Who told you that you were naked?

[Jesus_is_LORD]

Great Questions of Life: Who Told You That You Were Naked

“God [asked Adam], ‘Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?’” [1] The first question God asked of the man was, “Where are you” [GENESIS 3:9]? The man’s response was the first indication that things had changed for the first couple. Adam...

sermons.faithlife.com

 

[Beetow]

● Gen 3:7 . .Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they perceived that they were naked; and they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves loincloths.

Adam was warned that he would lose immortality by tasting the forbidden fruit, but it appears he wasn't warned about this new perception of themselves; at least not on record. If we can safely read between the lines, then we may assume that he and God discussed this issue during one of their daily meetings. And again, the prophets didn't record everything they knew. For example; prophecy predicted that Jesus would be called a Nazarene (Matt 2:19-23) but good luck finding that in the Old Testament because it isn't there.

It's believed by a pretty large percentage of Christians that the couple's new perception of themselves is inherited from one's parents; specifically one's biological father. But Eve was born before Adam tasted the fruit; so he could not, nor did he, pass it on to her biologically by means of procreation nor by means of his body parts that God used to put Eve together.

In the past, I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had something to do with their new state of mind; but now I seriously doubt it because Eve was the first to eat it, and when she did, nothing happened. She remained shameless and went about in the buff as usual. It wasn't till Adam tasted the fruit that something altered Eve's conscience; so I'm pretty sure that the underlying cause is far more serious than the chemistry of that fruit.

We're left with two alternatives: either God did it to them or the Serpent did it. My money is on the Serpent, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2)

He has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and is able to effectively tamper with the human body and the human mind, e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.

The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield his power of death the moment that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it worked on Adam and Eve. As soon as he tasted the fruit, they immediately set to work with the fig leaves.

FAQ: Why wasn't Eve effected by the power of death when she tasted the forbidden fruit?

A: It was apparently God's wishes that death come into the world via a man's actions just as righteousness would later be offered to the world via a man's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)
_

 

[Beetow]

● Gen 3:8a . . They heard the voice of the Lord God moving about in the garden at the breezy time of day;

The Hebrew word for "voice" is somewhat ambiguous. It can not only indicate a vocal sound, but lots of other kinds of noises too; e.g. horns, crackling, snapping, cackling, bleating, tweeting, roaring, whooshing, swishing, hissing, barking, thudding, whistling, and booming, et al.

● Gen 3:8b-9 . . and the man and his wife hid from The Lord God among the trees of the garden. The Lord God called out to the man and said to him: Where are you?

Since God is omniscient, "where are you" can be taken to mean: Adam; come out, come out, wherever you are!

● Gen 3:10 . . He replied: I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.

Adam wasn't totally disrobed; just partially. But even that degree of undress lacked adequate propriety to his newly acquired sense of right and wrong. But the thing to note is Adam's unease in the presence of God while lacking what he thought in his own mind to be appropriate clothing.

This incident tells me that even the most seasoned exotic dancer, normally comfortable disrobed in a room of leering men, would probably want to put something on should God come thru the door and take a seat around the dance floor. (cf. John 21:7)

● Gen 3:11 . .Then He asked: Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat of the tree from which I had forbidden you to eat?

In other words: who said undress is indecent? Where'd you get that idea?

Well; nobody had said undress is indecent, nor even suggested that it's indecent-- the concept of a dress code was unheard of at that time. No; they just "felt" it's indecent. In other words; it was their new perception of right and wrong telling them that undress is indecent. Unfortunately, their newly acquired moral compass was unreliable; the reason being they didn't get it from God.

● Gen 3:12 . .The man said: The woman You put at my side-- she gave me of the tree, and I ate.

Adam attempted to get himself off the hook by accusing God of entrapment.

Like: "This wouldn't have happened if you hadn't imposed that female upon me. Did I ask for a wife? NO! And what kind of person is this woman you gave me anyway? She has managed to ruin my life in very short order. Is this your concept of the perfect companion for a man?"

● Gen 3:13 . . And The Lord God said to the woman: What is this you have done? The woman replied: The serpent duped me, and I ate.

That's a very popular excuse even still today; like when it turned out that Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction to justify an invasion; President Bush said he was given some bad information.

The first couple exhibited early-on a very common aspect of human nature of which all of us are so familiar-- blaming others for the way we act. I once worked in a boatyard with a very hot tempered man. Previous to his employment with us, we had another with just about the same temperament who quit right before the second one signed on. Some time later, the new guy got irate about something or other and said: Now I know why that other guy was difficult. You made him that way. (chuckle) Wasn't that a perfectly natural excuse?

I dated a girl like that once. When I pointed out one day that she was behaving peevishly; she retorted: "I'm only responding to you". (chuckle) Ms. Peevish employed the age-old excuse of blaming someone else for the way she acted when really the blame was just simply her own lack of self-control; which can be roughly defined as inadequate restraint exercised over one's own impulses, emotions, and/or desires.
_

 

[Jesus_is_LORD]

● Gen 3:7 . .Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they perceived that they were naked; and they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves loincloths.

Adam was warned that he would lose immortality by tasting the forbidden fruit, but it appears he wasn't warned about this new perception of themselves; at least not on record. If we can safely read between the lines, then we may assume that he and God discussed this issue during one of their daily meetings. And again, the prophets didn't record everything they knew. For example; prophecy predicted that Jesus would be called a Nazarene (Matt 2:19-23) but good luck finding that in the Old Testament because it isn't there.

It's believed by a pretty large percentage of Christians that the couple's new perception of themselves is inherited from one's parents; specifically one's biological father. But Eve was born before Adam tasted the fruit; so he could not, nor did he, pass it on to her biologically by means of procreation nor by means of his body parts that God used to put Eve together.

In the past, I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had something to do with their new state of mind; but now I seriously doubt it because Eve was the first to eat it, and when she did, nothing happened. She remained shameless and went about in the buff as usual. It wasn't till Adam tasted the fruit that something altered Eve's conscience; so I'm pretty sure that the underlying cause is far more serious than the chemistry of that fruit.

We're left with two alternatives: either God did it to them or the Serpent did it. My money is on the Serpent, a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2)

He has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and is able to effectively tamper with the human body and the human mind, e.g. Luke 13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.

The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield his power of death the moment that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it worked on Adam and Eve. As soon as he tasted the fruit, they immediately set to work with the fig leaves.

FAQ: Why wasn't Eve effected by the power of death when she tasted the forbidden fruit?

A: It was apparently God's wishes that death come into the world via a man's actions just as righteousness would later be offered to the world via a man's actions. (Rom 5:12-21)
_

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Have you studied epigenetics?

 

[Beetow]

● Gen 3:22a . . And the Lord God said: Now that man has become as one of us

Humanity was created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27). But that image and likeness stopped short of "one of us". i.e. a fellow deity of equal status.

In other words; Man made himself a fellow deity of equal status by placing his own wishes ahead of God's.

From the limited amount of information we're given, it's readily seen that it's fairly easy to make one's self an autonomous deity; it's only necessary to rebel against constituted authority; viz: go your own way instead of complying with the laws, rules, and dictates of a higher power; viz: anarchy. (cf. Judg 17:6 and Isa 53:6)

» We're seeing some of that today in 2020 USA where unruly elements are taking the law into their own hands with riots, looting and vandalism in the name of "social justice" which not all that long ago was condemned as mob rule.

● Gen 3:22b . . discerning good and evil,

Discerning good and evil isn't a bad thing per se; that is; if it's an instructed discernment rather than a natural, intuitive discernment. (Rom 12:2 and Heb 5:13-14)

● Gen 3:22c . . what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!

The Hebrew word translated "forever" doesn't always indicate infinity. Normally it just means perpetual as "in perpetuity" viz: indefinitely; which Webster's defines as: having no exact limits.

Adam contracted mortality via eating from the other tree. Had God allowed him access to the tree of life, it's fruit would've healed the mortality infecting his body and restored it to immortality.

The thing is: God predicted Adam's demise; so in order to ensure that the prediction came to pass; God had to cut off his access to the tree of life; which is a pretty interesting tree seeing as how it's not only an elixir, but also a remedy for whatever ails you. (Rev 22:2)

● Gen 3:23 . . So the Lord God banished him from the garden of Eden

One of the societal problems associated with STDs is the development of treatments for those kinds of diseases. The treatments are not bad per se; the problem is that knowing that there's treatments emboldens people to indulge in immorality.

In other words: had God allowed the man continued access to the garden, no doubt he and his wife would've included the forbidden fruit in their diets on a regular basis because there would be little to fear from its effects due to the ready availability of fruit from the tree of life. They would, as it's said, have their cake and eat it too.
_

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings,

thank you for sharing this and especially for the opportunity to look a little deeper into the lessons we can be taught of God in this question, Who told you that you were naked? and the passage surrounding it.

Considering that this is the very first interaction between God and man regarding sin, there is a lot to be discovered if one would take time to search Scripture with God's help.

[ Not sure that epigenetics is the right way to go but one could weave some of the lessons learnt into the study of such, although most modern thought would not use it wisely ]


Bless you ....><>

Isaiah 47:3
Your nakedness will be uncovered and your shame will be exposed. I will take vengeance; I will spare no one.

Lamentations 1:8
Jerusalem has sinned greatly; therefore she has become an object of scorn. All who honored her now despise her, for they have seen her nakedness; she herself groans and turns away.

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:20

 

[Beetow]

I'm going a bit off-topic next in order to drop back and address an incident related to the forbidden fruit.

Speaking to the Serpent, the Lord God said:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. Hers will pound your head, and yours will bite his heel." (Gen 3:15)

It's pretty much agreed upon by Christians on both sides of the aisle-- and some in the middle of the aisle --that Eve's predicted offspring found its fulfillment in Christ.

Now the thing is this; if Jesus Christ really was Eve's progeny, then he is also Adam's because Eve's body was made from material taken from Adam's body, viz: any child descending from Eve's body, whether normally conceived or virgin conceived, is Adam's child; which of course means that not only Jesus but also his mom, were biologically related to Adam.

There are two genealogies given for Jesus Christ in the New Testament; the one in Matthew goes only back as far as Abraham and that's because his is given to prove that Jesus is a genuine Hebrew.

The genealogy in Luke goes all the way back to Adam and that's because his is given to prove that Jesus is a genuine human being.

There's more related to this in Rom 1:1-3 where it's stated:

" Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh"

The Greek word for "seed" in that passage is sperma (sper'-mah) which is a bit ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual progeny as well as to biological progeny; for example:

"If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed." (Gal 3:29)

That seed is obviously spiritual progeny. But the seed in Rom 1:1-3 is biological progeny because David's seed is "according to the flesh" i.e. his physical human body.

David's seed according to the flesh not only validates Jesus' natural candidacy for David's throne, but also verifies that Adam was Jesus' biological progenitor because the Bible traces David's lineage all the way back there in Luke's genealogy.

But even without Luke's information, it's easy to prove that Adam was David's biological progenitor simply by referring to the fact that all human beings, regardless of race or color, are Adam's biological progeny; which of course includes David.

"The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." (Gen 3:20)

"From one man God made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth." (Acts 17:26)

Now, unless somebody can prove clearly, conclusively, iron clad, and without spin and sophistry that David's body was in no way biologically related to either Eve's body or Adam's, then we have to conclude that baby Jesus' body was also biologically related to Eve's and Adam's bodies due to his natural descent from David.
_

 

[Beetow]

● Gen 2:25 . .The two of them were naked, the man and his wife, yet they felt no shame

They were naked at first, but there's really no reason to believe that they would've remained that way. I mean, after all, human skin is not all that tough. They would need to protect themselves from dirt and grime, and from sunburn, cuts, bruises, and abrasions. The thing to note is that at this point of their existence, they lacked a sense of propriety.

Webster's defines shame as: 1) guilt, or disgrace, 2) a feeling of inferiority or inadequacy, and 3) inhibition.

I think we could probably add self consciousness to that list; defined as uncomfortably aware of one's self as an object of the observation of others.

In other words, there was absolutely nothing in early Man's psyche restraining him from parading around in full frontal exposure; and actually, neither was there anything in his psyche encouraging him to. Adam was a product of nature; hence he was comfortable au naturel. He and his wife weren't exhibitionists by any stretch of the imagination because in their innocence, they simply were neither proud of, nor humiliated by, their appearance in the buff.

Adam and his wife felt neither naughty nor perverted by frontal exposure at first, nor were they self conscious in the slightest respect because as yet they knew no cultural boundaries, nor were they infected yet with a guilt complex about sex and the human body; and concepts like vanity and narcissism had no point of reference in their thinking whatsoever. They had absolutely no natural sense of propriety, nor were they even aware of any because their creator hadn't taught them any proprieties yet at this point.

That was an interesting time in early human development. They had neither intuition nor conscience as yet to moderate their dress code. Had somebody criticized the first couple's appearance, they would no doubt have stared at their critic like a man taken leave of his senses.
_

 

[Beetow]

● Gen 3:21 . . And the Lord God made garments of skins for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

Precisely what species of animal God slaughtered in order to make the Adams their first suit of real clothing is unknown.

That day, humans learned something about the advantages of leather goods. Most of it is produced from cattle hides: calfskin, goatskin, kidskin, sheepskin, and lambskin. Other hides and skins used include those of the horse, pig, kangaroo, deer, crocodile, alligator, seal, walrus, and of late; python. Humans have used animal skins for a variety of practical purposes since ancient times, and to this good day leather is still a useful material all around the world.

The exact cut and design of their garments isn't specified; the Hebrew words kethoneth (keth-o'-neth) and/or kuttoneth (koot-to'-neth) just indicate a shirt, or covering; as hanging from the shoulder.

A garment hanging from the shoulder indicates that Eve's topless days were over; although that wouldn't necessarily rule out the possibility that she may have become the Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel of her day and created some interesting necklines.

The garments actually facilitated the people's association with God. They were unbearably uncomfortable around their maker in the buff, even in the semi-buff, and that was principally the reason they hid from the Lord when He came calling. However, fig leaves aren't very durable; they're merely an expedient. God showed them a much better way-- actually a way they would never have thought of all by themselves because who would have guessed that animals could be killed and stripped of their hides for clothing until God showed them?

The point to note is that the clothing that humanity's maker crafted for the Adams didn't cost them one red cent nor did they have to contribute even the slightest bit of labor to its construction. God slaughtered the animals, treated the hides, and fabricated the garments Himself; and gave the clothing to them totally free of charge and no strings attached. However, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the couple watched how God went about the whole business so they'd know how to take care of themselves.

» They'd eventually have to know how to make fire; no doubt God showed them how to do that too.

I believe God went to all that trouble for a couple of reasons.

First; because He wasn't indifferent to their situation; rather, God felt compassion for the Adams-- defined as sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it. And secondly; He didn't want anything hampering His association with the humans. In other words, Adam's felt-shame and embarrassment over undress was a barrier between himself and his maker, so God showed him a really good way to overcome it: a way that not only improved the quality of Adam's association with God; but also greatly enhanced his limited survival skills.
_