Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!

". . . and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness."

Jump to latest Follow Reply

Thread starter Washington
Start date Mar 21, 2009

Status: Not open for further replies.

Sort by date Sort by votes

W

Washington

Well-Known Member

Mar 21, 2009

Before the fall it was not morally objectionable to be or be seen naked. Now it is

Genesis 3:6-7 (NLT)

6 The woman was convinced. She saw that the tree was beautiful and its fruit looked delicious, and she wanted the wisdom it would give her. So she took some of the fruit and ate it. Then she gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it, too. 7 At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves.

Obviously the shame they felt was something god had imparted to the fruit, somewhat like its taste, and texture, which raises the question of why? Why imbue this fruit with a sense of bodily shame? Why make your most prized creature feel shame at their nakedness should they eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Why pick on this particular aspect of their being?

This is the very body god had given them, and as such would have been a thing of perfection and deserving of admiration and perhaps even reverence. And evidently this is how it was considered before the fall; at least it lacked any negative connotations. But, without changing it in any way, god saw fit to make the naked human body shameful to humans. Something god considered good he now wanted is creation to consider with shame.

And to what practical purpose? What did he accomplish by having humans---at least some humans---now feel shameful about their naked bodies?

•••

Autumnleaf

Legend

Mar 21, 2009

The body was not shameful. Nakedness was. Lack of modesty was the issue which wisdom brought to mind.

•••

Upvote 0

W

Washington

Well-Known Member

Mar 21, 2009

Autumnleaf said:
The body was not shameful. Nakedness was.

Which is why I said "feel shameful about their naked bodies."

Lack of modesty was the issue which wisdom brought to mind.

But why was it an issue? Why did god makes nakedness a matter of modesty when it never was before the fruit-eating incident? And any wisdom that addresses modesty is necessarily a product of the incident, and not something that would have existed without it. Had A&E never ate the fruit such "wisdom" would be foolishness. It all hangs on god's desire that humans regard their nakedness with shame.

•••

Upvote 0

Autumnleaf

Legend

Mar 21, 2009

Washington said:
But why was it an issue? Why did god makes nakedness a matter of modesty when it never was before the fruit-eating incident? And any wisdom that addresses modesty is necessarily a product of the incident, and not something that would have existed without it. Had A&E never ate the fruit such "wisdom" would be foolishness. It all hangs on god's desire that humans regard their nakedness with shame.

Why does God make an issue of anything? I think people who claim they can answer that are either ignorant or arrogant to claim to know the mind of God.

•••

Upvote 0

W

Washington

Well-Known Member

Mar 21, 2009

Autumnleaf said:
Why does God make an issue of anything? I think people who claim they can answer that are either ignorant or arrogant to claim to know the mind of God.

Well, having attended more than my share of Christian Sunday services in the past, this is just the kind of thing that ministers DO address. It's a very common tactic among preachers: telling the flock what god thinks and wants. But, recognizing your take on god and his doings I do understand your position.

•••

Upvote 0

Chajara

iEdit

Mar 21, 2009

What I always wondered is why, if Adam and Eve were husband and wife, they felt shame at seeing each other naked. Did eating the fruit make it suddenly "immodest" to be naked in front of your spouse? How did they ever manage to have sex then?

•••

Upvote 0

K

KCKID

Well-Known Member

Mar 21, 2009

Washington said:
But why was it an issue? Why did god makes nakedness a matter of modesty when it never was before the fruit-eating incident? And any wisdom that addresses modesty is necessarily a product of the incident, and not something that would have existed without it. Had A&E never ate the fruit such "wisdom" would be foolishness. It all hangs on god's desire that humans regard their nakedness with shame.

Autumnleaf said:
Why does God make an issue of anything? I think people who claim they can answer that are either ignorant or arrogant to claim to know the mind of God.

Now I'm really confused. Haven't you stated on more than one occasion that we DO know the mind of God from the writers of the Bible?

Or am I getting my posters mixed up?

•••

Upvote 0

K

KCKID

Well-Known Member

Mar 21, 2009

Chajara said:
What I always wondered is why, if Adam and Eve were husband and wife, they felt shame at seeing each other naked. Did eating the fruit make it suddenly "immodest" to be naked in front of your spouse? How did they ever manage to have sex then?

Perhaps God provided them with benzodiazepine (valium).

•••

Upvote 0

Autumnleaf

Legend

Mar 21, 2009

KCKID said:
Now I'm really confused. Haven't you stated on more than one occasion that we DO know the mind of God from the writers of the Bible?

Or am I getting my posters mixed up?

From what I recall, the Bible says what to do but not why God says so.

•••

Upvote 0

E

ebia

Senior Contributor

Mar 21, 2009

Washington said:
Before the fall it was not morally objectionable to be or be seen naked. Now it is

Genesis 3:6-7 (NLT)

6 The woman was convinced. She saw that the tree was beautiful and its fruit looked delicious, and she wanted the wisdom it would give her. So she took some of the fruit and ate it. Then she gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it, too. 7 At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves.

Obviously the shame they felt was something god had imparted to the fruit, somewhat like its taste, and texture, which raises the question of why? Why imbue this fruit with a sense of bodily shame? Why make your most prized creature feel shame at their nakedness should they eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Why pick on this particular aspect of their being?

This is the very body god had given them, and as such would have been a thing of perfection and deserving of admiration and perhaps even reverence. And evidently this is how it was considered before the fall; at least it lacked any negative connotations. But, without changing it in any way, god saw fit to make the naked human body shameful to humans. Something god considered good he now wanted is creation to consider with shame.

And to what practical purpose? What did he accomplish by having humans---at least some humans---now feel shameful about their naked bodies?

What a strange way of reading the story.

•••

Upvote 0

H

HighwayMan

Well-Known Member

Mar 21, 2009

Washington said:
Before the fall it was not morally objectionable to be or be seen naked. Now it is

Genesis 3:6-7 (NLT)

6 The woman was convinced. She saw that the tree was beautiful and its fruit looked delicious, and she wanted the wisdom it would give her. So she took some of the fruit and ate it. Then she gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it, too. 7 At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves.

Obviously the shame they felt was something god had imparted to the fruit, somewhat like its taste, and texture, which raises the question of why? Why imbue this fruit with a sense of bodily shame? Why make your most prized creature feel shame at their nakedness should they eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Why pick on this particular aspect of their being?

This is the very body god had given them, and as such would have been a thing of perfection and deserving of admiration and perhaps even reverence. And evidently this is how it was considered before the fall; at least it lacked any negative connotations. But, without changing it in any way, god saw fit to make the naked human body shameful to humans. Something god considered good he now wanted is creation to consider with shame.

And to what practical purpose? What did he accomplish by having humans---at least some humans---now feel shameful about their naked bodies?

The body or nakedness in itself isn't "shameful", but what it represents - is. Man is a unique creature and separate from all others because what makes him who he is are his ideals. His willingness to go beyond his simple animalistic nature and reach for a higher purpose. You don't wear clothes simply to guard against the cold, you wear them because those are your society's ideals of modesty. Thus, nakedness is "shameful" because it ties you more with your primitive instincts than ideals.

Before the fall, Adam and Eve weren't mortal humans living a life full of hardships, where such an appeal to the spiritual over the naturalistic was greatly important to connecting with God. In heaven, I suppose, there won't even be a distinction between naked or not.

•••

Upvote 0

K

KCKID

Well-Known Member

Mar 21, 2009

ebia said:
What a strange way of reading the story.

Is there really an UN-strange way to read the story of Adam & Eve? Can anyone really say in all honesty, "Oh yeah, I get it!" ...?

•••

Upvote 0

eliems

Newbie

Mar 21, 2009

The way I read the account the issue is "knowledge of good and evil". Before the act of rebellion there was innocence and fellowship with God, whereas afterward there was shame and fear and separation.

Only through Christ can we be free of condemnation and shame. Without Him it will follow us to the grave and beyond!

•••

Upvote 0

W

Washington

Well-Known Member

Mar 21, 2009

HighwayMan said:
The body or nakedness in itself isn't "shameful", but what it represents - is.

So what did A&E see it as representing when "At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness"? There was certainly no " society's ideals of modesty" back then. And, just what "primitive instincts" were they suddenly tied to?
Sorry, but your reply isn't making a lot of sense to me.

Last edited: Mar 21, 2009

•••

Upvote 0

E

ebia

Senior Contributor

Mar 21, 2009

KCKID said:
Is there really an UN-strange way to read the story of Adam & Eve? Can anyone really say in all honesty, "Oh yeah, I get it!" ...?

That's a fair point, but I think I would only ever have read the feeling-shame-at-nakedness as a symptom of whatever change is taking place as a result of eating of the tree..., not a specifically designed in direct effect.

I can't quote you a reference, but one article I read recently suggests that what is happening in Genesis 3 looks an awful lot like what happens as people grow up.

•••

Upvote 0

H

HighwayMan

Well-Known Member

Mar 22, 2009

Washington said:
So what did A&E see it as representing when "At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness"? There was certainly no " society's ideals of modesty" back then. And, just what "primitive instincts" were they suddenly tied to?
Sorry, but your reply isn't making a lot of sense to me.

we're not talking about a literal interpretation of the story, I hope, but the reason why humans in general feel "shamefulness" in nudity and how the A&E story symbolizes that.

•••

Upvote 0

chingchang

Newbie

Mar 22, 2009

The body or nakedness in itself isn't "shameful", but what it represents - is. Man is a unique creature and separate from all others because what makes him who he is are his ideals. His willingness to go beyond his simple animalistic nature and reach for a higher purpose. You don't wear clothes simply to guard against the cold, you wear them because those are your society's ideals of modesty. Thus, nakedness is "shameful" because it ties you more with your primitive instincts than ideals.

Nice opinion ya got there...and you might be right.

Before the fall, Adam and Eve weren't mortal humans living a life full of hardships, where such an appeal to the spiritual over the naturalistic was greatly important to connecting with God. In heaven, I suppose, there won't even be a distinction between naked or not.

You're mistaken about Adam and Even being immortal beings prior to "the fall". Two proofs:

1. A more literal rendering of Genesis 2:16-17 follows...and this rendering is acceptable to a majority of Hebrew-reading Biblical Scholars:

16 And YHVH ELOHIM laid charge upon the soilman,
saying, “From every tree of the garden, eating—you will surely eat!
17 And from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you will not eat
from it; for on the day you eat from it, dying—you will surely die!”

Notice the last part. They are already dying (i.e. mortal)...but...if they eat of the "forbidden" fruit they will die that very day (they did not).

2. If they were immortal...as you suggest...then why was God concerned about them eating from the Tree of Life immediately prior to kicking them out? Why would an immortal being need to eat from the tree of life?

Genesis 3:22 (NIV):
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

God...obviously concerned about this says "MUST not be allowed" and implies that if Adam Eve ate from the tree of life they would "live forever".

The only way around these proofs are to say "well...Adam and Eve WERE created immortal...but then they ate the "forbidden" fruit and became mortal...and that is why God said what he did in Gen 3:22". Nice...but assumptions have to be made to arrive on that.

Hugs,
CC

•••

Upvote 0

B

b&wpac4

Trying to stay away

Mar 22, 2009

eliems said:
The way I read the account the issue is "knowledge of good and evil". Before the act of rebellion there was innocence and fellowship with God, whereas afterward there was shame and fear and separation.

Only through Christ can we be free of condemnation and shame. Without Him it will follow us to the grave and beyond!

Must have sucked to live prior to 2000 years ago. Moses, David, Solomon, all living in complete shame and condemnation....

Odd that I don't see that from reading the stories.

•••

Upvote 0

W

Washington

Well-Known Member

Mar 22, 2009

HighwayMan said:
we're not talking about a literal interpretation of the story, I hope,

I thought it was pretty clear in my OP that that's exactly what I was talking about.

but the reason why humans in general feel "shamefulness" in nudity and how the A&E story symbolizes that.

Well, according to many Christian's this is where we get the sense of shame for our nakedness.

In chapter 3:7, the Bible says that the first thing that Adam and Eve noticed when they ate the fruit was their nakedness. It is natural today for us to feel shame over nakedness. If you were to read the journals of those who endured the holocaust during World War II, you would notice that many references were made to men, women, boys, and girls standing naked in line for the death camps. Even though there were horrible things happening at that time, one of the things universally mentioned is the embarrassment of standing naked for all to see.
source

In the garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve sinned, they both realized that they were naked.
In Genesis 3:7, they tried to resolve this problem by sewing together aprons of fig leaves. No one
else was around, but they were still naked and needed to fix it. Their solution, however, was not good
enough. We are told in verse 21, Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats
of skins, and clothed them. Do you see the point? The issue was not modesty, but rather nakedness!
The Hebrews word for coats is kethoneth, and means, garment, robe, tunic, a long shirt-like
garment usually of linen.

Again, the point is made in Exodus 28:42, And thou shalt make them linen breeches to
cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach. These were instructions
for the priests of the Old Testament, but the point is made here, just as it was in Genesis 3 that their
nakedness needed to be covered. What is nakedness? When it comes to the lower body, we find that
the area from the loins to the knees is referred to as nakedness. This would tell us that in order to
cover our nakedness, our skirt or shorts must cover the thighs, reaching even unto the knees.
source

Biblical "Nakedness" includes both nudity
and inadequate coverage. The Bible is not as
dumb, (silent), on this subject as some
pretend it to be. Unacceptable bodily
coverage is illustrated clearly in Genesis
3: 7,10, and 21.

The coverings, which they had made for
themselves, were not adequate as far as they
were concerned, for in their own eyes they
were "still" naked. Any clothing that does not cover the body
adequately is indecent clothing.
source

•••

Upvote 0

A

andross77

Senior Member

Mar 23, 2009

chingchang said:
Nice opinion ya got there...and you might be right.

You're mistaken about Adam and Even being immortal beings prior to "the fall". Two proofs:

1. A more literal rendering of Genesis 2:16-17 follows...and this rendering is acceptable to a majority of Hebrew-reading Biblical Scholars:

16 And YHVH ELOHIM laid charge upon the soilman,
saying, From every tree of the garden, eatingyou will surely eat!
17 And from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you will not eat
from it; for on the day you eat from it, dyingyou will surely die!

Notice the last part. They are already dying (i.e. mortal)...but...if they eat of the "forbidden" fruit they will die that very day (they did not).

2. If they were immortal...as you suggest...then why was God concerned about them eating from the Tree of Life immediately prior to kicking them out? Why would an immortal being need to eat from the tree of life?

Genesis 3:22 (NIV):
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

God...obviously concerned about this says "MUST not be allowed" and implies that if Adam Eve ate from the tree of life they would "live forever".

The only way around these proofs are to say "well...Adam and Eve WERE created immortal...but then they ate the "forbidden" fruit and became mortal...and that is why God said what he did in Gen 3:22". Nice...but assumptions have to be made to arrive on that.

Hugs,
CC

that is a bad misreading of the Genesis account. God made Adam and Eve and called His creation good. There was no sin at this point. No sin = no death.

After they sinned in rebellion against God's will, sin came about and death entered the scene. If they then would have eaten from the Tree of Life, reversing the death sentence, they would have been in the horrible predicament of living forever as sinners estranged from God. Pretty much the same as Satan's existence.

God protected them, and us, by putting an angelic guard around that tree. Now we are mortal beings that have access to eternal life through His Son Jesus.

•••

Upvote 0

Show hidden low quality content

Status: Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

V

Cities Offering ‘Sanctuary’ To Illegal Alien Rapists And Killers Deny It To Their Own Residents

Replies: 8

Views: 279

American Politics Apr 15, 2025

A2SG

Does Christianity support and/or teach racism?

2 3

Replies: 50

Views: 2K

Ethics & Morality 16 minutes ago

linux.poet

The reward of transparency before God and man

Replies: 0

Views: 161

Daily Devotionals Apr 1, 2025

Joseph G

God's Tears

2 3

Replies: 43

Views: 945

Ethics & Morality Thursday at 8:51 PM

JEBofChristTheLord

This is NOT helping someone overcome fear!

Replies: 2

Views: 216

"My Two Cents Worth" Wednesday at 4:16 AM

LovebirdsFlying

Share:

Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email