This is a fascinating strip!
First, I have found God to behave in a solely practical manner. Throughout Scripture, nearly all of His
natural interactions with us earthlings is symbolic of our
supernatural relationship with Him. Assuming for the moment that Adam and Eve were common homo sapiens, and that the fig leaves came from a fig tree, and that the replacement clothes God provided came from a living animal who consequently died upon loosing its skin, then we absolutely must interpret clothing as a deeply meaningful symbol of our broken relationship with God (a truly shameful state).
Since we do not find an explicit command in Scripture to wear clothes all the time we must assume that clothes aren't a absolute requirement. However, since clothing (and we might even include the make of clothing despite PETA's protest) is extraordinarily symbolic to our supernatural condition, it seems fitting that we use clothing in a symbolic manner. Perhaps God intended clothing to be an iconic reminder both of our sin and his Grace, and to be used regularly for that purpose. Other examples of iconic/symbolic reminders of the way things are include the image of the cross, fasting, marriage, and the Lord's Supper/Communion. Some have practical or functional uses in either the natural or supernatural world while others serve simply as reminders. Likewise, they represent a range of interpretable frequencies from "perpetual engagement" (as in marriage), to "as needed" (as in fasting), to "doesn't matter but why not keep it around more often than not" (as in the image of the cross).
Note: Some people keep the image of the cross with them wherever they go in the form of making the sign of the cross with their hand. Many of these people even find meaning in how they hold their hand and the method with which they do it. I think that's awesome!
I propose that clothes play an important role in our lives as Christians but not for the purpose of shielding other's eye from our genitalia but to remind us and others of our sin. As such, it is not necessary to wear them all the time but only when we are in need of such a physical reminder. By the same token, however, nudity too may serve as a symbolic reminder not prescribed for perpetual use but as it is found useful.
So, it seems to me that there are three uses for clothing, two of them righteous. The first righteous use is for the protection of the body. It is a practical and profane (ordinary) use but God ordained the profane so going about our daily lives is still a righteous endeavor. The second righteous use is as a symbolic physical reminder of our status both as sinners and as forgiven. The third use for clothes is the wicked one: to conform to the world's standards of status and pretension. Nudity has the same uses, including the third.
This leaves me with an answer to the question of whether one should dress
only ever simply, as instructed in Scripture. The answer is yes. If we do not are we damned? As Christians no, but
only by the Grace of God.
________________________
Now, on a different plane of perspective, I find the discussion about whether the clothes of skin were of another animal or of human flesh and intriguing topic. Since the account of creation is very explicit but decidedly lacking in detail we can only imagine what exactly took place and how things really were in the very beginning.
What if the skins God provided was our own earthly flesh? Does that conflict with the account of creation that we have in Scripture? This may not be how it happened but I don't think the following account could be denied a seat among the list of possibilities.
We know that God is infinitely creative and is not limited to create within what we perceive and interpret to be the natural world nor by our own understanding. Given that, it is certainly possible for God to create from the dust of the earth a creature who is, in the likeness of Himself, a spirit but whose apparition or visual affect on the "physical" environment is similar to the "physical" beasts who are most reliant on wisdom and knowledge rather than physical sturdiness for daily life: the apes. So Adam may have been created and given (visually affirmed) managerial authority over the rest of the created world. God may very well have created other spirits to inhabit the earth as well, who appear to the "physical" beasts as things that are less wise or perhaps of a more subservient nature, such as trees or water. I don't see any reason to assume that, just because we can't/don't see them, nymphs and driads and all those other "mythical" creatures
couldn't have been part of Creation. They got into our folklore somehow. Eve then, may very well have been created of Adam's substance and also have been a spirit of this world. (Adam and Eve being spirits of this natural world and God being pure spirit and not contained by this natural world (spirit or otherwise). This certainly would make it easier for Adam and Eve to walk and talk in the garden with God and for Satan to have that cunning little chat with Eve. Perhaps the actual forbidden fruit was the spiritual fruit of a particular driad. Who knows? Perhaps they hid themselves not with a fig leaf taped over their genitals --BTW, did it mention anywhere in the Bible
what they hid with the leaves? Personally, I think I'd rather cover my eyes than any of my dangly bits-- but hid
within the fig tree. Perhaps the intension was to hide from the wrath of God by means of pretense: "I'm not the person you put in charge of the earth, I'm a humble little fig tree ...really." But alas, just as any good father does, he lovingly withholds ultimate punishment by substituting a few natural consequences, reminding us of the real consequences, and sends us on our way with a second chance. So, God may have essentially said "OK, you can't be trusted with spiritual things so you're not going to be a spirit anymore like me. Rather, you will be reliant on the physical world for your sustenance. You will be bound by the physical world, clothed in flesh and therefore will be subject to physical death. However, I will not withhold my eternal Grace if you are repentant of your inescapable sin."
This scenario makes a great deal of sense if you aren't hung up on the notion that if you can't dissect it it doesn't exist.
If this account is to be believed, our own bodies
are our clothing and our wickedness is hidden by our own flesh. We are our own sacrifices. We cannot escape the physical reminder of our sin and it's consequences because we cannot escape the death of our physical bodies. Thus, whether for good or for ill, clothing hides the reminder. This can be deeply symbolic just as when we hide the cross under black cloth during Holy Week (I know not all churches practice this but many do).
I reckon that, regardless of how you view the account of Creation and original sin, to fully understand the full meaning and purpose of clothes one has to first become comfortable without them.
Just my thoughts.
In Christ,
td