Who told you that you were naked?

“Who told you that you were naked?” God’s inquiry in Genesis 3:11 suggests that the Adam and Eve must have either been “told” they were naked OR had to have eaten of the tree that God was trying to protect them from. Of course there is the question of “why didn’t God put a fence or more protection around that tree if it was so detrimental”. Why would the only deterrent to the fruit of the knowledge of Good and Evil was God’s instruction not to eat. Could there be significance in that God only used his “word” to protect the tree? The theme of God’s Word having power to set boundaries had already been established in creation (day/night, sea/land, etc).  However, the power of God’s word seems to require humanity’s agreement in order for his word to produce its intended benefit. 

Whether or not you believe the Eden story is literal or a legend, it is obvious that NOW mankind has an innate legalistic perspective.  From this story's account, the inception of this perspective/mindset is produced by the ingestion of what the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil produced. The very thing that God was trying to protect mankind from experiencing.  Was God trying to protect us from a pervasive legalistic perspective; our judgement mindset that would inspire an innate drive to ineffective works like making fig leaf suits and hiding from the all seeing? Why do even the most liberal of mindsets judge so harshly?  


Things that make you go, "hmmmm?"

Back to Eden: Perspective Con't

The story of “the Fall” in Eden has been preached and taught from various perspectives to make diverse points. But what seems clearly presented in the text is a change of perception, their eyes were “opened”.  Prior to the fruit of the tree named “the Knowledge of Good and Evil” they are naked and not ashamed.  After they eat the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they suddenly have a judgement perspective that produces shame between them and fear in response to God. 

Isn’t it curious that God was trying to protect them from the very thing that would cause them to judge themselves. One reason this is so interesting is because it is so common in “christian” teaching to judge ourselves and others.  But if this was God’s plan for mankind why would he have told them NOT to eat that produced this ability.

So, in this the first community, after eating fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil there is shame and fear but the only thing that has “changed” is their perception.  Before ingesting this fruit, they were in harmonious relationship with God, while naked, yet not ashamed nor afraid. After the fruit, perspective changed, to a judgement of fact that was contrary to God’s word. 

What God does in response to the eating of the fruit is often perceived a “judgement” (any surprise?).  What could have been God explaining the symptoms of our allergy to the fruit (of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) is received as a curse. But God didn’t say that if they ate from the fruit they would be cursed, He said they would “die”. Actually, when he told them not to be eating from the tree, He also told them that they would be eating of the tree: Read Genesis 2:17

But what does this have to do with the message and “the Word” that Christ embodied? Consider God’s FIRST response to the confession of nakedness and fear. God’s first words are “who told you that you were naked”.  

Why, after such a devastating error is God’s first inquiry into whose WORD his creation had accepted as truth rather than His. “Who told you that...?”; this unanswered question haunts us to this very day. Who told you that you were naked, uncovered, unacceptable to God? Better question: Whose opinion/perspective is power enough to overrule and overturn God’s proclamation that the He created mankind was anything but “good”. 

Perspective

What is the intended message of “the Word” that Christ embodied? What did God communicate through Him?  What is the message that “is God”? And why is it relevant beyond those who identify themselves as “christian”.  

Perhaps a good place to seek understanding is to consider what caused the need for Christ in the earth.  In other words, what did Christ come to do?  Well a short answer is, 'to restore what was lost in the fall of man that was described in Genesis'.  Most Christian preachers would agree that the need (or problem) that Christ came to resolve was cause by what happened in the Garden of Eden aka "the Fall".  

So let’s consider what exactly does the story say happened in Eden.

Before “the fall”: 

Genesis 2:8-9, 16-17, 25 (New King James Version)

8 The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” 

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

After “the fall”: Genesis 3:6-11 (King James Version)

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.  8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”    11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked?

What do you see?

Ketchup please.

Imagine having lunch with God. Let’s say you are at Chick-fil-a and you’ve ordered the nugget combo and God has the chicken sandwich combo.  Now as both of you enjoy the hot crispy fries, God says, “Pass the ketchup”.  As the words “Pass the ketchup” are released from the lips of God, the phrase becomes His "word".  But what would make that “word” flesh.  How could a mere human empower God's message to be effective.  From its current mode of operation, It seems that much of modern mainstream christianity would respond to this statement with songs about ketchup or sermons about how desperately God wants ketchup or offer a plethora creative propaganda presenting perspectives of ketchup, the waffle fries, the reason for the meal or why it happened to be at chick-fil-a.  But the only action that fulfills the purpose of the phrase “pass the ketchup” is to freakin’ give God some ketchup.    As our human hand picks up the ketchup, we become the phrase “pass the ketchup” made flesh. How does this relate to Christ?  Only if we understand the message that Christ was sent to be, can we offer an appropriate affirmative response that doesn’t leave God hanging for “ketchup”.  If “Christ” is a similar expression, a word that needs a response like “pass the ketchup”, what is appropriate response? What is God expecting in response to extending Christ to us?  And more importantly how do we give him what he wants?

Spiritual Technology (tm)

Just a thought: So, what if "God" was trying to create communities but our response is churches?  And what if the principles of science were applied to the spiritual aspects of human existence?  What if faith evolved to produce spiritual technology (tm)?  What would spiritual technology  look like and what would it mean to mankind?

What if the Bible is a book of experiments in relating to God?  What if we looked at the biblical accounts for principle truth that we could apply for modern advancement of wellbeing?

the beginning

John 1:1 (NKJ)

 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 

The purpose and power of any “word” is the message that it communicates.  So what is the message communicated by the word that “was God”?  What is the point of “the Word” which became Christ?  This is important because, if the message intended to be communicated by a “word” is not understood or is misunderstood, then the intent is fulfilled and the power respond appropriately is lost. 

“In the beginning was the word, the word was with God and was God.”  This passage of the Bible goes on to communicate that the word that “was with God” and “was God” became flesh.  This “word made flesh” is speaking of Christ Jesus.  This reference is key to understand the point of Christ’s existence and the universal relevance of faith in the gospel of Jesus.  To often this passage is use to drive the point that Jesus, “the word made flesh” is God.  But the question that seems more important is what message was “the Word” intended to communicate?

What if...

What if there is truth hidden somewhere in all the Christian rhetoric and dogma? What if there is a truly transformational, life-changing truth beyond all the personal agenda’s and hype?  What if the point of the “gospel of Christ” was NOT what is typically displayed on “christian” tv but is a message of true redemption, renewed mercy each morning and a hope for a second chance to be better?  What if the mind of mankind is the key to human evolution and a simple truth hidden in plain sight could begin the journey to the fulfillment of our potential?  

What if the purpose of life is to “pass the ketchup”?