

I think Paul was just writing, because he did not reference her name 1st every time. This shows that he was just writing and not inferring she was anything other than a worker in preaching the good news about God's kingdom, just like her husband. She undoubtedly did minister to women, as well as, men - but I don't think it would have anything to do w/ her name being mentioned 1st a few times. Paul made himself perfectly clear as to the roles of man and woman w/o having to send a subliminal message in this manner. I think you might be reading a little bit too much into this.

Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 5 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Hi David,

First I would like to address the issue of my references being outside of the Church. I made these references, in part, because of the references you made about Adam and Eve, which is outside the Church, and concerning the issue of headship. By the way, there were 'NO' local Churches at the time. They were just beginning to meet in houses. The apostles successors, like Clement, Papias and others who knew Peter and Paul personally were the ones who helped establish the local Churches. Though this was many years after the apostles were gone. The Bible hadn't even been collected and compiled for another 100 years (plus). They had to contend with old customs and traditions before the Churches could get on solid footing, and this wouldn't happen until the early 4th century. We need to understand that God didn't choose women leaders in the Old Testament (under law) only to do away with them in the New Testament (under grace). To believe that would be to misunderstand the concept of Grace and Freedom. Let me restate what I said earlier; I am talking about 'Leadership' 'NOT' 'Headship'. Those are two distinct concepts.

Now, as far as Paul mentioning Priscilla's name first, I believe this was more than him "just writing". The Holy Scripture was not written as an afterthought, after all, it is 'The Inspired Word'. When Paul, and the others wrote, they wrote with a purpose, so he wasn't just writing mindlessly. Paul knew that putting a woman's name in front of her husband's name would raise quite a few eyebrows, because of the strict Jewish customs. I believe he knew exactly what he was doing, and he was doing it with a purpose. Not to thrust the inevitable changes on the sensibilities of the Jewish people, but begin a process that was obviously different than what they were accustomed to.

David, I understand this is a hard saying, but nevertheless, one that deserves discussion. While we may seemingly disagree on 'One' point, I am sure there are many others that we do agree on.

God Bless,

david 5 years ago

Wehzo, I can definitely understand your reasoning behind Priscilla's name placement w/ the way you have explained it. I think you may be right in that respect but, also bear in mind that sometimes these writers would sometimes inc. their personal feelings into the matter. Paul for 1. An example is his writing about virgins @ 1 Cor. 7:25-26. This factored into my statement of him just writing, and Im in err. Nevertheless, I'm convinced that he would have probably tried to convey the message of which you have stated.

Now, to speak on Adam and Eve. Don't you know that the Garden was Holy Ground! That's why they were dismissed from it, never to come back! Hence, the Cherubs standing at the gate w/ the swords turning. This is never to happen again in God's house! (For a woman to be or have a role of 'leadership')

Now, to address these meetings in the homes of different people before the church was established. These people did not start churches in their homes. The early church would meet at different people's homes. To say they started a church is to imply that they were the Pastors of the church. A church is rooted by a Pastor not a meeting place. Look at the world today, some churches are in shopping centers. Does that mean that the owner of the shopping center is the starter of the church? Absolutely not! Jesus and His Disciples met at many of people's homes. Did that make their homes churches? Does that mean that Zecharius started a church in his home? They met at these people's homes before the church was established. It did not make them leaders, but dilligent, loyal and faithful believers in the 'truth' about Jesus Christ in the early church. What they did or sacrificed on behalf of the church was something that they should have received a reward for. In their cases, having their names written in the bible.

Now, to address Leadership and Headship. They basically carry the same meaning according to the dictionary. To use the word 'leader' as you are using it is very deceiving. You say they have 2 totally different meanings but they mean the same thing. The are 'no' references in my bible to women leading 'in the church'.

Old Testament and New. They may have 'prophesied' even but it did not make them a 'leader' in that church. Not even the Pastors' wife is a leader, she is his helpmeet.

If God created her w/ the purpose of her being a 'helpmeet', how is she going to be anything other than when He (GOD) is the One choosing to use her? Though it may look another way you can't lose focus of her original purpose. If the Creator is using her, know that it will never go outside of HIS boundary.

Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 5 years ago from Detroit, MI Author


It is good to know that you are passionate in your convictions, that is always a good thing when those convictions are rooted in the Word of God. I dare not venture any further in this discussion for fear of offending a brother in Christ. I will continue to search the scriptures for a better understanding on this topic. My hope is that I have found a friend in you David, and that we can engage in more meaningful discussions from time to time.

May God Bless You,

david 5 years ago

Wehzo, there is no possible way you can offend me when my endeavor is to learn. Its through these discussions that we obtain a more perfect understanding. The point you made about Priscilla's name placement finally won me over. The information you gave about punctuation in the bible educated me. Its our duty before God to talk to others, as long as they are listening, until a more perfect understanding is achieved. Sometimes it all boils down to the way it is said that finally makes it click for someone. Some people don't understand biblical riffs but can relate to something in laymans terms because it becomes something tangible to them. I like the fact that you are a bible based brother! You most certainly know your bible! When we talk to others about the bible we are to talk so as to win them over to Christ. I most certainly hope I did not offend you Sir and I hope to be able to talk to you again in the near future, God willing.

May God bless you and yours,

Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 5 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Hello David,

Your attitude reminds me of Philippians 4:13 where it is said to think on these things...

I appreciate your openness and humility. That's one of the things I enjoy with these hubs, they give us an opportunity to discuss, debate, argue, learn and teach, but at the end of the day we remember who we are in Christ. I enjoy learning from you and others, you and yours will be in my prayers.

God Bless You,

dr. Otnem 5 years ago

I have heard so many different explanations for the meaning of the "nakedness" of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, yours is the in tune with the basic foundation of my belief in the Creator. This foundation being that, "God is Spirit and we must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth." It is my belief that if we pursue the spiritual explanation for the bible's quandaries, it is there we will find the Truth.

Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 5 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Thank you dr. Otnem for your gracious and insightful comment.

God Bless

david 5 years ago

When one is naked then he/she is exposed.

How were they exposed? From being away from God is true but in what way does it manifest itself in a physical and literal sense? Their reason for doing what they did! Eve's reason for partaking from the tree and Adam's reason for following her actions. So I ask, why did Eve partake? And, why did Adam partake?

Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 5 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Hi david,

They were exposed when Gods' righteousness was withdrawn from them, and it manifested itself in that they would experience the pain and suffering of providing for themselves, i.e, food, clothing, shelter and so forth. Secondly, Eve partook of the forbidden tree because she chose to engage the enemy, embodied in the serpent, in a dialoge on his terms, and was subsequently tricked. Third, Adam partook because he chose to trust Eve rather than hold to what God had personally told him, because the bible, in I Timothy 2:14, tells us :"And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner".

God Bless,

Jen 5 years ago

Great comments! Glad you posted 1 Tim 2:14 Whezo! So many interpret Adam being to blame. Adam did what was right in the sight of God, he was truthful, that's why the ground was cursed, not Adam.. Our righteous God has to be just, the curse had to go somewhere..

God loved them so, Adam loved Eve, Adam partook for Eve's sake, as Christ took on sin and died for our sake..Love

Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 5 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Thank you Jen for your gracious and insightful comment.

God Bless You,

dano853 4 years ago

I just started wondering about this today. I have a friend who is a messianic Jew and we will look at the hebrew together for a more concise meaning. Something foundational lies in this passage. Note that Adam does not say he was afraid because he disobeyed God. Why?

Could it be that after Adam and Eve ate from the tree they recognized that they were NOT like God... NOT clothed in Glory or Righteousness. But the lie of Satan had become aparent: Not only were they no more like God than they were led to believe they would be by eating the fruit, but they were even MORE aware that they fell short of his Holiness and fullness. Thusly Adam fears God because he is naked: lacking all that which God is. And sin separated Adam from God in that he hid from God, fully aware of this lack and inability to do anything about it. This is the state of man today in its simplest terms.

When God asks them "Who told you...?" Why God immediately follows this with "Have you eaten....?" i'm unsure. I definatelyt dont want to get off into a discussion of womans place in the kingdom... that's not my desire. My interest lies soley in the condition of Adam and Eve as they face the remainder of their lives aware that they will NEVER be like God, nor will thay have the kind of realtionship with Him that they could have.

How does this translate to man's condition, the grace of God, and eternal life offered through the death and resurrection of Christ. To what extent have the misdeeds in the garden been undone or remedied? Why do we still fear to enter the presence of God after all that Christ has done for us?

Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 4 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Hi dano853,

I appreciate your comment on this very intriguing portion of text.

God bless,

Will Golden 4 years ago

An intyeresting analysis. More fuel for warming the hearth of discussion.

For me, It is not so much about being "spiritually" naked as "sexually" naked. Today we see nudity as obscene. When ...in the shower? ...in the hospital?

No! The only context in which nudity can possibly be obscene is a "sexual" context ....moreover "recreational sex", a perversion of procreation.

Before then there was no sex because, being immortal, sexual reproduction was irrelevent.

2:22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Effectively this was asexual reproduction, splitting, much like the amoeba! There was no sex …no shame …no obscenity …no perversion.

Whilst before the fall Adam was innocent, after eating of the fruit, he became PERVERTED.

Today the entire western world shares and worships this perversion which, together with the vanity provoked by the serpent, has led to a 3rd millennium Babylon. The average human today cannot see nakedness without thinking of (recreational) sex; the ultimate perversion.

The spirit to which you refer is governed by urges from the genitalia.

Because I was born with no genitalia, no testosterone and no sexual sensation, I notice this mass obsession. I am humbled at being the closest person you will meet today to God's original Adam.

The vast majority of people today follow the serpent. I am hoping to bring the Lord God's true people into the naturist world with me. .....if there are any left!

Hugz, Will Golden


Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 4 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Thank you Will Golden for your gracious and insightful contribution to this important discussion.

God Bless You

Mara Dances 4 years ago

Interesting conversations. I was thinking about this topic and looked up what others were thinking/saying. In your original post you said

"We know when God created Adam he was a perfect immortal being, clothed in God's own righteousness. When Adam fell, or sinned, he was changed from immortal to mortal, and Gods' righteousness was withdrawn from him. Adam was now spiritually naked, as well as spiritually dead."

What I wondered is do you have scripture that says Adam and Eve were clothed in God's righteousness? I have been searching and have not been able to find any that says this. I remembered years ago hearing someone preach on this, but I can't find any reference in scripture.

In Matthew chapter 3 the first thing Jesus did in the New Testament, his very first act, was be baptized by John. The scripture says this was done to fulfill all righteousness. Therefore we can assume that righteousness had to be fulfilled. I'm searching for the place that scripture shows us it was lost.

Slightly off the topic, I believe Adam's sin was that he believed a lie. He was created in the image and likeness of God. The serpents temptation was eat this fruit and be like God. They were already like God. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie.

Grace and Fire,


Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 4 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Hi Mara,

Thank you for your contribution to this hub. I will try to address your questions as best I can, starting with the second question concerning Jesus baptism in the book of Matthew.

Jesus says in Matthew 3:15: "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness". Then John consented. Here Jesus is saying to fulfill all righteousness both he and John had to do something. John had to fulfill his role as "the voice crying in the wilderness" and ultimately pointing to the messiah. Jesus had to fulfill his role of the "suffering servant" which began that day. Both of their roles were fulfillment of prophecy spoken through prophets of old from our righteous God. So these were rightly considered acts of righteousness.

Now, concerning your first question about Adam and Eve being clothed in Gods' own righteousness. There are a few scripture I would like to bring to your attention concerning this.

(1.) Job 19:7-14 - these verses speak of his (Job) integrity, moral convictions, honesty and respect, and in verse 14 it says: "I put on righteousness as my clothing; justice was my robe and my turban". Here Job is saying he consider those character attributes spoken of in the previous verses as 'righteous clothing'.

(2) Isaiah 61:10 - Isaiah says: "I delight greatly in the Lord; my soul rejoices in my God. For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness,.."

(3) Ephesian 6:14 - "Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace".

There is no scripture that specifically says that Adam and Eve was clothed with Gods' own righteousness, but when you look at scripture in it's totality it becomes more clear that the first couple, prior to the fall, created in Gods' own image, had to imitate their father and exhibit His character. As such, these character attributes could be nothing less than righteous.

God Bless,

Jess 4 years ago

I asked what this meant " who told you" and was referred to a book called that Jesus thing from free from bondage ministries. It's a free iBook. I'm even more confused now but the point it made was really pivotal. If anyone has any comments about the authors opinion to that line of scripture.

Jess 4 years ago

I just want to add that when I have questions I ask other religious people to help me understand and their answers differ so greatly that I am scared to ask anyone anymore. This seems like a very well read group so I'm throwing it out there. What would you suggest for someone like me? I pray for an understanding when I read His word and I'm granted more questions.

Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 4 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Hi Jess,

You are not alone in being confused when asking many religious people to help you understand the word of God. The first thing I would suggest to you is pray that the Lord lead you to the right person to ask your questions. It is important to ask someone who is mature in the word and have a sound understanding. Many people will try to answer your questions, but it's more important that the RIGHT person answer your questions. Yes, you are right, many Christians who contribute to my hubs are well versed in the word of God and can answer many of your questions. So if you can be a little more specific in what you want to know I am sure that someone, if not myself, will be able to satisfy your curiosities.

God Bless You,

david 3 years ago

Jen, the woman told him. He says himself, "the woman you gave to be w/ me".

Wehzo profile image

Wehzo 3 years ago from Detroit, MI Author

Thank you David for your gracious comment. God bless you.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article