by André Rabe
Wisdom and Vulnerability
Genesis 2 ended with these words:
[T]hey were both naked (arôm), the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Chapter 3 begins with:
Now the serpent was more cunning (arÛm) than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.
The invention of chapters and verses came much later and so the connection for ancient readers, between arôm and arÛm, would have been even more obvious. A more common noun to describe wisdom would have been hkm. But the author artfully draws our attention to the connection between nakedness and wisdom by using the less common word arÛm. In other instances, arôm is used to describe vulnerability. Wisdom too requires a certain vulnerability, an openness to new ideas and suggestions. Wisdom is the ability to make sound judgments, and to do that there has to be a differentiation between good and bad.
As long as all is one, as long as the conscious mind has not divided itself from the unconscious, there can be no vulnerability. Vulnerability requires a border, an in and out, a self and not-self Vulnerability communicates two ideas at once. Without it one cannot truly be intimate, for it is this openness, this nakedness, that allows another to cross one’s borders of isolation and penetrate the self. Yet this openness to intimacy also opens us up to pain.
Similarly, openness to learning is necessary to gain wisdom, but such receptiveness to new ideas can also produce confusion… even deception, with unintended consequences. This is an unavoidable conundrum: to gain wisdom one has to open oneself up and in so doing risk deception, and to be intimate one must become vulnerable and remove all protective borders. This might be the reason for the prohibition that Yahweh gave. Children need trusted guides, parents, to lead them into maturity where they may gain wisdom without deception. To pursue mature experiences before one is able to bear it, is indeed dangerous. It is not that Yahweh wanted to keep humanity in perpetual infancy, rather we were meant to mature with his guidance.
The serpent, being more wise and vulnerable than all the other creatures, can be seen as the projected voice of the emerging conscious self. It is this openness, which is essential to our humanity, that also creates the opportunity for temptation. Paul Ricoeur, in his brilliant book, The Symbolism of Evil , gives insight into the symbol of the serpent:
In the figure of the serpent, the Yahwist may have been dramatizing an important aspect of the experience of temptation—the experience of quasi-externality. Temptation would be a sort of seduction from without; it would develop into compliance with the apparition which lays siege to the “heart”; and, finally, to sin would be to yield…. The serpent, then, represents this passive aspect of temptation, hovering on the border of the outer and the inner; the Decalogue calls it “covetousness” 4 (Tenth Commandment).
The Knowledge of Good and Evil
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden?’” The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.
- Genesis 3:1-7 NRSV
At this stage no reference is made to Eve, but the more generic term, the woman, is used. This helps to show the universal relevance of the drama instead of isolating it to an actual person or one specific event. She too is an archetype. The fact that the conversation happens between the serpent and the woman further emphasizes the more complete separation between male and female that is in process. Individual selves are emerging.
Desire and questions are inseparably connected. It is the unknown, the possibility of what might yet be, that stirs desire. Similarly, desire multiplies questions and awakens the imagination to untold possibilities. An internal conversation about that which is prohibited is projected onto objects that make the visualization process easier. Consciousness is no longer one undifferentiated perfection. This serpent no longer swallows its tail - it speaks. The all-is-one reality is unraveling. The conscious and unconscious are becoming more distinct. Male and female can now converse independently. And the blissful ignorance is now subjected to questions: “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden?’” The conversation that follows is one we can all vaguely recall. For each of us has stood in this position where, for the first time, we argued against the prohibition; where we decided to grasp for what we were told was off-limits.
After the woman clarifies that there is only one tree they should not eat from, the serpent answers: “You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. ”
If the serpent was only an unfamiliar external entity, surely this direct contradiction would have been met with greater skepticism. But if it was a projection of the internal emerging voice of the conscious self, then it makes the ready acceptance of this contradiction more realistic. We are more at ease with weighing up possibilities within ourselves, even contradictory options, and instantly changing our minds from one to the other. It also explains the silence of Ish. Maybe a similar conversation was developing in him which in turn prepared him to simply accept the fruit, without question, once it was offered. Let’s look at the text again:
“You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
As with all great temptations, there is some truth in it. God does indeed know good and evil, but the motivation behind the prohibition is falsely presented. These words imply that God is prohibiting them from eating the fruit because he does not want to share this knowledge or likeness with them. The very nature of God is misrepresented as one withholding what they are lacking. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of God. This sense of lack-of-being is then used to suggest the desirability of the fruit.
Why would the earthlings be so susceptible to a sense of lack? Every child is born into a world where everyone around him/her is bigger and allowed to do more. Growing up amongst others who are stronger and have fewer limitations than you creates an ideal environment in which desire becomes twisted into covetousness. It is easy to desire the being of the other if your own seems so insignificant. And so it becomes normal for children to continually push the boundaries, to attempt to do what the others do, to reach for the fruit that is prohibited. Why do parents prohibit us from things that they partake of? This confusion of good and bad imitation can easily translate into rivalry and conflict. And conflict can escalate into violence. This violence is not limited to the physical - it is any attempt to take from another what you think you lack in yourself. If the imagery of a fall is valid, it is valid in this sense. A fundamental misinterpretation has taken place. Instead of the gratuitous givenness of existence, a sense of lack became the filter through which reality is interpreted. Consequently, much of desire becomes twisted into an acquisitive type that attempts to fill the imagined void by grasping.
Grasping for the Gift
In this context, it is relevant to consider whether God, in some way, partakes of the knowledge of good and evil/bad. Does God differentiate between love and hate? Is God indifferent to a child being abused? The rest of the Scriptures make it clear that there are things God is for and things God is against. But we don’t have to look further than verse 22 to see that God indeed knows good and evil: “Then the Lord God s
aid, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.’ ” However, it was not through a process of misunderstanding, a sense of lack-of-being and twisted desire, that God came to acquire such knowledge. Was there another way for humanity to acquire such knowledge? Yes, there was! It was always God’s intention for us to grow into the full reality of his own image and likeness - a likeness that includes the wisdom of making value judgments. The problem here is not so much the ends but the means . In our haste we grasped for what we were not able to contain.
A memory from my childhood illustrates this point. I was about seven years of age and it was a week before Christmas. My two brothers and I were playfully guessing what our gifts might be, when my dad informed us that the gifts were already bought and our speculations could not change them. Obviously we wanted to know what they were and if perhaps we might just look at them … from a distance. “No, you must wait until Christmas day to open your gifts and play with them” said my mother. It was only a matter of time. But time is what I did not have much patience for. One afternoon I searched through a cupboard in my parents’ room and found it! The gifts weren’t wrapped yet and I quickly figured out which one was meant for me. Carefully I opened the box with a battery-powered motorbike. The next hour was pure bliss discovering all the functions and noises my new toy had. At the end of this stolen playtime, I put everything back as best I could. For a couple of days I sneaked into their room and went through the same ritual. However, when one afternoon my mom began wrapping the gifts, she realized what had happened. When I heard her call my name, my heart sank for I knew, she knew. A severe reprimand followed.
Christmas day came and my two brothers and I were given our gifts. Theirs were wrapped but mine was not. My parents handed each child their gift, starting with the eldest. What delight as they observed each boy’s surprise and joy. Mine was handed to me last but in reality it was no longer a gift. I tried to look surprised, but nothing could change the fact that I took what was suppose to be given and thereby invalidated the gift. Desire without patience becomes twisted.
Twisting of Desire
Notice that before the serpent’s suggestion, no desire is expressed by the woman. But after the suggestion, “the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise .” Desire does not spontaneously erupt between the woman and the fruit but is mediated by a conversation with another. In this case, it might well be an internal other; nevertheless, there is a mediation.
The process of mimetic desire is not evil in itself. However, when desire originates from a sense of lack, it becomes twisted and acquisitive. And for such a sense of lack to exist, a rival is suggested - in this case, a god who is withholding. Remember, God expressed desire in the creation of mankind, but it was not a sense of lack that motivated that desire. Desire can have another type of origin - the divine type - where it is the super-abundance, the sense-of-fullness that energizes the kind of desire that gives itself to another.
...she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate.
Again, it is in reflective relationship that this creative process, whereby the embryonic self is birthed, is completed. We do not become human in isolation but in relationship. This is true in both a positive and negative sense.
Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.
They were naked previously, but now they know it. Individual wills and personalities were not completely formed before and consequently, in that union, there was nothing to hide. However, once self-consciousness is formed, a separation takes place between self and all else. Ish no longer experiences himself as part of Isha or part of God. This process of separation contains within itself inevitable guilt. I am no longer part of the flow but an independent actor that may cause things to happen. This initial realization of cause and effect is overwhelming. Everything happens because of me! An understanding of chance and the appreciation that other actors also cause things will take time.
Let’s think of this in historical terms. The development of consciousness in early humans happened within community. Group identity and group consciousness were more essential than individual consciousness. Such group unity was an absolute necessity for survival. The gradual separation of the independent ego within a group also created an ideal environment for guilt. To assert one’s individuality within a group that gave and sustained your very existence would have been traumatic. Today still it is a traumatic experience to separate yourself from a group that has been an intimate part of your life.
Just as the earthlings were naked before, but did not know it, they were also mortal before but did not fully appreciate the reality of death. Now they do. Death consciousness enters and the fear of death, the drive to preserve self, will be the cause of untold suffering. What is the difference between an animalistic instinct to survive and human death-consciousness? Physical danger is an occasional reality, and all animals deal with it in the moment. However, a self founded on a sense of lack-of-being perceives danger everywhere and naturally inflames rivalry with anyone who seems to have what it lacks. Self-preservation in this context becomes amplified because it is not only concerned with occasional physical danger but with an ever-present insecure self. Whatever questions the value or meaning of this insecure self, is perceived as a danger.
God From the Perspective of the Fearful
They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” He said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate.” Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent tricked me, and I ate.”
- Genesis 3:8-13
The newly formed independent self is suddenly obsessed with the sensory information that connects it to a reality apart from itself. Desire has given priority to sensory knowledge and the text itself has now taken on this perspective: “they heard the sound of God,” “God walking in the garden,” “the cool of the day. ” For the first time, the character of God now enters the drama in a sensory way, as if the text itself is now written from the perspective of the earthlings who have partaken of this sensual knowledge. The implications for how we interpret the story from here onwards are enormous, for we are not dealing with an independent perspective but with the limited view of the earthlings - Ish and Isha. That the text is now written from their point of view is confirmed as they heard: “God called to the man[earthling) ‘Where are you? ’”
On this point, Sandor Goodhart writes:
[I}s the image of God that the text projects for us, an image based upon the distorted perspective of the characters within it, characters who have experienced something they are unhappy about and that colors their perspective of things? 5
This new dimension to the text opens up amazing possibilities. We cannot read and ignore the perspective we are dealing with. The narrative tells us something, but the very structure of the narrative is subjective. What it says about God and the events to follow are all subjective descriptions of the characters who have discovered themselves naked, afraid and ashamed. In this atmosphere of fear, it is easy to see God as retributive and punishing.
Every child needs to deal with the fact that the same parents who provide also seem to take away at times. Sometimes they say ‘yes’ and other times they say ‘no.’ Parents enable us but also limit us. The perspective that develops after the earthlings partake of this confusion of knowl
edge, the knowledge of good and evil, is similar to the perspective of a child that imagines his parents as both providing and punishing. If we are indeed dealing with a child’s perspective then the implications are significant. And what can be said about a child’s perspective, can also be said of humanity in its infancy.
Being Human and Projecting Blame
When confronted by God, the man blames God and the woman. The woman in turn blames the snake and in effect the God who created this snake. The process of projecting our guilt and scapegoating others begins. Remember we are dealing with an emerging conscious self, and in these early stages many decisions have to be made about what is part of me and what is not. To separate oneself from guilt and project it outside oneself brings immediate relief. It is, however, not a permanent solution.
To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”
And to the man he said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,
and have eaten of the tree
about which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
