What was shameful about Adam and Eve's nakedness?

[SMITTY7000]

Apex,
Thanks for the reply. please do not let my reply below be anything but constructive and given out of love and concern.
There are 2 side to the story of exegesis.
Exegesis and eisegesis conflict one another as approaching Bible study.
Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text. Using definitions, scriptures and parallel passages to put into context.
The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.
You began your explanation with "My thoughts:" [ your own ideas ]
You used little or no scripture to document your thoughts.
There were no definitions of critical words to further explain your thoughts.
"JUST MY OBSERVATION"

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not going to venture an opinion but in Genesis chapter 9 there is also the story of Noah's sons looking (and avoiding looking.. depending which son) at his nakedness.

and being cursed for it

 

[SMITTY7000]

TO UNCOVER YOUR FATHERS NAKEDNESS
Genesis 9:20 "And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:"

God placed both Adam and Noah on the earth to be farmers [husbandman], to work the soil, and plant and harvest crops.

Genesis 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent."

Noah got a little carried away with his new crops, and he got drunk.

Genesis 9:22 "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without."

Canaan is mentioned again as being the son of Ham, yet his birth has not come yet.

Genesis 9:23 "And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and sent backward, and covered the nakedness of the father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness."

What this is saying is that only Ham took part in this sinful act. The "Nakedness of their father", is the term for their mother. Ham performed the sex act with his mother. This is why it is important for us to mature in our minds and not let the fairy tales of the Kenites deceive us here. Shem and Japheth took a blanket and turned their heads, as they went in to cover their mother, after she had been defiled by Ham.

Leviticus 18:7, 8 "The nakedness of they father, or the nakedness of they mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness." [verse 7] "The nakedness of they father's wife [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness." [verse 8]

Leviticus 20:11 "And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

genesis9

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

the shame came from their new found knowledge of good and evil from eating the fruit.

 

[Apex]

As a final observation, no one has been able to provide a definitive biblical defense on how nudity could be intrinsically immoral. Most examples instead pointed to particular contexts in which being naked might lead to some supposed indirect negative consequence, such as sexual misconduct sparked by lust. This all sounds like a repackaged Christian version of classic utilitarianism. However, if you believe God is an absolute moral adjudicator, I'd be wary of that worldview. I personally believe God is more concerned with the intention of our hearts (Mark 7:15).

None of the examples were specific enough to demand precise rules or regulations for the amount of clothing one needs to wear. In fact, these same examples weren't even specific enough to show that bare breasts were included in the term "nakedness". As such, legalism over nudity rests on a questionable and subjective foundation.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I disagree. I'm fairly sure we understand "lust" differently, but either way, true modesty is about not flaunting wealth, not about preventing lust (1 Timothy 2:9-10, 1 Peter 3:3-4).

So you wish to define "true modesty" from just modesty. Take your alternative definition of modesty to a thread on wealth. This thread is about naked modesty.

Also, clothing does not prevent someone from lusting.

Read my post to see that I wrote mitigate, not prevent. If you can't understand the idea that people would be full of so much more lust if we all ran around naked than you shouldn't have written the OP.

In Jesus' famous example in Matthew 5:28, the woman is assumed to be fully clothed. What she was wearing is not the issue; the concern lands squarely on the intention of the one doing the looking. Lust is sexual desire MIXED with an intention to act immorally.

No, Jesus was saying just lustful looking was bad, even if you don't intend to act on it. Like thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife.

This is why a husband is not lusting when he desires to have sex with his wife. Having consensual sex with her is not immoral.

This has nothing to do with my argument. And is your unanswered question about Genesis 3:7. At least my argument has a solution to your question of why Adam and Eve, a married couple allowed to see each other naked, still thought it immoral to run around naked all the time.

I'm just saying nudity is nonmoral. It all depends on the context of why someone is nude. For example, women should be allowed to breastfeed in public and people should be allowed to swim nude. What has happened in the church is something called legalism. Paul's attempt to eradicate legalism from the early church failed horribly and we are now left with a tradition of puritanical attitudes toward nudity. We can't even go to the restroom without dividers for the FEAR someone might see our genitals.

You fail to understand that modesty is now a natural law. While it is taught, it does not have to be taught to be known. When babes are born, they are innocent and love to run around naked. Why is it OK for them to? Once boys and girls come to the age of sexual awakening, they know they can't run around naked. While some may be strict about forcing modesty, it does not have to be taught that you just can't run around naked all the time.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

As a final observation, no one has been able to provide a definitive biblical defense on how nudity could be intrinsically immoral.

Ya, I did and you did not even address the first half of my post.

First think about the words, their eyes were opened and they realized they were naked. Understand this is an analogy. Their eyes were not shut before they sinned and they certainly were smart enough to realize they were not wearing clothes before they sinned. But when they sinned a change happened. It was not a physical change. It was not an intellectual change. It was a "moral" change. Before sin it was normal for them to be naked. After sin it was not normal to be naked. It became immoral to be naked all the time.

You don't need a Bible verse to prove it is immoral for everyone to run around naked all the time. Why because it is a natural law. Just like it takes a man and woman to make babies. Just like it is a natural law that God exists.

 

[Apex]

No, Jesus was saying just lustful looking was bad, even if you don't intend to act on it. Like thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife.

This is the crux of our arguments. If lust does not include intention, your argument holds weight. However, if my interpretation is correct, your argument fails.

I'll post where I am getting my definition from:

This is an excerpt from the premier translator's handbook on Matthew:

Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully is translated in a number of different ways. For example, TEV “anyone who looks at a woman and wants to possess her”; Mft “anyone who even looks with lust at a woman”; and Brc “if anyone looks at a woman in such a way as deliberately to awaken within himself the forbidden desire for her.”

It is important to note that this verse does not just refer to noticing a woman as attractive, or even to a brief recognition that she is sexually appealing. It refers instead to actually contemplating having sex with her, that is, to having the intention of doing so. Thus, for looks … lustfully translators can say “wants to sleep with her,” “wants sex with her,” or “looks at her with the intention of sleeping with her.”

Barclay Moon Newman and Philip C. Stine, A Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1992), 137–138.

Another source, this time from the premier work on sexuality in the New Testament:

"Lust" is a way of capturing the negative aspect of inappropriate desire and tends to suggest impersonal, almost bestial urges. The Greek word has a wider ambience. It is not however just the feeling that is in focus, but, as the context suggests, something more intentional: the man looks with a view to giving rein to his sexual passions and this determines his attitude. Such an attitude can lead to actual adultery, just as anger/hatred can lead to murder.

William R. G. Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality, Attitudes towards Sexuality in Judaism and Christianity in the Hellenistic Greco-Roman Era (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 115–116.

 

[Apex]

You don't need a Bible verse to prove it is immoral for everyone to run around naked all the time. Why because it is a natural law. Just like it takes a man and woman to make babies. Just like it is a natural law that God exists.

Do you subscribe to Aquinas' Natural Law Theory of morality? Have you heard of Hume's is-ought problem?

Is–ought problem - Wikipedia

 

[PeaceJoyLove]

While I personally interpret Genesis as historical narrative, you bring up a good point for those who view it as another genre of literature, such as mythology or allegory. In such cases, the nakedness of Adam and Eve would be symbolic and have no relation to actual nudity.

It is a spiritual truth, the whole of scripture, cover to cover, being the narrative of our soul's journey back to the truth, from the beginning. (Alpha and Omega, First and Last Adam, The Beginning and The end) The eyesight change that happened in the garden in light of Jesus' words as to why He came "so that the blind may see and those who see may become blind... If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

There was a change in perception (where they were 'seeing' from)... Adam heard God's voice outside of himself for the first time and was afraid...having everything to do with the feast he ate prepared by the woman (whose desire was to be for her husband, but she desired something she perceived she lacked, reasoning with the serpent)...God asked, "Where art thou?" And, "Who told you that you were naked?" God declared all HE had made as 'very good', and now they perceived in a different way...from a different place (having been kicked out...)in the beginning, they were clothed in God's glory...

You say, 'I am rich; I have grown wealthy and need nothing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, white garments so that you may be clothed and your shameful nakedness not exposed, and salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. (Revelation 3:17-18)

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

This is the crux of our arguments. If lust does not include intention, your argument holds weight. However, if my interpretation is correct, your argument fails.

What were you saying about legalism in the Church? It should be obvious that if everyone was walking around naked in a sinful world, there would be more sin in the world. God injected modesty in our nature to mitigate it.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Do you subscribe to Aquinas' Natural Law Theory of morality? Have you heard of Hume's is-ought problem?

Is–ought problem - Wikipedia

Never heard of him. Was he religious? If not, I would not trust any of his theories on morality.

 

[Apex]

What were you saying about legalism in the Church? It should be obvious that if everyone was walking around naked in a sinful world, there would be more sin in the world. God injected modesty in our nature to mitigate it.

I'm confused about your position.

In one sense, it seems that you are supporting Utilitarianism. "Utilitarianism is a version of consequentialism, which states that the consequences of any action are the only standard of right and wrong." Source

And in another sense, you seemed to have argued for Natural Law Theory. "Natural law theory is a theory about the relationship between morality and human nature, the theory that who we are determines how we ought to act. There is way of living that is in accordance with human nature, this kind of natural law theory holds, and morality prescribes that we live such a life." Source

However, each of these theories are contradictory to one another. Can you please explain which philosophical position you subscribe to? It will help with this discussion.

 

[Apex]

Never heard of him. Was he religious? If not, I would not trust any of his theories on morality.

Most of what you believe has secular foundations, you just don't know it because Christians in the past have utilized these foundations and gave them a decidedly Christian flavor. For example, you'd be surprised just how much Christian theology and theological language was influenced by Plato and Aristotle.

I take the same position as Augustine on these issues:

Moreover, if those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said anything that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it.
From Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana 40

 

[SolomonVII]

The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man."


Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.


I the one instance, Adam was literally looking at his own flesh. It was analogous to having a shower alone, or to a three year old having a bath with his little sister.

In the other instance , he was looking at the power and awesomeness of Creation itself, and they fully understanding their unworthiness to what lie ahead.
The history of all mankind, in all its fallenness, and that would be all of their doing.

Genitalia are the source of procreation of the world.
Nakedness would be a constant reminder to all of that, to the plight that Adam and Eve had bestowed on all of humanity, from Cain slaying Abel, to the Cross. to Auschwitz and the Killing Fields.

 

[Apex]

The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man."


Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.


I the one instance, Adam was literally looking at his own flesh. It was analogous to having a shower alone, or to a three year old having a bath with his little sister.

In the other instance , he was looking at the power and awesomeness of Creation itself, and they fully understanding their unworthiness to what lie ahead.
The history of all mankind, in all its fallenness, and that would be all of their doing.

Genitalia are the source of procreation of the world.
Nakedness would be a constant reminder to all of that, to the plight that Adam and Eve had bestowed on all of humanity, from Cain slaying Abel, to the Cross. to Auschwitz and the Killing Fields.

It sounds like you are suggesting that since our sin nature is inherited by virtue of being human (a child of Adam), then the instrument responsible for the procreation of humans should now be covered. This seems quite arbitrary though.

In fact, an argument can be made that circumcision would cease to be a viable sign if the penis was not to be seen by anyone besides your closest family members and spouse. Paul had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3) because it was assumed his penis would be seen by the Jews.

 

[SolomonVII]

It sounds like you are suggesting that since our sin nature is inherited by virtue of being human (a child of Adam), then the instrument responsible for the procreation of humans should now be covered. This seems quite arbitrary though.

In fact, an argument can be made that circumcision would cease to be a viable sign if the penis was not to be seen by anyone besides your closest family members and spouse. Paul had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3) because it was assumed his penis would be seen by the Jews.

No I don't think that is where my argument is coming from.
Procreation was not a source of shame for Adam and Eve, who presumably had genitals before the Fall, and presumably were therefore capable of procreation even then.

But, when the destiny of human procreation is transformed by the Fall to fratricides and genocides and every form or torture that might be imagined, the true import of sin slaps Adam and Eve in the face, and they become fully conscious of what their acts of rebellion have doomed not just themselves, but the whole of humanity to.

Seeing one genitalia before the Fall would never be a source of shame. Like an artist looking at his hands, or a ballerina looking at her feet, or weight lifters flexing their muscles, genitalia would be a source of pride even. Procreation is as close as we come to being formed in the image of the Creator, after all.
But, to understand that the power of creation bestowed on them through their genitalia will unleash all the horrors of the world on their very own children until the very end of time would be nothing other than a horror and a source of shame for Adam and Eve after their disobedience.

What I am doing is explaining why it was that Adam and Eve felt shame in the wake of the Fall. The weight of the whole world fell upon on them in that instance.
What we experience in terms of our own nakedness is on us, and the kind of world that we are creating through our own actions.

 

[fhansen]

I've noticed some troubling Christian theological positions on nudity (such as this one), so I wanted to investigate the most cited passage when this topic comes up.

We read in Genesis 2:25 after Eve is created and becomes "one flesh" with Adam:

And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Later, in Genesis 3:7 and immediately after the couple sins, we read:

Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

After they made coverings out of the fig leaves, we read:

And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?" And he said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself."

____________________________________________

My thoughts:

1. Adam and Eve were never ashamed to see themselves naked. Shame here comes from God discovering them naked.

2. Even though Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves, they still hid from God when they heard Him coming. They claimed they did not want God to find them naked. It appears they thought their makeshift fig leaf coverings were inadequate. The fig leaves did not fully satiate their need.

Note: Shame in the OT world was connected to public reputation. Shame is the public exposure of guilt. In Genesis, Adam and Eve were attempting to prevent God from shaming them by fulfilling their own needs themselves. They were guilty, not of being naked openly (no one was there to see them besides God!), but of violating God's command and fracturing themselves from his gracious provisions.

3. Nakedness is seen throughout Scripture as neediness and/or weakness. This new awareness of their nakedness on the part of Adam and Eve suggests their boarder awareness of their total dependence on God - who had provided for them in the garden for all their needs.

4. In this sense, nudity is being communicated as nonmoral. It is soley being used to communicate what they were lacking. As Job states eloquently, "Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return."

5. For clarity, I'm not suggesting we should walk around naked. I believing clothing has an important purpose; however, I am suggesting that we shouldn't be so concerned with nakedness as to make exposure (accidental or not) an inherent immoral act. Context and intentions matter. We live under the New Covenant of Grace.

Your thoughts?

Adam & Eve lost their innocence in Eden. They were never even really naked until they disobeyed God, after which they deemed their bodies to be evil. Both physical and personal/spiritual transparency were no longer the rule, truth no longer reigned in man's world, pretense was part of our lives from that point on.

Until we meet God "face to face" as it's put, in the next life, we'll never be completely comfortable in our own skin, with the truth about who we really are. Adam wanted to be more than mere creature, more than who he actually was, and that is the essence of pride. Pride and shame run together, opposite sides of the same coin, both concerned with how others see us.

Anyway the rest of creation would laugh, if they could, at our obsession with covering our bodies, and our obsession with over-exposing them on occasion as well. Meanwhile, in the fallen state we take our clothing very seriously

 

[prodromos]

I suspect that their shame came as a result of their passions becoming disordered as a result of their fall. Love was turning into lust.

 

[SkyWriting]

IF? What do you mean, if? Why do you even have to ask the question? For good reason the site won't allow me to go get a picture to post here and prove what I thought was one thing everyone knew and agreed upon.

Is is known that clothing actually increases sexual arousal. Groups of people
in warmer climates do not wear clothes. It doesn't foster constant sex.

A show on TV , Naked and Afraid, brings together two naked strangers
in a remote location. There is no evidence of arousal on the show.
Like Adam and Eve they are focused on survival, not sex.