3 out of 4 stars
Share This Review
Who told you that you were naked?
A Refreshing Re-examination of the Garden of Eden
By
William. E. Combs
Summary:
In the non-fiction work “Who told you that you were naked” William Combs revisits the events in Garden of Eden in the book of Genesis to examine again what really happened when our first parents fell. He thought it necessary do this, because the word ‘Sin’ has become unfashionable, in todays society, it has lost much of its pungency in its present day usage and has now been reduced to mere transgression, that is, the breaking of commandments, and rules, or the committal of gross acts such as murder, rape, lies, or any other action deemed immoral.
Combs points out that the limitation inherent in this understanding of sin, presents an enormous challenge in the area of evangelism, because the person who appears to live an exemplary life upholding all the rules, while understanding sin as mere transgression, is likely to come to the conclusion that he is a good enough person and hardly likely to need a saviour. The Christian church’s main purpose is the proclamation of the gospel. The gospel that states emphatically that man is in a state of alienation from God as a result of the ‘Fall’; that man is unable to change this state through his own effort; and that reconciliation can only be effected on God’s terms through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ the Son of God on the cross. Awareness that sin is pernicious and that man is impotent in overcoming it, is foundational to receiving salvation, therefore sin must be seen as more than transgression.
By using the notes prepared for usage in a sermon, together with added theological reflections, William Combs revisits the first three chapters of Genesis in the Bible with a view to obtaining a more accurate understanding of the roots of ‘original sin.’ The word naked is important to the Genesis narrative, and Combs shows us a direct correlation between the change in Adam and Eve’s perception of nakedness, and eating of the fruit of the ‘Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil’, thus he concludes, that the roots of ‘Original Sin’ lay not so much in the crossing of the Divine interdict, but more so in the acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil, and that all sin will ultimately be traced to this knowledge. What Combs was able to point out was that emanating from this knowledge of good and evil is the ability to create a new understanding independent of God; an understanding which was not only corrupt, but also corrupting, giving us an insight into what it means to be spiritually dead.
Adam and Eve’s new understanding of nakedness was symptomatic of their new spiritual state characterised by both fear and shame. Their attempts at covering was useless since they still had to hide, and God’s question to them; the title question, “Who told you that you were naked?” would make them see that they must hold themselves accountable for seeking wisdom outside of God’s word. The only proper covering for their nakedness was the animal skins that God provided for them which according to Combs shadows the New Testament reality of the true solution to ‘Original Sin’ that only God can provide. This true solution, Combs present as Jesus Christ, God incarnate, the Last Adam, who through His atoning sacrifice, provides reconciliation to God, and a true covering in the “Robe of Righteousness” that He gives to those who believe His word and accepts the salvation He offers.
REVIEW
In choosing this book for review I thought to myself that I got a fair deal. The book seemed simple enough, the cover was pretty conventional, there was some familiarity with the topic and as if that was not enough; the length was modest, a mere one hundred and eighty five pages - even though with the pdf format the real length was two hundred and forty two. I was soon to discover that a fairly gruelling exercise awaited me in trying to put together a coherent review. This was owing to the fact that this work was non-fiction, didactic in nature and exegetical in its intent.
At the start of the book, in chapter one, we are introduced to Adam in his pre-fallen state in the Garden through the device of a stream of consciousness. The unfortunate thing was that this depiction contradicts both the biblical account as well as Combs’ thesis on innocence in the Garden. We see from the Bible that death and fear are direct consequences of the ‘Fall’, a fact to which Combs subscribes. Yet in chapter one we see Adam fearing for his safety as well as that of his pet lamb, Lively after having seen a lioness kill and eat Lively’s mother. This depiction seems to be more in keeping with a pastoral setting in the Alaskan hinterland in summer,- I confess to know nothing about Alaska- than it is with Eden before the ‘Fall’.
The creation before the ‘Fall’ was in order, and was harmonious under the dominion of Adam and Eve. The notion that Adam, or Lively, or any of the creatures becoming prey to other creatures does not fit that context. Preying can only exist where there is enmity, and enmity, death, disorder and destruction all emanate from the ‘Fall. It is surprising then that he would use such an opening for the book, given that in a few pages he would be speaking of the messianic kingdom prefigured by Adam and Eve in Eden during the period of innocence.
William Combs makes the comparison between the messianic kingdom, seen in Isaiah 11:6-9 and the pre-fall Eden. In the messianic kingdom, the sons of God are revealed as the redeemed and restored humanity, creation is restored in the new heaven and the new earth, order and harmony are returned as seen in Isaiah 11:6-9 where…. The wolf will lie beside the lamb, the leopard the goat, …… the lion will eat grass like the ox, the child will put his hand in the adders nest…. . they will neither harm nor destroy on My holy mountain, for the earth shall be filled with the glory of God as the waters cover the sea. Through this comparison we see that the preying instinct could not have been a feature of the pre-Fall Eden.
The purpose of the book would be better served had Combs used his opening to explain the need to re-examine events in the Garden of Eden, that is, he should have started with chapter four. As it stands, the structure is a bit unwieldly. The re-examination occurs between chapters one to three and the ensuing chapters though germane to the re-examination, come across as mere appendages and not as a unified, seamless, trajectory of arguments.
One very important fact to note about the Bible is that it is very precise in its use of language. We are led to believe through Combs’ story in chapter one that Eve was apart from Adam and by herself when the serpent approached her. None of the translations in my possession supports that view; namely the Authorised, the NIV, and the Amplified. To make sure that I was not a victim of translation error, I googled the English Standard Version(ESV), the version used for this work, only to discover that it concurs with the other translations of Genesis3:6 that in fact Adam was very present with Eve at the time of the encounter with the serpent.
The faulty assumption of Genesis 3:6 forms part of the foundation of Combs’s argument and therefore bring new questions to the conclusions he draws. For example, since Adam was there why did he not intervene? Could it be that he could see the inevitable outcome to the line of questioning by the serpent, and was beginning to realise that the fault lay in his inaccurate communication to Eve about God’s command? The truth is that ‘Original Sin’ may have been activated by the transgression and its attendant acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil, but it was Adam who created the platform for this through his miscommunication. I believe that Adam had more discernment and more self- awareness than is credited to him by Combs. We see this in the way he welcomed Eve to his world and his understanding of her.
Eve ate the fruit we are told, because she thought it would make her wise. In the case of Adam however, we were not given a reason for his consumption of the fruit. Combs suggestion in his story that Adam was persuaded to partake of the fruit because he innocently observed no change in Eve and was persuaded by her arguments that perhaps they misunderstood God’s injunction, rings hollow in the face of the biblical explanation that: “Eve was deceived but Adam sinned.” Adam, it would seem, was conscious, was deliberate and knew the likely consequences of his actions; yet he persisted in committing the offence. He was not innocent when he committed the offence therefore a different explanation for his action is necessary.
It is my belief that in order to understand Adam we would need to look at what happened to Adam when he woke from his sleep and discovered Eve by his side. We recall the spontaneous, rapturous, poetic, response. –“This is now bones of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman’ for she was taken out of man.” – Adam saw Eve as being a part of his very self. His self- understanding was as much rooted in Eve as Eve’s was in him. This notion is supported by the biblical text Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 where man in God’s image is male and female in union in fellowship with God; thus Adam and Eve’s one flesh union, was the full realisation of that image.
When Eve fell, there was a rupture in Adam’s own being. He knew that she had fallen, and as we now know, he was by her side observing everything. He knew then that there was only one choice available to him; he would either have to obey God and deny Eve which is tantamount to denying himself, or he would have to choose Eve, that is, himself, and deny God. We know he opted for the latter.
Combs treatment of nakedness was good and effective even though I would have liked to see a greater exploration of the change in understanding of sexuality between the time of innocence and after the ‘Fall’. It is evident that physical intimacy occurred between Adam and Eve during the period of innocence as seen in the biblical command to be fruitful and multiply……Genesis 1:28 and the one flesh union in unashamed nakedness Genesis 2:24-25. What appears to be complete, joyous self- giving and unashamed bliss in the period of innocence became pudenda to be covered after the ‘Fall’. Combs made an oblique reference to that in the book but a fuller treatment is needed here.
The best aspects of the work would be the treatment of the main issue, the root of ‘Original Sin’. The author was able to concretise for us that aspect to ‘Original Sin’ hitherto overlooked in most discussions on sin; that is the acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil resulting from the ‘Fall’. Through this acquisition, we develop a new understanding, independent of God and inimical to Him from which emanates every conceivable sin.
When the serpent told Eve that eating the fruit would make her wise and like God, it was expressing a half- truth. William Combs work exposes that half- truth by showing that:- whereas God’s knowledge of good and evil, would always result in Him being good, because He is essentially good, and cannot be anything else but good, we on the other hand, can never be good independent of God. He was able to show that this acquisition will always work against us in every aspect of life, and that our only release from its tentacles, is to accept the Salvation offered to us in Christ Jesus, and to live in the new life which Christ provides.
This book is a useful addition to the personal library of any Christian, or anyone interested in theological matters. I enjoyed the personal anecdotes. I found them to be heart-warming and indicative of a rich and vibrant faith.
RATING: 3 out of 4 stars
The basic issues were fully covered .There were a few structural problems and some debatable assumptions that detracted a bit from the overall score. Since we are not allowed fractions, the nearest whole number would be a three out of four stars.
******
Who Told You That You Were Naked?
View: on Bookshelves | on Amazon
Like Berthalyn's review? Post a comment saying so!