No I’m sorry, i was focused in on 3:10. So I have been giving it some thought, and I don’t know if using nakedness as a euphemism for sexual perversion works here. Well, I won’t say it does not work, but I don’t know if it works the best. Perhaps it is more straight forward then that. When their eyes were open and they realized they were naked, they were ashamed. That doesn’t sound like lustful passion.
Not precisely lust – no. I’m perhaps reading into it the view that the popes have articulated in the past. “Lust” and “Domination” being the things that marriage is marred by since the fall. When a man see’s a naked woman, there is a reaction which he often can not control. There is (of course) a variation in the intensity, and there are eunuchs by birth (so to speak).
But loosely speaking, this is the feeling of lust – if not the act of it.
When they heard Gos coming the hid themselves. They covered themselves up. Perhaps this issue of lust plays a part, but it seems that they were much more focused on themselves as if they were self-conscious. They were more concerned about “covering up” as opposed to “taking it off.” I would never whimsically walk outside totally nude, not just because it would be uncomfortable, but because I think it would be wrong.
A Wrong…
2Samu 6:14, 6:20 concatenated with Exodus 20:26.
Adam and Eve were trying to repent, in a sense, of the Evil which they brought on themselves. Their bodies no longer appeared to be fully under their control.
… the fruit came from the tree of the knowledge of GOOD and EVIL. I really don’t think it wise to ignore the word good. Isn’t it good then that they covered themselves up? Isn’t that modesty?
Fig leaves aren’t supposed to be comfortable… A bit of penance, perhaps?
Just working out my thoughts.
It’s my pleasure to be with you during the exploration.
:getholy:
The stumbling block for me is, how can one be moral if one does not have the option to do good or bad? Look at courage. …snip… Adam and Eve were sinless, not because they simply abstained from sin, but because they were ignorant of it.
In the case of nakedness, there was no one else around – just a husband and wife; unless you count the devil and God – but who can escape either of them even in the bedroom?
I agree, they were ignorant of the experiential knowledge.
In the Easter liturgy, the Deacon singing the Exsultet says (paraph) “Oh Necessary sin of Adam which
gained for us so great a redeemer.”
Some people say the tree is supposed to represent the knowledge of good and evil in as far as man became wise in his own eyes and did what he deemed to be right. This may very well be the case… but I don’t see that clearly in the text at least as far as the Garden account goes. Do you have thoughts on this?
Not a strong thought, but also a complex one I’ll work out: “bear” with me.
The scripture reads: “he has become like
one of us”; so,
which one? Even the devil, a fallen angel, is a son of God – and is “one” of us. (The so called divine assembly).
It is also said, later in scripture – (paraph) “He was a murderer from the beginning (Genesis/Beresheit?)” Note: Beginning is also the letter “Aleph” or “el” in English, which means 1st; Ancient languages enumerated by letters, before they enumerated by numbers. Eg: Genesis is Book “A”.
This letter A/aleph is so loaded, it is found in “alpha and Omega” or “aleph and Tav”; A is also a letter of usage, eg: “The” first definite article.
Consider, examples from Scripture: God is called Aleph shaddai or (el)Shaddai “The almighty” or “First almighty”; whence also comes “beth-Aleph”/“beth(el)” “THE-house” or “house of God.”
When it is said – “murderer from the beginning”; it does mean Genesis, but it also implies “from God.”. I’ll leave the letter at that… but comment on its potential:
Often throughout scripture – gibbets, torture devices, even crosses – are uniformly called “wood”; A tree is not a separate word – it too is just “wood”. (I speak of the Greek.)
This tree of Good and Evil, then, is also a Governmental device of justice.
In that light, I hear an echo of an idea in my mind. God’s view of the tree is “Good” in the sense of justice and “Evil” in the sense of loosing loved ones; in the devil’s, it is Good in the sense of a way to exploit for an Evil he wanted to perpetrate. In man’s it was Good for gaining knowledge – and pleasing to the eye. ( a lust? ) – but evil in the sense of a
conflict w/ God.
I think, by the time the hand was reaching out – the sin had
already been committed in the heart.
But, for all this – something eludes me at the moment. In everyone’s eyes – there was Good and Evil in the tree. But what, do you think is meant by the saying “he did right in his own eyes.” ?
Enuma elish … And the rabbit hole just gets deeper.
Tangent: Did you ever notice the brilliance of the Mad Hatter, who despised Alice’s bad manners of coming in uninvited – and subtly got his way by making her
want to leave?
An interesting speculationw oudl be what would have happened if Adam had not eaten the fruit and left Eve alone?
With respect to what Jesus said – The pharisees were doing serial marriages; or if you will, marriage for a night with a prostitute followed by divorce. They were every bit as Guilty as Adam of a sin; But Adam was better than they – by refusing to divorce her. However, if Adam had not sinned – how could they be together?
Moses appears to have decreed divorce on account of disparity of cult.
He says “you” may divorce If there is something dis-covered in the woman that is “unclean”.
We (today) have Pauline and Petrine privilege – and still found in Canon Law of the Catholic Church.
And now compare that “dis-covering” divorce to what St. Paul says – (paraph) “the believing husband sanctifies the unbelieving wife and the believing wife sanctifies the unbelieving husband; or else your children were unclean, but now they are clean.”
What do you think; their eyes were not opened until Adam also ate; And God said – “In the day you
all eat of it, you will die the death (2nd).”
