They were both naked, the man and his wife, and they were not ashamed

Stephen

Active member
I'd be interested to read some Jewish thoughts on the titular phrase (and relevant passage).

The classic Christian interpretation is that the man and woman lived in an idyllic state, and when they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they "fell". Meaning that being naked and shameless was the ideal state. I've come to the conclusion that the classic Christian understanding of this passage is in opposition to what the bible says. (For example, the desired end state in Revelation is that the saints are clothed.)

I understand that many Rabbis have a different understanding of the implications of this verse. For example, in Denis Prager's rational bible series he argues that this isn't the "fall" of man, this is the "choice" of man.


Looking at the passage.
  • They were naked, and nakedness (spiritual or physical) is always a negative in the bible.
  • They did not know good and evil (yet) so they couldn't judge whether being naked was good or bad and wouldn't be any more ashamed than the animals
  • They were not like God yet, (they weren't that until after eating of the fruit).
  • They had no shame before gaining the knowledge of good and the knowledge of evil but were deeply ashamed after they gained that knowledge.
  • They were specifically ashamed of their nakedness (not because they ate the fruit).
Thus, being naked and not ashamed is not a good thing, but rather a bad thing. Knowing good and evil is specifically what made them like God. Once the man and his wife gained the knowledge of good and evil, they knew that they should have always been ashamed, and that they always needed garments. And once they gain the knowledge of good and evil, God begins the work to steer them towards the good.


Anyway, thanks for reading, and I would like to read some Jewish thoughts on this passage.
 

American Gothic

Well-known member
the man and woman lived in an idyllic state, and when they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they "fell". Jewish thoughts on this passage.
to me, it seems possible they had an actual body change of some sort, not just change in physical circumstance
that is being alluded to by the issue of their nakedness

"For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed," 2 Corinthians 5

there were differences from -
1 Jesus living His earthly life since incarnate birth
2 Jesus resurrected (eating and drinking, still showed wound marks, but able to walk thru walls)
3 Jesus in full glory in Heaven (a glimpse of which was given at the Transfiguration)

three differing states of body, or "clothing" of the actual Person
 
Last edited:

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
I'd be interested to read some Jewish thoughts on the titular phrase (and relevant passage).

The classic Christian interpretation is that the man and woman lived in an idyllic state, and when they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they "fell". Meaning that being naked and shameless was the ideal state. I've come to the conclusion that the classic Christian understanding of this passage is in opposition to what the bible says. (For example, the desired end state in Revelation is that the saints are clothed.)

I understand that many Rabbis have a different understanding of the implications of this verse. For example, in Denis Prager's rational bible series he argues that this isn't the "fall" of man, this is the "choice" of man.


Looking at the passage.
  • They were naked, and nakedness (spiritual or physical) is always a negative in the bible.
  • They did not know good and evil (yet) so they couldn't judge whether being naked was good or bad and wouldn't be any more ashamed than the animals
  • They were not like God yet, (they weren't that until after eating of the fruit).
  • They had no shame before gaining the knowledge of good and the knowledge of evil but were deeply ashamed after they gained that knowledge.
  • They were specifically ashamed of their nakedness (not because they ate the fruit).
Thus, being naked and not ashamed is not a good thing, but rather a bad thing. Knowing good and evil is specifically what made them like God. Once the man and his wife gained the knowledge of good and evil, they knew that they should have always been ashamed, and that they always needed garments. And once they gain the knowledge of good and evil, God begins the work to steer them towards the good.


Anyway, thanks for reading, and I would like to read some Jewish thoughts on this passage.
This topic is so vast. If you want a rational perspective, read Maimonides Guide for the Perplexed on the subject.
 
Top