Identity Theft (1)
And He said, “Who told you that you were naked?” Genesis 3:11 NASB
Who – It’s the question that doesn’t belong? It’s the question that only produces more questions but no answers. “Who told you?” Well, the conversation with the serpent doesn’t say a thing about nakedness. So if you thought Adam should have said, “The serpent told me,” think again. More importantly, doesn’t God know anyway? Why would He need to ask this question? Was God mystified about the identity of the culprit? But wait! We read this question as if it is a condemnation. Why? Wasn’t Adam always naked? “Who told you that you were naked,” is like asking me, “Who told you that you were male?” Well, who told you? Do you even remember when you discovered that you were either male of female? Did someone have to tell you?
What kind of question is this? Why does God ask it? How could it really be answered? And after all that, why isn’t there any answer in Scripture? The story immediately proceeds to a set of excuses concerning the Tree. “Who told you” is never heard of again. Why?
One thing we know for sure. This question isn’t about being improperly dressed. It has nothing to do with the exposure of genitals. In the Garden of Delight, there was no need, and apparently no awareness, that being without covering was anything but completely normal. So, why ask?
Miy (“me”) is the usual interrogative for the question of identity. The problem isn’t with the word. The problem is with the rationale behind the word. Adam’s correct answer could have been, “No one told me.” But if that is true, then how did he know? Like most of the oddities of the Genesis account, this one forces us to look in other places for answers that we thought were obvious. Adam obviously has a change in perception, and just as obviously, if we read carefully, no one told him to change his perception. But something did occur, didn’t it? The woman gave him the fruit of the Tree. That’s what changed his view. Both God and Adam suggest this as an answer, although neither one actually states it as such. “Who told you? Have you eaten?” asks God. Clearly there is a connection. Adam would not have learned he was naked without eating from the Tree. And Adam answers with the same implication. “The woman whom You gave to be with me gave me the fruit.” From Adam’s perspective, the fruit has something to do with this new reality and the fruit came from the woman.
Here are a few more questions: Would Adam have ever known he was naked if he had never eaten the fruit? Did the woman also know she was naked (the text does not say so)? Did the woman know she was naked before Adam knew he was naked? And why did eating the fruit change this perspective? Was it simply a matter of loss of innocence? Is that what “naked and not ashamed” means – to be innocent? Is disobedience – sin – just another way of speaking about lost innocence or self-awareness?
What did Adam see when he ate from the Tree?
What did the woman think the Tree would provide? She mentions three things: food, the experience of beauty, and knowledge. But all three were deceptions. The fruit of the Tree wasn’t food. It was edible, but it was not kosher, and therefore it was not food. It was a substitute for food. The fruit of the Tree appeared to offer knowledge, but instead it produced disobedience. Yes, that’s right. The opposite of knowledge is not ignorance. It is disobedience. Once again the Tree produced a substitute. Knowledge is the fear of the Lord. The Tree created disregard for the Lord. It shifted the focus of life from the will of God to my will. What about the experience of beauty? Didn’t the woman say that the Tree was “pleasant to the eyes”? There is a question that precedes God’s question to Adam, a question that sets everything in motion but it is never asked. “Who told the woman that the Tree was good for food, beautiful and necessary?”
The same person who told Adam he was naked.
Have you guessed the answer? Here’s a hint. It’s someone you know very well.
Topical Index: who, miy, naked, Genesis 3:11
Self?
I’m wondering to Robin – but I’m not sure any/some of us know ‘self’ very well… ♥
jan
“Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.” (Who told me this?/How do I know this?) Hebrews 4.13
“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.” (Who told me this?/How do I know this?) 2 Corinthians 5.10
There was much happening in the garden on that day. “The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.” (Genesis 2:25) Another day in Paradise! Then something occurred. “At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves.” (Genesis 3.7) One moment- no shame. The next moment – shame. What happened between shame and no shame? Disobedience. Sin. They both were partakers of something G-d had said not to do. The consequence of disobedience? Sin,shame,stain and separation. Their eyes were opened and they were awake and aware. Adam knew, Eve knew, and G-d knew. All parties knew. Innocence was gone, conscience was awakened. Lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, and the pride of life- all present and accounted for, the LSD of hasatan brought forth death (separation) at that moment. They knew something evil, something horrendous had occurred. Something that was not the will of G-d. And they did as we would do, and have (successfully?) done. They attempted a cover-up. A make-up job. Fig leaves anyone?
Another question was asked on that day. “Adam, where are you?” G-d came seeking. And where was Adam when G-d (who sees) came seeking? Over in the bushes, wearing his Fruit of the Loom fig-leaf underwear, hiding in fear. May we who view this situation/scenario ask the question? Why was Adam hiding from G-d? We know (now) what Adam knew then. Isn’t it amazing, how millennia later we already are aware of this?
“..but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your G-d, and your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.” (Isaiah 59.2)
Houston, we have a problem.. A problem that has been covered-up by a mountain of fig leaves. Covered up by education, covered up by culture, covered up by a conscience seared with a hot iron, covered up by make-up, by clothing, by the false front of “religious activity.” Isn’t it amazing, that we still today, are attempting to hide our sin, shame, and stain?
What is the one thing that separates us from G-d? G-d provided for the first couple a covering. He gave unto (gifted) Adam and Eve a covering. He covered them. He covered them with what? and why?And what about us? (Adam’s offspring) Has YHWH provided an atonement, a covering for our sins? Why?
As you have undoubtedly discovered, there is a lot more to the Genesis account of “shame – no shame” and the “fig leaves” than our English translations reveal (was that a pun?).
Guardian Angel takes some time to discuss all this. Shame has nothing to do with being naked.
I have learned that “Identity” questions are probably the most important questions to ask. Regrettably, we have lived so long in a culture (secular and Christian) that tells us how important we are (rather than how important God is) – we are listening to the same “voice(s)” that informed and deceived Eve into thinking she could redefine her own identity by evaluating for herself what was true, good and beautiful for herself apart from God’s voice and His evaluation – that we have turned this issue of identity from a question that should ask “Whose am I?” into a “Who am I?” question. The “Who am I?” question is not near as important as answering the question of “Whose am I?” Answering the “who am I” question is like standing in solidarity with Adam and Eve post-fall while wondering how it is I know that I am “naked.” Apart from God, the “who am I” question will only bring more confusion and despair. If our true identity was stolen/lost in Genesis 3 – because our representatives listened to their own inner voice of self rather than listening to the voice of God (a scenario we must resist but a choice we equally have today) – then it is only as we discover and rediscover our identity found in Christ that our true identity can truly be found/redeemed (Gal 2:20 “For I have been crucified with Christ and it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me”). Living in this present reality will then benefit me, be a witness to the world and give God supreme glory.
“Where is the boundary of beautiful? How will you decide – ah, maybe the real question is who will decide for you? Who sets the fence for you?” (Skip Moen – June 07th, 2009)
Hi Skip,
One thing I know for sure is that the answer to the question above is not clear to me.
Seems to me the we have an inner child, an inner adult, and an inner parent inside of us.
The child wants what it wants, the parent prohibits what is forbidden, and our adult deals with the difficult issues to the best of its ability.
For me, at work, things are usually clear.
Outside of work, things are not as clear.
Unlikely people become beautiful to me and I feel attraction to them.
Rarely are they appropriate objects of my desire.
I like to find the “I’m okay – you’re okay” state of being.
I never knew you were so Freudian. There is hope yet. He was Jewish. 🙂
Hi Skip,
Yes, intellectually speaking I had been attracted to Freud, Marcuse, Norman O. Brown, etc as an undergraduate.
In my first year as a graduate student when I realized that intellectually speaking, compared to the professors that I admired, I was but a mote in God’s eye.
I felt like a complete failure.
An ex Catholic priest at UCSD suggested that I read Victor Frankl’s book and it had a profound effect on me.
“Viktor Frankl’s 1946 book Man’s Search for Meaning chronicles his experiences as a concentration camp inmate and describes his psychotherapeutic method of finding a reason to live.
According to Frankl, the book intends to answer the question “How was everyday life in a concentration camp reflected in the mind of the average prisoner?”
Part One constitutes Frankl’s analysis of his experiences in the concentration camps, while Part Two introduces his ideas of meaning and his theory of logotherapy.
It is the second-most widely read Holocaust book in the bookstore of Washington’s Holocaust Museum”
I read it too. WIth equal impact.
Ruach Hakkodesh, perhaps?
Good post…
His desire! His “immediate want”, after all, clothes, or rather a covering (of one sort or another) are good things to have if one is naked. Like you said, it was the same one who talked to Eve about the fruit. It goes back to that impulse that can be used for either good or evil. In this case it was pretty much cya, but I find it pretty interesting that the fig tree speaks of prosperity in the scriptures! I’ve listened to the series now and am considering some of the points and issues. It certainly brings to the surface a large number of questions, but that’s always good. Thanks for the challenging post today Skip. Keep up the good work.