What can we learn from God's 4 questions to Adam?

[Stope]

8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?" 10 And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” 11 He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” 13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

What is the significance of these questions:
1. Where are you?
2. Who told you you were naked?
3. Have you eaten of you eaten the tree?
4. What is this that you have done?

 

[earl40]

No doubt this would make a great sermon.

 

[Stope]

Is there a platform, a summary, of/launching point for the Gospel and condition of man as well as mans responses?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

They are diagnostic questions (emanating from the All-knowing One), meant to elicit confessions of sin from our first parents. They are really for the purpose of teaching the guilty, not for letting God know anything.

The two admit their crimes, in the midst of attempting to deflect the full effect of their just condemnation. Adam throws Eve under the bus, blaming God in the process. Eve, crushed, implicates the Tempter, generally bypassing the fact she added to and took away from the word of God.

 

[Stope]

Thanks!

What is the meaning of them knowing they were naked?

I wouldn't be ashamed I was naked in front of my wife (maybe just cause of my fat belly), so was the shame that they were naked in front of God?

Further, I am currently not ashamed to be naked as I know God always sees me, but I will admit, if today I would meet face to face Jesus, I would where clothes and would indeed be embarrassed if I was naked in front of him..

Im confused

 

[Contra_Mundum]

What is the meaning of them knowing they were naked?

They went from being naked with each other, and not being ashamed; which is to say, completely open and vulnerable before the other, and yet fully accepted and acceptable.

And then they were ashamed, having used one another shamefully, being exposed in ways that now made them vile to themselves and thus (surely) to the other.

They were also ashamed before God, not because of nakedness per se, as if God could be scandalized by their bare selves; but because of what that vulnerability now revealed, namely a fallen, rebellious thing no longer capable of enjoying fellowship with God in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.

Their self-covering is ineffective, and ridiculous. They must be brought to awareness of that fact. They must be shown that covering is possible, but it will not be on their terms. It will not be by the use of means that were formerly within their grasp or understanding. God covers them, and he does so by a form of sacrifice, dead animals give them a second-skin.

The ideal of marriage is that we render ourselves vulnerable before our spouse, over time in our increasingly decrepit conditions, and yet we are accepted and loved despite what we might reasonably be ashamed of becoming: namely ageing, dying creatures burdened by the effects of sin. That such a relationship should persevere and endure is truly an effect of grace, reflecting the fact that God saw us in all our shame; and in compassion covered us, loving the unlovable.

Heb.4:13, "And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." vv15-16, "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Therefore let us draw near with confidence."

 

[Stope]

They went from being naked with each other, and not being ashamed; which is to say, completely open and vulnerable before the other, and yet fully accepted and acceptable.

And then they were ashamed, having used one another shamefully, being exposed in ways that now made them vile to themselves and thus (surely) to the other.

They were also ashamed before God, not because of nakedness per se, as if God could be scandalized by their bare selves; but because of what that vulnerability now revealed, namely a fallen, rebellious thing no longer capable of enjoying fellowship with God in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.

Their self-covering is ineffective, and ridiculous. They must be brought to awareness of that fact. They must be shown that covering is possible, but it will not be on their terms. It will not be by the use of means that were formerly within their grasp or understanding. God covers them, and he does so by a form of sacrifice, dead animals give them a second-skin.

The ideal of marriage is that we render ourselves vulnerable before our spouse, over time in our increasingly decrepit conditions, and yet we are accepted and loved despite what we might reasonably be ashamed of becoming: namely ageing, dying creatures burdened by the effects of sin. That such a relationship should persevere and endure is truly an effect of grace, reflecting the fact that God saw us in all our shame; and in compassion covered us, loving the unlovable.

Heb.4:13, "And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." vv15-16, "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Therefore let us draw near with confidence."

Wow. Amen. This was lovely to read. Thank you