Naked and Unashamed

[gadfly]

This is an exegetical topic, not necessarily a theological or dogmatic one. That is, this is about an interpretation of meaning in a phrase in the Bible.

Prior to the eating of the forbidden fruit, the human author says that Adam and Eve were "naked and unashamed"; after eating the fruit, they discover their nudity and are ashamed.

There is a long tradition of interpretation (starting at least from Augustine) that infers from this that nudity originally was a good thing, and that the author of Genesis was praising it as an ideal state.

I find this interpretation highly unlikely when I read it against an ancient semitic background. No ancient Hebrew or Jew (same thing, different times) would read the words "naked" and think "ah, the good old days when we could run around in the buck". Nudity was embarrassing, and I propose the author of Genesis did NOT intend the description to indicate an ideal state. I propose the author wished his readers to expect DEVELOPMENT. That is, the reader would read the phrase and think, "Wait, theyre naked! So surely they will be clothed soon!"

So why were they naked and UNASHAMED? Because the author wished to present them as if they were children (children do not feel ashamed while naked) who still needed to grow up.

Question: well simply interact with the above points....

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #2]

Hmmm....

Is that what you think the human author was getting at? I highly doubt that was the human authorial intent. I cannot imagine an ancient Jew or ancient Jewish editors agreeing with you.

I think it's important to read all literature from an educated point of view that takes into account an educated view of the historical context

I know many disagree and think that the bible is somehow magically different and can be read in any language by anyone and immediately yield a precise and unambiguous meaning, but I am not one of those.

I don't claim to know what the author was getting at, but yah, I do think generally speaking that what I've tried to lay out is highly supported by the text, and provides an understanding that stays true to what is said as cleanly as possible, without needless addition or assumption. Undeniably, nakedness is a pivotal concept in Genesis 2-3 (and as such the bible more broadly), but few recognize the significance or take the time to try and see how it is the underlying driver of all the action we see here, and key to the life we are called to.

And who said the bible "immediately yields a precise and unambiguous meaning"? It's taken me years of study to get where I am, and these texts are rich precisely because of the different avenues of interpretation they open up to challenge our discernment. In fact, part of my original post on this topic played with the ambiguity of the aram of the serpent, and the different paths this opens up, i.e., is it a wise creature in virtue of its nakedness, or a nefarious beast? ...

But anyways, I've said a lot of things. Not sure what your actual argument against any of it is other than you don't think it's right, but would be happy to hear a more substantial response.

[John17_3]

[Replying to gadfly in post #1]

This is an exegetical topic, not necessarily a theological or dogmatic one. That is, this is about an interpretation of meaning in a phrase in the Bible.

Prior to the eating of the forbidden fruit, the human author says that Adam and Eve were "naked and unashamed"; after eating the fruit, they discover their nudity and are ashamed.

What we notice here, as you said, is that Adam and Eve were naked, and unashamed. Genesis 2:25
You said, "after eating the fruit, they discover their nudity and are ashamed", but if they were unashamed, prior to eating the fruit, did they not already know they were naked?

They both could literally see each other with their physical eyes. Adam could see Eve's nakedness, and Eve could see Adam's nakedness.
So, even before eating the fruit, they discovered their nakedness, but were not ashamed.

After eating the fruit, the Bible says, their eyes were opened. Genesis 3:7
Of course, this does not refer to their physical eyes, which were already opened, and seeing, but this refers to a mental vision.
The way they were now thinking - their mental thoughts, caused them to feel ashamed.

This is understandable, because what they just did, is disconnect from God's spirit, and so their thoughts are not in harmony with God's.
What is contrary to God, is contrary to good. Going away from the light, takes one to the darkness.
This is what happened to the angel that became Satan the Devil.

Thoughts of our own are going to be bad.
Adam and Eve in their sinful state, now began to think and see in their own way.

There is a long tradition of interpretation (starting at least from Augustine) that infers from this that nudity originally was a good thing, and that the author of Genesis was praising it as an ideal state.

I find this interpretation highly unlikely when I read it against an ancient semitic background. No ancient Hebrew or Jew (same thing, different times) would read the words "naked" and think "ah, the good old days when we could run around in the buck". Nudity was embarrassing, and I propose the author of Genesis did NOT intend the description to indicate an ideal state. I propose the author wished his readers to expect DEVELOPMENT. That is, the reader would read the phrase and think, "Wait, theyre naked! So surely they will be clothed soon!"

Of course, the writing of this historical account, like the creation account of Genesis 1, and 2, is not from a Jew's perspective.

So why were they naked and UNASHAMED? Because the author wished to present them as if they were children (children do not feel ashamed while naked) who still needed to grow up.

The author presented them as they were created by God.
Yes, their mind was untarnished, being created in the image of God.
They only knew of what was in them - the spirit of peace, love, joy... Galatians 5:22, 23
Needing to grow, yes.

Question: well simply interact with the above points....

What do you think about my interaction?