"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."
The phrase “the eyes of them both were opened” is “paw-kakh ah'-yin shet-tah'-yim” which means that their conscience was laid bare. Traditional thought has taught that it was their literal eyes were open. No. It was that their minds were opened to the concept of disobedience. The phrase “…and they know that they were naked” means that they were aware of and ashamed of their disobedience.
We should keep in mind that it wasn't the fruit that made them fall. It was the fact that they disobeyed a direct commandment from G-d. It could have easily been, "Don't pick the flowers".
Now come the interesting part. They made themselves a covering to hide their shame. There have been many sermons indicating that the fruit, which they ate, was an apple. Unfortunately, that comes from an erroneous Latin interpretation of the scriptures. If we back up and look at the whole counsel of G-d. There is one tree that is constantly withering, cursed or brought back to reconciliation, and that is the fig tree. This makes sense when you see that Adam and Eve attempted to hide their shame with the source of the disobedience.
I challenge you to perform a study of fig trees throughout the scriptures. I’m sure that it will be fruitful. ;-) Sorry for the pun, couldn’t resist the temptation. ;-) Better stop while I’m ahead.
I always thought that when their eyes were opened and they saw their nakedness meant that they realized that their innocence was gone and they now know that God will have to "cover" their guilt.
ReplyDeleteBut of course man tried to do it his own way at first with a fig leaf. Not good enough. God had to cover them with something more secure, skin. I see this skin as lamb skin, perhaps a precursor to Christ.
Keith,
ReplyDeleteWhat are your thoughts about Adam and Eve understanding hwat was right and wrong before they ate from the tree.
Stan the half truth teller was explaining that they did not know that it was "wrong" to eat from the tree because the tree's name gave them that ability to distinguish between right and wrong.
I say that the context interprets what the tree meant...that is they knew that it was wrong to go against God's rules (or else God would not have told them NOT to eat...and romans 5:12 claims that Adam's sin brought death into the world) or at least knew it was unwise because God warned them that they would die. I thought that it wasn't until they ate from the tree that they had a fuller understanding of right and wrong.
thoughts...?
Hey Dan,
ReplyDeleteThe text clearly shows that they knew that G-d did not want them to eat of the tree. Obedience is all they knew. That is the "right" of the "right from wrong" equation. The wrong was disobedience which they didn't even fathom until they succumbed to Satan's temptation. Knowledge of good and evil came with following through the disobedient act.
So to answer the initial question, "Did they understand what was right and wrong before they ate from the tree?" I would say no. Just to reiterate, they only fathom obedience not disobedience. Does that make sense?
"Stan the half truth teller was explaining that they did not know that it was "wrong" to eat from the tree because the tree's name gave them that ability to distinguish between right and wrong."
The tree was not the source of right from wrong but an avenue to allow the sovereignty of man, to chose his own path. This is what I believe that Tim (Gozreht) means by innocence. After disobedience, they could fathom or be knowledgable of diobedience and its ramifications, because they have finaly tasted it.
I think a crude analogy can be drawn when you tell someone that a steak taste great. However, you may believe it but you can't fathom it until you take that first bite.
By the way, what is the name of the tree? The scriptures calls it the "tree in the center of the garden". Therefore, I don't understand what Stan was talking about when referencing the name.
Keith
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI glad to see that everyone is being cordial over at your blog.
I hope and pray that one day that G-d will show us that we were used as stepping stones for some on their way to salvation.
Keith
Hey Tim,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by innocence?
I think we're saying the same thing. Could you elaborate?
But of course man tried to do it his own way at first with a fig leaf. Not good enough. God had to cover them with something more secure, skin. I see this skin as lamb skin, perhaps a precursor to Christ.
I agree. I was saving that for " The Covering Part Two" towards the end of the chapter. ;-)
Keith
So to answer the initial question, "Did they understand what was right and wrong before they ate from the tree?" I would say no. Just to reiterate, they only fathom obedience not disobedience. Does that make sense?
ReplyDeleteYeah it does, many thanks. Sometimes I just haven't thought deep enough about subjects like that :)
Innocence meaning that they were still perfect as following God's ways. They did not know what it was like being outside the protection of God. Now that they had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is probably what Stan is referring to, there eyes were opened meaning they now knew what it was like to follow desire of their own heart and not just have desire (which is natural). This following of their desire is what destroyed them and us.
ReplyDeleteIt does not mean what Stan is trying to manipulate in the scripture. You know what he is trying to do! He is saying that since God planted the tree and put it in front of them that He made them eat it and caused man to sin, so what kind of God would do such a thing, yada yada yada. Same argument from the same group of backstreet cafe entreprenuers turned internet junkies that can't seem to prove their own existence let alone someone who is of higher being. Smart people but cry out for help because they can't grasp the idea of someone smarter than they are. And it literally hurts them to the point that they have to respond to each and every Christian they come in contact with. But I bet you they do not go to Buddhists sites and argue or Moslem sites, just Christian. Hmmm...could there be something to that?
Hey ya Gozreht,
ReplyDeleteI think Stan is trying to say (using his analogy) that God placed two little innocent children in a room together with a loaded gun (I assume being the tree) and then let them make their own decisions. But of course Stan would go on to claim that the children did not know it was wrong to play with the gun.
That's the type of scenario he is putting across to me.
He runs with a text and forgets context. Context interprets texts. God told them not to for a reason and warned them that it would result in death. He forgets that Adam and Eve were not stupid little children but were smart adult people that had the ability to choose disobedience and disloyalty over obedience and loyalty.
Keith,
ReplyDeleteBy the way, what is the name of the tree? The scriptures calls it the "tree in the center of the garden". Therefore, I don't understand what Stan was talking about when referencing the name.
Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. What do you mean by the tree in the center of the garden?
Tim,
ReplyDeleteNow that I know what you mean by innocence, I do believe we are saying the same thing. Losing their innocence was Adam and Eve going from obedience to disobedience. They didn't know disobedience. It's like a child being introduce to child abuse. They loose their innocence. Adam and Eve were introduced to disobedience.
"...they now know that God will have to "cover" their guilt."
I'm sure you mean that they knew after G-d entered the garden and confronted Adam, Eve and Satan. However, at this moment they did know that G-d would cover them. They feared how G-d was going to punish them not cover them. That's why they attempted to cover theirselves.
"...could there be something to that?
We shouldn't be surprised that Satan is leading a worldly concerted effort against the G-ds people. The sad thing is that not all of them know that they are pawns in a spiritual battle in which they will pay the ultimate price.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
I honestly thought he meant something else. I never look at it as its name.
"What do you mean by the tree in the center of the garden?"
"And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."
Genesis 2:9
"in the midst" is actually the Hebrew word "taw'-vek" which means in the middle or center. In the center of the garden, stood both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the trees in the center of the garden.
What is interesting to me is the phrase, "...the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil." is the Hebrew phrase, "ates khahee tawvek gan ates dahath tobe rawaw".
It translated without western influence, it could be read as "a tree of life in the center garden a tree of knowledge of good, evil."
I never push the issue. However, could the tree of life and the tree of Tree of the knowledge of good and evil be the same tree? To support this theory,
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:"
could be translated as
"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take again of the tree of life, and eat, and live here forever:"
However, it's just a theory. However, it shows how people translate the scripture according to their culture.
What are your thoughts?
Talking with a couple of atheists here:
ReplyDeletehttp://vessel-of-clay.blogspot.com/2009/09/well-nearly-finished-my-essay-and-i-am.html#comments
if you are interested.
cheers,
Dan