Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Donald

God’S 1St Example Of Grace

Recommended Posts

As I have demonstrated in some of my previous threads, I have some prOBlems with what seems to be “established IFB teachings”.  And I have learned from this forum, that all IFB’s are not the same.

Today’s thread has to do with Adam & Eve and what they did themselves, to cover their nakedness.

This is what the Bible says they did.......
“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.” (Genesis 3:7)

The IFB pastors that I am hanging around now seem to teach, that if Adam & Eve had sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves coats, then God would have been satisfied and would not have seen the need to make them coats from animal skins!

Don’t get me wrong, these men do not teach a works based salvation and they always make it very clear, that our good works have NOTHING to do with our salvation.  But they seem to be so enamored with the idea of any kind of nudity, that they sometimes go too far.

For sure, we all see the great value of women dressing in “modist apparel”.  But to STRETCH this passage in Genesis to MAKE IT about an issue of modesty, instead of a foreshadowing of our Lord’s sacrifice for us, is a dangerous practice.
-----------
My question is.... is this view of Gen.3:7 as widespread as I think it is?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard that one before.  Sounds like someone is adding a lot to scripture that's not there. Whatever happened to just preaching what IS written.  I for one don't care for the "what ifs" that aren't written. 

 

Plus, we do have this that kind of throws a wrench in their wheel...

 

Hebrews 9:22
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
 
Adam and Eve sinned...blood had to be shed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to be hard-nosed about this, but it's stuff like this that really gets under my skin. 

 

If they had covered their whole body, God would have been satisfied and not killed an animal.

 

Well...if that was the prOBlem, why didn't God just tell them to cover up the rest of the way? 

 

That ranks up there with...Did Adam have a bellybutton?

 

1 Timothy 6:20-21

20   O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21   Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. 
Edited by No Nicolaitans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to be hard-nosed about this, but it's stuff like this that really gets under my skin.

If they had covered their whole body, God would have been satisfied and not killed an animal.

Well...if that was the prOBlem, why didn't God just tell them to cover up the rest of the way?

That ranks up there with...Did Adam have a bellybutton?

1 Timothy 6:20-21
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Yes Adam had a belly button - it is where the Lord poked him when he was finished and said "you're done!" Poke! :lol:

Op - never heard anyone say that - it removes the picture of the blood sacrifice to cover sin...... Edited by DaveW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sewing of the fig leaves was a picture of man's works; God would not have accepted it had they sewed together fig leaves to cover themselves even as though wearing a burka.  From the beginning, God is teaching us that we cannot cover our sins. Totally agree that it is a dangerous practice to try to link it to modesty.  

 

One thing that does link to modesty, though, is the coat God made - when looking into the word itself, it means a long flowing garment (that's why the animal couldn't have been a little lamb....). For both.  I believe that teaches us that God wants His children covered - spiritually by the blood of Christ, physically by clothing.  But to teach that He would have overlooked their nakedness had they made coats is adding to scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my former pastors taught that Adam and Eve were never really naked: he said they were "shrouded" or "clothed" in the the glory of God.

But the Bible clearly says they were "naked". Why would the phrase "and were not ashamed" need to be there if they weren't really naked?

 

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Genesis 2:25

 

When sin entered the picture, then there was shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sewing of the fig leaves was a picture of man's works; God would not have accepted it had they sewed together fig leaves to cover themselves even as though wearing a burka.  From the beginning, God is teaching us that we cannot cover our sins. Totally agree that it is a dangerous practice to try to link it to modesty.  

 

One thing that does link to modesty, though, is the coat God made - when looking into the word itself, it means a long flowing garment (that's why the animal couldn't have been a little lamb....). For both.  I believe that teaches us that God wants His children covered - spiritually by the blood of Christ, physically by clothing.  But to teach that He would have overlooked their nakedness had they made coats is adding to scripture.

 

Hello HappyChristian

In all fairness, this pastor doesn’t actually say that “God would have overlooked their sin and their need for Him, if they made coats”; (because the message he is preaching, on these occasions, is about a need for more modesty.)
But he does stress, that what God was displeased with(in Adam & Eve), was their nakedness.  And he doesn’t say anything about their disOBedience and rebellion.
---------
And I am glad to hear, that this practice(of twisting what this passage in Gen. really means), is not as widespread as I thought.

But I know this pastor well enough, to know what he would tell me if I called him on this:
He would explain that this was a proper application of this passage, in order to drive home his point about the wickedness of people not covering themselves up enough.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello HappyChristian

In all fairness, this pastor doesn’t actually say that “God would have overlooked their sin and their need for Him, if they made coats”; (because the message he is preaching, on these occasions, is about a need for more modesty.) Ok - thanks for clarifying that! =)
But he does stress, that what God was displeased with(in Adam & Eve), was their nakedness.  And he doesn’t say anything about their disOBedience and rebellion. I understand the teaching of modesty, because God did cover them (but was it for modesty sake? They were married; they were alone...).  There is a physical application of the coat God created, but to stress that God was displeased with their nakedness is still adding to scripture (as you OBviously know!).  Adam and Eve were naked before they disOBeyed God so there is no way their nakedness was what displeased God. 
---------
And I am glad to hear, that this practice(of twisting what this passage in Gen. really means), is not as widespread as I thought. Yeah - I've heard a lot of goofy teaching on Adam and Eve, but never the idea that their nakedness was what displeased God. SMH.

But I know this pastor well enough, to know what he would tell me if I called him on this:
He would explain that this was a proper application of this passage, in order to drive home his point about the wickedness of people not covering themselves up enough.
Proper application cannot be made when one adds to what God has presented.  Yes, the Bible is rife with teachings on modesty, but I don't think this is one (other than the fact of the long flowing garment being what the coat was...but the picture there isn't really modesty, it is complete coverage of our sins by the blood of Jesus).  A stretch very often becomes man's teaching instead of God's...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my former pastors taught that Adam and Eve were never really naked: he said they were "shrouded" or "clothed" in the the glory of God.

But the Bible clearly says they were "naked". Why would the phrase "and were not ashamed" need to be there if they weren't really naked?

 

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Genesis 2:25

 

When sin entered the picture, then there was shame.

The glory of God surrounding them "clothed them" and when they sinned the glory vanished and they were able to see each other's nakedness.  I believe that this is the ancient Jewish rabbinacle understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The glory of God surrounding them "clothed them" and when they sinned the glory vanished and they were able to see each other's nakedness.  I believe that this is the ancient Jewish rabbinacle understanding.

Brother, how can lost men, "blind leaders of the blind" understand or rightly divide scriptures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother, how can lost men, "blind leaders of the blind" understand or rightly divide scriptures?

Well, you can take the 4th Century Catholic understanding as your authority.

The Emperor's Catholic Church totally "dismissed" and ignored any Jewish sources,

as the "Church" replaced Israel and so the "Church" was the only authority on Scripture.

Since Replacement Theology is so prevalent today, that means that all we know about

the Old Testament is from people such as St. Augustine, Origen, the Papacy, and the "Reformers".

I mean, why would "Jews" know anything about the Torah? :lol:

Edited by beameup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother, I recognize no Catholic, Reformed, or Replacement Theology. The King James Bible plainly says that Adam and Eve were "naked" and "not ashamed".  Why would I believe unsaved Rabbis for my understanding when God gave me all I need in His Word? Many Jews read the Torah but can't see Jesus in Isaiah 53 or anywhere else because they are spiritually blind. Understand that we are commanded to be good to God's chosen people and I believe in supporting Israel as well., But a Jew is a son of Abraham only by genetics....he's just as lost as any other sinner until he gives His heart to Jesus and gets born again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother, I recognize no Catholic, Reformed, or Replacement Theology. The King James Bible plainly says that Adam and Eve were "naked" and "not ashamed".  Why would I believe unsaved Rabbis for my understanding when God gave me all I need in His Word? Many Jews read the Torah but can't see Jesus in Isaiah 53 or anywhere else because they are spiritually blind. Understand that we are commanded to be good to God's chosen people and I believe in supporting Israel as well., But a Jew is a son of Abraham only by genetics....he's just as lost as any other sinner until he gives His heart to Jesus and gets born again. 

I am well aware of those who forbid even using a "concordance" and will lable you a "heretic" if you do.

They also forbid reading of "commentaries"  or studying archeological findings (like the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example),

or any "history" of any sort, or even "scientific" literature.  They have become, in many ways, like the Dark Ages Catholic Church, IMO.

 

There is a body of New Testament writings that will be extremely significant to Hebrews ("Jews") during the Tribulation.

As well, I have a feeling that other ancient writings lay yet undiscovered which will reaffirm that Jesus was indeed The Messiah of Israel.

 

 

I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence,
and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early. Hosea 5:15
Edited by beameup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am well aware of those who forbid even using a "concordance" and will lable you a "heretic" if you do.

They also forbid reading of "commentaries"  or studying archeological findings (like the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example),

or any "history" of any sort, or even "scientific" literature.  They have become, in many ways, like the Dark Ages Catholic Church, IMO.

 

There is a body of New Testament writings that will be extremely significant to Hebrews ("Jews") during the Tribulation.

As well, I have a feeling that other ancient writings lay yet undiscovered which will reaffirm that Jesus was indeed The Messiah of Israel.

 

 

I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence,
and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early. Hosea 5:15

 

 

Hello beemeup

Although I do use concordances & commentaries on occasion, and we should NEVER be afraid of any true "scientific literature”(because all real science agrees and backs up the Bible)......

I draw a line at archeological findings, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, because WE ALREADY HAVE GOD’S COMPLETED WORD!!  
That which is “perfect” has come, therefore that which is “in part”, can be done away with.

As for “other ancient writings yet to be discovered which will reaffirm that Jesus was indeed The Messiah of Israel”... All that, will be “extra-Biblical” so therefor will not truly help anyone.

All that anybody will ever need is God’s Word.......
Matthew 22:29   Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Romans 1:16   For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

1 Corinthians 1:18   For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 2:5   That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

2 Corinthians 6:7   By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello beemeup

Although I do use concordances & commentaries on occasion, and we should NEVER be afraid of any true "scientific literature”(because all real science agrees and backs up the Bible)......

I draw a line at archeological findings, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, because WE ALREADY HAVE GOD’S COMPLETED WORD!!  
That which is “perfect” has come, therefore that which is “in part”, can be done away with.

As for “other ancient writings yet to be discovered which will reaffirm that Jesus was indeed The Messiah of Israel”... All that, will be “extra-Biblical” so therefor will not truly help anyone.

All that anybody will ever need is God’s Word.......
Matthew 22:29   Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Romans 1:16   For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

1 Corinthians 1:18   For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 2:5   That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

2 Corinthians 6:7   By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,

 

So, you would be considered a "partial heretic" in some IFB churches that I am familiar with?

 

There is a very easy way to "discern" and "eat the meat, and spit out the bones"

and that is by truly "walking in the Spirit".  When one is truly "walking in the Spirit"

then you are free from the bondage of "taste not, touch not, handle not".

If they and their "congregation" are not truly "walking in the Spirit"

then there is legalism, and dependency on the "congregation"

to supply them with the "rules" to tell them what they are permitted

and what they are not permitted to see, hear, or read.

 

Been there, done that.

 

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free,
and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Galatians 5:1
Edited by beameup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am well aware of those who forbid even using a "concordance" and will lable you a "heretic" if you do.

They also forbid reading of "commentaries"  or studying archeological findings (like the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example),

or any "history" of any sort, or even "scientific" literature.  They have become, in many ways, like the Dark Ages Catholic Church, IMO.

 

There is a body of New Testament writings that will be extremely significant to Hebrews ("Jews") during the Tribulation.

As well, I have a feeling that other ancient writings lay yet undiscovered which will reaffirm that Jesus was indeed The Messiah of Israel.

 

 

I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence,
and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early. Hosea 5:15

 

One of the ways I use a concordance, is to look up a Bible word and try to determine which basic root meaning will fit all it's occurrences in the KJB. I also occasionally look up things in commentaries and it's helpful sometimes but I don't always take the commentary's word for it. I like to read about archaeological discoveries in the Middle East and how they confirm what the Bible says. But I'm usually skeptical of worldly archaeologists' interpretations of these finds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have demonstrated in some of my previous threads, I have some prOBlems with what seems to be “established IFB teachings”.  And I have learned from this forum, that all IFB’s are not the same.

Today’s thread has to do with Adam & Eve and what they did themselves, to cover their nakedness.

This is what the Bible says they did.......
“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.” (Genesis 3:7)

The IFB pastors that I am hanging around now seem to teach, that if Adam & Eve had sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves coats, then God would have been satisfied and would not have seen the need to make them coats from animal skins!

Don’t get me wrong, these men do not teach a works based salvation and they always make it very clear, that our good works have NOTHING to do with our salvation.  But they seem to be so enamored with the idea of any kind of nudity, that they sometimes go too far.

For sure, we all see the great value of women dressing in “modist apparel”.  But to STRETCH this passage in Genesis to MAKE IT about an issue of modesty, instead of a foreshadowing of our Lord’s sacrifice for us, is a dangerous practice.
-----------
My question is.... is this view of Gen.3:7 as widespread as I think it is?
 

This is one of my most favorite scripture passages. It clearly shows the pattern of Christ's sacrifice for our sin. Beautiful pattern set up some 4,000+ years before Christ was born. Don't tell me God's not real!!!

 

1. First their eyes were opened. vs. 7 (Knowledge of sin)

2. Sewed fig leaves vs. 7 (Man's way of righteousness don't work)

3. I heard thy voice  vs. 10  (They heard the word of God)

4. Were afraid vs. 10 (Fear of the Lord beginning of knowledge)

5. Tried to hide vs. 10

6. God called unto him vs.9 (God seeks us) 

7. Made them coats of skins vs. 21 (Blood was shed and sin covered)

 

Without shed blood there is no remission of sin. Have you ever noticed that Cain and Able is a similar picture with Cain sacrificing produce and Able shedding blood. That's why Cain's sacrifice to God wasn't good enough. (Genesis 4:1-6) IF Adam, Eve, and Cain's sacrifice would have been sufficient then Christ paid way too much for my salvation.

 

That's the gospel in Genesis. I think your pastor would have been better suited to preach more on being ashamed from those passages and tied shame into the dress code instead of stretching it with something that he may have heard somewhere from someone else.

 

The old time preachers were still imperfect just like we are. But to answer your question, no this view is not widespread.

 

P.S. Sorry about the mini sermon. I just get really excited when talking about this portion of scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the ways I use a concordance, is to look up a Bible word and try to determine which basic root meaning will fit all it's occurrences in the KJB. I also occasionally look up things in commentaries and it's helpful sometimes but I don't always take the commentary's word for it. I like to read about archaeological discoveries in the Middle East and how they confirm what the Bible says. But I'm usually skeptical of worldly archaeologists' interpretations of these finds.

Thanks.

One of the things that make, for example, Hebrews and Jude so difficult to understand is that they were written to a Hebrew audience 

and (unfortunately) all the detailed information of pre-first-century Judiasm has been lost*, and any that was available was "disregarded"

in the formation of the Roman Emperor's State Religion (ie: Catholicism). 

That is one reason why I depend upon the Apostle to the Gentiles for my doctrine, and spend very limited time in the Hebrew Epistles.  However, God put those Hebrew Epistles in there for a very good reason.  Those Epistles of Hebrews - Jude will be of great importance during the Tribulation, just like they were to those of the circumcision in the first century.  

 

2 Timothy 2:15

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the ways I use a concordance, is to look up a Bible word and try to determine which basic root meaning will fit all it's occurrences in the KJB. I also occasionally look up things in commentaries and it's helpful sometimes but I don't always take the commentary's word for it. I like to read about archaeological discoveries in the Middle East and how they confirm what the Bible says. But I'm usually skeptical of worldly archaeologists' interpretations of these finds.

Heartstrings, Do a word study on the people in the story of Ruth sometime. The meanings of the names and the timing of how they are introduces have the message of the gospel written all over it. Very Interesting!!!! You'll have to dig into the roots on some of them but it's well worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 33 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...