In the three posts preceding this one, we studied Genesis 3.1-7 from three different perspectives. We studied the serpent, analyzed the nature of temptation, and looked at the aspect of nakedness and being clothed. Now we move further in the narrative to see the first interaction the humans had with God after they had disobeyed him.
Hebrew text:
8 וַֽיִּשְׁמְע֞וּ אֶת־ק֨וֹל יְהוָ֧ה אֱלֹהִ֛ים מִתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ בַּגָּ֖ן לְר֣וּחַ הַיּ֑וֹם וַיִּתְחַבֵּ֨א הָֽאָדָ֜ם וְאִשְׁתּ֗וֹ מִפְּנֵי֙ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֔ים בְּת֖וֹךְ עֵ֥ץ הַגָּֽן׃
9 וַיִּקְרָ֛א יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶל־הָֽאָדָ֑ם וַיֹּ֥אמֶר ל֖וֹ אַיֶּֽכָּה׃
10 וַיֹּ֕אמֶר אֶת־קֹלְךָ֥ שָׁמַ֖עְתִּי בַּגָּ֑ן וָאִירָ֛א כִּֽי־עֵירֹ֥ם אָנֹ֖כִי וָאֵחָבֵֽא׃
11 וַיֹּ֕אמֶר מִ֚י הִגִּ֣יד לְךָ֔ כִּ֥י עֵירֹ֖ם אָ֑תָּה הֲמִן־הָעֵ֗ץ אֲשֶׁ֧ר צִוִּיתִ֛יךָ לְבִלְתִּ֥י אֲכָל־מִמֶּ֖נּוּ אָכָֽלְתָּ׃
12 וַיֹּ֖אמֶר הָֽאָדָ֑ם הָֽאִשָּׁה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נָתַ֣תָּה עִמָּדִ֔י הִ֛וא נָֽתְנָה־לִּ֥י מִן־הָעֵ֖ץ וָאֹכֵֽל׃
13 וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהוָ֧ה אֱלֹהִ֛ים לָאִשָּׁ֖ה מַה־זֹּ֣את עָשִׂ֑ית וַתֹּ֙אמֶר֙ הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה הַנָּחָ֥שׁ הִשִּׁיאַ֖נִי וָאֹכֵֽל׃
Transliteration:
8 way·yiš·mə·‘ū ’eṯ- qō·wl Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·hîm miṯ·hal·lêḵ bag·gān lə·rū·aḥ hay·yō·wm; way·yiṯ·ḥab·bê hā·’ā·ḏām wə·’iš·tōw, mip·pə·nê Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·hîm, bə·ṯō·wḵ ‘êṣ hag·gān.
9 way·yiq·rā Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·hîm ’el- hā·’ā·ḏām; way·yō·mer lōw ’ay·yek·kāh.
10 way·yō·mer ’eṯ- qō·lə·ḵā šā·ma‘·tî bag·gān; wā·’î·rā kî- ‘ê·rōm ’ā·nō·ḵî wā·’ê·ḥā·ḇê.
11 way·yō·mer mî hig·gîḏ lə·ḵā, kî ‘ê·rōm ’āt·tāh; hă·min- hā·‘êṣ, ’ă·šer ṣiw·wî·ṯî·ḵā lə·ḇil·tî ’ă·ḵāl- mim·men·nū ’ā·ḵā·lə·tā.
12 way·yō·mer hā·’ā·ḏām; hā·’iš·šāh ’ă·šer nā·ṯat·tāh ‘im·mā·ḏî, hî nā·ṯə·nāh- lî min- hā·‘êṣ wā·’ō·ḵêl.
13 way·yō·mer Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·hîm lā·’iš·šāh mah- zōṯ ‘ā·śîṯ; wat·tō·mer hā·’iš·šāh, han·nā·ḥāš hiš·šî·’a·nî wā·’ō·ḵêl.
NIV:
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”
10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”
11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”
12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”
13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
Study:
In an anthropomorphism, the text describes God walking in the garden. The humans hear him approaching and decide to hide themselves. Having realized that they were naked and, therefore, unfit to fulfill the vocation of being priests, the humans had sewn fig aprons for themselves. But they know that these shabby, hastily made coverings are ridiculous and actually draw attention to themselves. Rather that being appropriate priestly vestments, the aprons are ridiculous coverings that, because they were ridiculous, could not function to point toward God. The humans realize this and hide from God.
God appears to be unable to find them and asks, “Where are you?” The man responds by stating that he was hiding because he was naked and afraid. As seen in the previous post, eating the forbidden fruit gave them the knowledge that priests are supposed to be clothed. And since he was a priest who was naked, the man became afraid.
God immediately recognizes the problem and asks the man, “Who told you that you were naked?” If we take this at face value, it makes no sense. Even before eating the forbidden fruit the man could clearly see that he was not wearing any clothes. No one had to tell him that he was unclothed. But God is not asking such a prosaic question. He is asking the man, “Who told you that you are not as clothed as you should be?” or “Who told you that not wearing clothes is inappropriate?” And God quickly asks the man if he had eaten the forbidden fruit. This kind of knowledge could not have sunk so deeply into the man as to cause him to hide from God unless it came from eating the forbidden fruit.
In response to God’s question the man says, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” (v. 12) What has happened here is important to recognize. This is not simply an issue of not accepting responsibility and of passing the blame. At a deeper level, the man’s response reveals what was lost in eating the forbidden fruit. Having taken the shortcut to the knowledge of good and evil, the man recognizes that he is naked and not fit to be a priest. And this is revealed in his response. A priest is to stand in the gap between God and the devotee. In this case, the man was supposed to stand in the gap between God and the woman. But rather than doing that, the man abdicates his priestly responsibility and pushes the woman forward to fend for herself. Had he repented for himself and on behalf of the woman things may have turned out differently. However, he could not have done that. He was a priest who knew he was naked and, therefore, unfit to perform any priestly duty. And so he could do nothing except step back and abandon the woman to God’s piercing gaze.
God then asks the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman was supposed to be the man’s עֵ֫זֶר (ezer), who would provide the kind of delivering help that God provides. Instead, she proved to be a stumbling block for him. In response, the woman tells God, “The serpent deceived me and I ate.” (v. 13) Presumably, she intended the fact that she was deceived to be an acceptable excuse for what she had done. However, being deceived and sinning is as inexcusable as willfully sinning.1 The woman was created as the man’s עֵ֫זֶר (ezer), but what kind of help could she provide is she was going to be deceived? When God ask, “What is this you have done?” he is not asking out of ignorance. Rather, he is drawing the woman’s attention to the incongruity of her action in relation to her role as the man’s עֵ֫זֶר (ezer). “You were supposed to ensure he does not fall. You were supposed to ensure he does not get duped. But you have been duped yourself,” is what God meant by his simple question.
Both the man and the woman have disobeyed God and have failed in their original vocation. Neither of them has been a true priest for the other. And if he could not be a priest for the one he recognized as ‘bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh’ how can he be a priest for those whom he cannot fully relate to? And if she could not be a priest for the one she was created to help, how can she be a priest for those whom she has not explicitly been created to help? The failure of the first humans to live up to their original vocation has consequences that stretch far beyond the human race. It calls into question the ability of humans to truly care for God’s good creation and uphold its best interests.
Their disobedience actually provided a clear situation in which they could test their priestly abilities. Till this disobedience the depths of their priestly responsibilities would have remained purely academic. But once they had disobeyed, both of them were in need of a priest. He needed her to stand in the gap for him and she needed him to do likewise. Now their vocation was no longer academic and theoretical but practical. And rather than doing what a priest should do – first repent of his or her sin before donning vestments appropriate to the office, each of them abdicates their office.
Prayer:
Our almighty, loving Father. You have created us to bear each other’s burdens and in so doing to fulfill Jesus’ law of love. We know how difficult this is to do. We are so driven by a sense of self-preservation that we resolutely refuse to fulfill this priestly duty toward each other. But Father, in Jesus, you have given us a model priest and we ask you to empower us by your Spirit so that we can have the courage and patience to live up to the high vocation to which you have called us. We ask that you would enable us to stand in the gap for each other and to refuse to abdicate our priestly office. We ask this in the name of Jesus. Amen.
1. Matt Slick. Eve was deceived. Adam was not. (Accessed on 9 July 2019)↩
Purposes Crossed 