A Trauma Story

And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” Genesis 3:11 NASB

Naked – What a strange question? Why would God ask who told Adam he was naked? Does this mean God didn’t know? Hardly! The question must be directed at Adam for Adam’s sake, not God’s. But then it seems even more confusing. Why would Adam need to reflect on his perception of his nakedness? As far as we can tell from this story, Adam has always been naked. His condition is ordinary and unremarkable. Why is it suddenly an issue?

Perhaps we have approached this part of the Genesis account from the wrong angle. Perhaps God’s question and Adam’s personal reflection is not about the lack of clothing. Perhaps it’s about not being at home in our own skin. Bessel van der Kolk, writing about the effects of trauma, makes an interesting remark:

“When we cannot rely on our body to signal safety or warning and instead feel chronically overwhelmed by physical stirrings, we lose the capacity to feel at home in our own skin, and, by extension, in the world.”[1]

He points out that trauma effects the victim’s perception of other people:

“The more early pain and deprivation we have experienced, the more likely we are to interpret other people’s actions as being directed against us and the less understanding we will be of their struggles, insecurities, and concerns. If we cannot appreciate the complexity of their lives, we may see anything they do as a confirmation that we are going to get hurt and disappointed.”[2]

What is happening to Adam? Hasn’t he just experienced fundamental trauma? Hasn’t he been confronted with the depths of relationship destruction in ways that are perhaps much more devastating than we can imagine? After all, until his decision to accept the fruit, he lived an innocent life. Who among us can really claim such a reality? Now, suddenly, the whole specter of brokenness, both internal and eternal, overwhelms him. He is no longer at home in his own skin and, in the story, he attempts to cover up this fact. The question God asks is not about some responsible perpetrator, but rather about the consequences of no longer feeling safe as he was created. What happens to Adam is the awareness that the world is potentially deceptive, that trust is fragile and can be lost. This terrifying reality strikes a blow to his entire being. As a consequence, he interprets God’s intervention as an attack, and he initiates deflection and blame. The world becomes unsafe.

But isn’t Adam just a bit like us. Of course, we aren’t struggling with being naked, i.e., without clothing, but if I am right, neither is Adam. He is struggling with what it means to be an alien in his own body, to discover that he can be separated from himself. Consequently, God’s interrogation seems hostile, an accusation, rather than an expression of deep concern for the psychological damage Adam has experienced. Maybe we need to read this story differently.

And now a simple but profound question for you. When you read the words, “Who told you?” did you hear them as loving concern or assignment of blame? What does your answer say about you in your own skin?

Topical Index: trauma, safety, naked, Adam, Genesis 3:11

[1] Bessel van der Kolk, The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma (Penguin Books, 2014), p. 307.

[2] Ibid., p. 306.

Subscribe
Notify of
17 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Laurita Hayes

Cliff Notes to the following: if we want to avoid the experience of trauma, we are going to have to learn how to avoid agreeing with sin.

Righteousness occurs on three levels: Towards God, self and others. Conversely, sin occurs on the same three levels. This the Two Great Commands teach us.

Sanctification, or, restoration to holiness, is the process by which we are reconnected on these levels to wholeness again. What did that pair lose in the garden? Connection with God, self and others. What is sanctification, then? Identity. Called to uniqueness; “separateness”, is a prescription for that special identity we were created for, but I can only be fully unique, or “separate” in my identity – realized fully in reality – when I am completely connected TO that reality (holiness, or “wholiness”). A completely severed person from reality (no love connection) has no identity whatsoever. for their identity has been completely subsumed. This is what I think the Greeks (as well as the rest of the world) got wrong the most, by the way! Singularity (what the world perceives as identity) actually equals non-existence.

Sin breaks the connections on those three levels that we MUST HAVE to complete our unique identity. Self is not a singular phenomenon, as even secular psychology recognizes now. Self is a composite mirroring of all around us; those vital connections with God, self and others that reflect back to us who we really are. Sin, in a very real sense, obliterates the self in the process of the lie that tells us that self is being served and protected.

Trauma is the experience of sin; or, fractured relationships. Trauma occurs whenever the self-identity is severed. (I am STILL reflecting on what Roderick Logan had to say about the after-effects trauma has on us.) I think this may be the recognition by the world of how we get stuck (enslaved) by fracture (sin). What gets lost is identity – those feelings, as he notes, of being “damaged to the core and beyond redemption”. This is simply the recognition that we cannot heal the after-effects of sin ourselves, and the hands of the world are likewise tied when it comes to the healing of trauma. Only forgiveness does this work of restoring the fracture, but forgiveness cannot be manufactured by us; it is a gift of heaven.

Sanctification only happens for those who become willing to look the problem in the face, but only those who have the confidence that forgiveness is available to them can muster this confidence. If and until we are willing and ready to go through this process of redemption, we remain stuck in “trespasses and sins”; both our own as well as what was done TO us. Justification may get us unstuck, but Canaan is still a long way off. Forgiveness is the other half of the coin of repentance, but, as C.S. Lewis notes so well, only a perfect person can repent perfectly, which is why the “sinner’s prayer” does not do the job of that sanctification; or, restoration of identity, of which trauma is the experience of the loss of.

Repentance is HOW we overcome trauma; even trauma that occurred as the result of the sin of others that affected us, for the flesh, in the name of ‘protection’ will automatically go into anger and bitterness, which have to be repented of before God can take over the job of vengeance, or, justice. Bitterness is really complicit legalization of sin (self bitterness counts, too). Adam and Eve hid because they were afraid, angry and ashamed. The experience of trauma is where we attempt to take justice into our own hands, because we lost trust, but exactly here is where we must have an Advocate, and trust Him with our lives.

P.S. Everything about sin is insanity incarnate in experience,(in case you were wondering why none of it makes any sense!). I apologize for the length.

bpw

You recite Be In Health protocols well, but remember, the founders of this teaching spent at least a decade ALONE. The community would not have them. They were mocked, ridiculed and vilified.

They went to some kind of large convention, by invitation, to speak, and at least 50% of the attendees TURNED THEIR BACKS on them as they walked to the podium to speak, and a large number walked out.

Truth has that affect on communities.

bpw

**Protocols should read “Dogma”

Mark parry

I just heard of another pastor villifying “Hebrew Roots” people as he espoused replacment theology and and selective application of the commandments from his bully pulpit. Schopenffuer agin…( my paraphrase ) Truth goes through three phases; 1. It is ridiculed, 2. It is vahemently opposed 3. It is accepted as self evident. Phases 1&2 brings trauma to those standing in the truth while the others resist it.

btw

Yes. And Truth that is not implicitly stated but lived has the deepest and longest recovery time. Even w/the application of the Balm of Gilead. People who stand in YHVH’s stead as judges and executors fill the ranks.

mark parry

btw is it your suggestion that I am being judged for the nails used to hold me on my cross? The commands hold my flesh, they hurt it, they can not be compromised when purposefully driven home. If they do their part I will see resurrection and true life after that painful death of my flesh. It seems to me the lawless avoid the pain of those nails, and judge me for submitting to them. But YHVH’s my judge not them.

btw

No, my response was not directed to any one person specifically, however, if it speaks to you….

Carl e Roberts

We gain far more in Christ, than we ever lost in Adam. Our right-relationship legally and fully redeemed, regenerated and restored, renewed and refreshed. We are now and have been made complete in Him, Who is the head of all principality and power.. His Name is Wonderful!!

I stand amazed in the presence
Of Jesus the Nazarene,
And wonder how He could love me,
A sinner condemned, unclean.

How marvelous! How wonderful!
And my song shall ever be:
How marvelous! How wonderful!
Is my Savior’s love for me!

Mark parry

It seems to me “Who told you you where naked” is a question of influence. Who are you going to belive Adam? The problem with eating of the wrong tree of knowledge is we think we can decide things truly. To me Yahweh is calling Adam to spit out that bitter fruit. This line is not to sidetrack the conversation on trauma perhaps rather we can catch ourselves more quickly before we swallow the lie. For it does indeed taste sweet to the mouth but quickly goes bitter in the stomach. And as our dear sister pointed out so well “Bitterness is really complicit legalization of sin (self bitterness counts, too). Adam and Eve hid because they were afraid, angry and ashamed. The experience of trauma is where we attempt to take justice into our own hands, because we lost trust, but exactly here is where we must have an Advocate, and trust Him with our lives.” Once we have swallowed the lie we need to injest the antidote repentance, confession, and restitution. So I hear not just the question but an inplied answer comeing with it. “Adam, who are you listening too? Dear one I am still here, take my hand, there you go spit it out son, here now you can do it. That a boy cough it up now, that’s better, it will only hurt a little while now, I am here.”

btw

You bring up an interesting point, Mark P; i wrote this the other day and hesitated to post it, i think i will now.

Re: Facts are not the antidote for doubt.

They are also not the antidote for Truth.

People choose what to believe. People choose WHO to believe, for various reasons.

Which is why i no longer engage in very many debates disguised as ‘discussion’ any more, everybody rolling out their favorite author’s and books that solidify their stance.

Try to explain to them that their pet point of doctrine has a neon traceable line of history straight up from a) pagan origins and b) a specific individual who was revealed to be a closet pervert that managed to create an national movement based on the subjugation of a particular sex (Hello! Umbrella of Covering teaching!).

During Lance Armstrong’s career there was one person (a woman) who kept cropping up on the edges with doping statements that he managed to defame as a psycho with an agenda to make him look bad.

Except she was telling the truth.

The Pastor who created a huge ministry in the healing world by cobbling together the teachings of roughly 16 other individuals, but forgot to mention them or even give nod to them as they quoted their works, many times verbatim, with (seeming) impunity, and, who even now, teaches those ‘under’ him to pray Scripture against anyone who left his ‘community’ or exposes that onerous factoid. No one else had done what he had done, yet he was more comfortable letting people believe it ALL came to HIM, then to explain that he did a whole lot of reading (and memorizing) and reciting for many people’s benefit.

The frequent responder on various blogs that evoke feelings of hope and righteousness in the readers, but who has lifted the words of others from so many other sources, recycling them with modifications (minor, or not). The reader of those purloined words, clueless as to the many other sources creates a concept of this responder as one of immutable humility and holiness that they (the reader) could only aspire to. When confronted that very blogger’s response is ‘but the people have a RIGHT to know! Its for the many people that need those words, not myself!”

It’s the ‘many people benefit’ that is the trip up. Does one substitute integrity for the greater good? Romans 6:1 & 2 says NO! “Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid!”

How about Jeremiah 23:11 “For both the prophet and the priest are profane; yea, in MY HOUSE I have found their wickedness sayeth YHVH” (I like the KJV)

What about Jeremiah 23:30, 31 “Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, sayeth YHVH, that steal my words, everyone from his neighbor. Behold. I am against the prophets, sayeth YHVH, that use **their** tongues, and say **He** sayeth.”

People, searching for humans to look up to and admire create concepts and attribute holiness to others based on the words they read; the internet is a frightful place that allows one to skip through ever so many different reading rooms, copying off and saving what is appealing so as to be able to present it it (without ‘sourcing’ it appropriately). The truth is, tho, that the person that has the habit of lifting responses from others loses sight of who THEY might be, and what YHVH would have purposed to give THEM, personally. That person will never be ‘seen’ or ‘heard’ by those that read the words the post simply because those were not theirs. (See Jeremiah 23:30, 31, again).

Tread softly in the area of trust, that’s been my experience.

DawnMcL

Wow btw!
You have verbalized something that I have known in my head for awhile now.
I love the neon traceable line of history to disprove something someone chooses to believe is truth. Great analogy!
It has been my experience as well to tread softly in the arena (not a typo) of trust. People do indeed choose whom or what they will believe regardless of factoids and it is super frustrating to me when you get someone you are trying to have a discussion with demand that you trot out the irrefutable proof of what you are trying to say!!
Things can get really complicated really fast and I’m just not wanting to live that way! Thanks for your thoughts.

btw

Hey Dawn, thanks for the feedback.

There was a pastor i used to interact w/a lot made a comment to me once, that made me think of it. he said “do you SERIOUSLY believe that God doesn’t know what’s going on? That he can’t see what people work so hard to hide?”

in my mind i heard “NEON LIGHTS pointing the way”.

It never went away.

Flint

WHO told you that you were naked?

To me the nakedness came from the chose to disobey just 1 commandment G-d gave. When that occurred in this account, I agree a trauma occurred.

To disobey in any area, I feel fractures our relationships on all side in loving G-d, your neighbor or yourself. Yes I am sure Adam and Ever felt terrible. The transgressed Torah. They sinned.

I see a serpent was also in the garden. a creature or being,a physical or spiritual creature that appeared to “channel” to Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good & evil.

When G-d asked Adam “WHO told you”…a WHO is a being, not only a thought an imagination or feeling… “who told you you are NAKED” . Break commandment I think leave us in our fleshly carnal state. The WHO appears in the text to be the serpent. My simple understanding of scriptural text is something evil call the serpent, the dragon, the Wicked, the evil one is Satan. This is the WHO I see G-d was pointing at that brought that nakedness.

While I know that the spirit realm is not a focus here. I have experiences that no one could convince me there is no spirit world or evil being(s).

Thanks for allowing me to post.

Jerry

“He is no longer at home in his own skin and, in the story, he attempts to cover up this fact

Indeed, he IS no longer at home in his own skin. And it is a great trauma to be separated from our true selves because of sin, for in being separated from ourselves in this way we are also separated from YHWH, the source of life. But is
Adam attempting to cover THAT up, that he is no longer at home in his own skin?

“Then he said, ‘Your sound—I heard it in the garden and I WAS AFRAID. Because I am naked, I hid myself.’” [Gen 3:10]

To me it seems that he was not attempting to “cover up” or “hide” that he is no longer at home in his own skin. Though it DOES seem that BECAUSE he is not at home in his own skin, he is attempting to hide HIMSELF. And he is hiding himself from YHWH because he is AFRAID of YHWH. But maybe this is what you are really saying. It’s just that it seems quite evident that he is aware of the fact that THERE WAS GOING TO BE A CONSEQUENCE for what he did, the judgment and penalty from YHWH, and he is trying to avoid that consequence by hiding.

“Consequently, God’s interrogation seems hostile, an accusation, rather than an expression of deep concern for the psychological damage Adam has experienced.”

I would say, yes, God’s interrogation IS somewhat hostile and an accusation, but, again, as I often find myself saying, I don’t think it is black or white, all or nothing, either/or, but both. YHWH IS terrifying when we know that we have sinned and we may experience His judgment and penalty. Nevertheless, His judgments and penalties (His discipline) are also out of deep concern.

“NOTICE THE KINDNESS AND SEVERITY OF GOD: severity toward those who fell; but God’s kindness toward you, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off! And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again. [Rom 11:22-23]

It reminds me of His people gathered at the base of Mount Sinai when they were afraid and Moshe told them not to be AFRAID but to FEAR YHWH. The people stood far off while Moshe drew near. Again, I think this is the faith that we are to have, unlike Adam, that though we know we are not without sin and though YHWH may be angry with us, nevertheless, we must not be afraid of Him and hide. We must fear Him, and draw near. For even if we provoke Him to anger and we may have invoked His judgment and penalty upon us, yet we must know that He is love and He disciplines those whom He loves.

When I read the words, “Who told you?”, I am getting to where I most often hear them as assignment of blame AND loving concern. And that feels just about right.

Flint

WOW Jerry.

Kenya

A therapist friend told me that all psychopathology is hiding. We call it “coping”, but it’s just hiding.
Therefore healing does begin with honesty; to recognize and reject the lies we have embraced. What is the fruit we have consumed?
Bessel Van der Kolk and Peter Levine’s research with trauma is so helpful and enlightening. I am grateful to God for the people and resources He has provided in His perfect timing. He will never leave us, nor forsake us…even when our inner turmoil is deafening and the still small voice buried under layers of fig leaves.

Brian

Recently doing a study on this and I’m glad that you mentioned or suggested that Adam suffered trauma on a relationship level. If we ask ourselves why a husband and wife would be comfortable around each other without clothing, yet a sudden knock at the door would send them both in search of clothes; it is due to the fact that the man and woman have covered each other with their mutual love and consideration and there are no insecurities in this relationship context. However, outside of a relationship covering, there is no mutual relation of the soul and spirit and insecurities arise due to relational unpredictability and a lack of spirit to spirit communion that disregards the external. Adam lost this and having turned his affections to the possibilities of self-exhaltation and a denial of Divine providence, this relational “covering” was gone. Nakedness was not a know concept, so the exposure he felt was projected onto the body. Man thinks he covers his sin by covering his body which shows that it isn’t necessarily a matter of bodily nakedness but a spiritual nakedness projected onto the body. Just my thoughts.