Grace Arrives

Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” Genesis 3:9 NASB

Where – As you know, Hebrew has two words for “where.” The first is a question about geographical location. ‘ephoh, that is, “Where is such and such place, person, thing?” If I’m lost in Jerusalem, I might use this word to ask for the location of my hotel. But there is a second word, ‘ayyeh, that is also translated “where.” Although it comes from the same root as ‘ephoh, this is not about location. ‘ayyeh expresses surprise. “Where are you?” is God’s exclamation that Adam is not found in the expected place, namely, by God’s side. “What’s happened? Where are you? You’re supposed to be here, with me.” TWOT notes that this use is a “rhetorical question.” Adam’s actions and his reply are the story of addictive retreat from the world.

Adam does answer, but his answer reveals a serious change in psychological identification. “He said, ‘I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.’” Carefully examine this response.

First, we note that Adam does not say, “Here I am.” The common Hebrew expression, hinneni, has overtones of obedience. “Here I am ready to serve you,” is probably a close idiomatic translation. Adam is not ready to serve. He is trying to hide. He is not available to God because he is preoccupied with himself. When the voice of God comes from all directions,[1] Adam is confronted with the inescapable presence of God, but instead of responding to the arrival of grace, he attempts to remain hidden. “I heard the sound,” says Adam. He cannot obliterate the evidence of God’s presence. He can attempt to hide, but God knows every secret place. The first lesson of this verse is that real escape from God’s creation is a figment of addictive imagination. There is no hiding place.

Notice why Adam seeks to hide. “I was afraid,” say the text. But the translation assumes temporal positioning. It expresses the Hebrew ‘i-ra as past. “I was afraid.” But the word is Qal, vav-consecutive plus imperfect. That means it is a continuous incomplete action. It is not the case that at some time in the past Adam was afraid. No, Adam is afraid, right now, at this very moment when God expresses surprise. In fact, Adam’s psychological experience with fear has been present to him ever since he ate the fruit. Adam now knows what it means to be afraid—constantly. Suddenly the Garden is no longer safe. And Adam is afraid.

The present experience of fear means that we have to change our translation of Adam’s explanation as well. It is not the case that Adam was naked. The reason Adam gives for his present psychological state is also an immediate psychological reality. He is naked. Of course, that has nothing to do with clothing. He is ‘erom, bare, exposed, from the verb ‘ur, “to lay bare, to expose.” Adam is aware that he is vulnerable. For the first time in his life, he is aware of a threat to his existence. He is not safe. That’s why he hides!

It is extremely interesting that the Hebrew word for skin is exactly the same consonants. The only difference is the pointing of the middle consonant, from u to o. Eating from the tree provided Adam with discernment, and that discernment came at the cost of realizing that he was no longer comfortable in his own skin. He became aware of his vulnerability. He always was vulnerable, as Genesis 2:25 clearly states, but that vulnerability was under the protection of YHVH. He and the woman were ‘arom (naked) but without the sense of bosh (shame). They had nothing to hide. God protected their innocence. But now things have changed. Perhaps the tree doesn’t represent moral failure as much as it is the symbol of shattered innocence. We have all eaten from this tree. We are all afraid of our vulnerability in the world. We are not safe. The question is what we do about it.

Adam’s response to this newly experienced threat to his state of mind is to hide. He constructs an artificial means of concealment. Notice that Adam considers himself naked even though he has covered himself with “fig leaves.” Clearly the issue is not about outward appearance. Adam’s inner state of self-identity has been altered. He now sees himself as threatened. And who threatens him? Adam himself. The battle is on the inside. Adam has changed. His innocence is lost. God can ask, “Who told you that you were naked?” but Adam never answers that question. Instead, Adam immediately offers rationalized blame. In other words, feeling no longer safe in the world, and recognizing that his own artificial attempts at concealment are insufficient to remove his vulnerability, Adam retreats to blaming others for his fear. What he refuses to see is that he is the enemy of his soul.

Grace arrives when God asks, “Why aren’t you here with Me?” God’s expectation is community and fellowship. That is the kind of God we serve. God’s concern with Adam is not “Why did you sin?” That question never comes from God’s lips. God’s concern is rather about Adam’s personal psychological well-being. “Who told you?” is not an examination of guilt but rather an expression encouraging self-reflection and self-revelation. If only Adam would realize that he is the one who is telling himself that he is exposed and threatened, then perhaps restitution can begin. But Adam does not take this path. Instead, he retreats to rationalization—and his inner state of fear is not diminished. God demonstrates grace anyway. He clothes the couple. But the trauma has taken hold—and so it grips each of us.

“Who told you that you were naked?”

Topical Index: naked, ‘arom, where, ‘ayyeh, addiction, grace, hide, Genesis 3:7-11

[1] On the proper translation of the idea of God “walking” in the Garden, see Aviyah Kushner, The Grammar of God.

Subscribe
Notify of
11 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Andrea

Wow, great insight on this section of scripture I’ve read a hundred times.

Tami

That last paragraph I’ve re-read several times. It just speaks to me so

Gillette elvgren

The insights into Adam are so original it hurts. They bring together psychological cognizance as well as spiritual insight. Thanks.

Paul

It’s too bad that marriages can’t exhibit this kind of vulnerability. Or can they? It certainly takes two broken individuals to make it work, does it not? Can one partner be vulnerable if the other will use it to beat down, despise, reject, and persecute the other? Or is it not up to one to control whether or how the other responds? Is this not the response of fear? Does failure to be vulnerable perpetuate a rotten marriage? Or is it one more symptom of the addictive idolatry that we cling to in our attempt to control others?

Paul

Oh, by the way, it occurred to me that these kinds of soul-searching, idolatry pinning posts are so obviously devoid of comments from the usual technical and theologically verbose commenters. Crickets. Could it be that for some, the machinations of the mind have become one’s idol? Has theology (or our knowledge thereof) become the mask that keeps us puffed up and proud, hiding from the reality of addiction and nakedness? Thank you Skip for keep your ear (and heart) close to the earth and reminding us that we are truly naked.

Laurita Hayes

Paul: where have you been hiding? Speak up more – we really need you!

Colleen Bucks

This is a heavenly home run !! Thanks skip

Joshua Carl

I bring up a subject that the Talmud has dealt with, a taboo to some people but one which explains how the Serpent can have a seed that would rival Eve’s {Chavvah} seed. And bare in mind that a snake is a sexless animal so it could not have a seed, nor neither could it be the creature identified as having a rivalry seed.

I note how the same Hebrew word is used to describe the Serpent whom I along with many others hold the Serpent to be Lilith the first woman/wife of Adam. I believe that Lilith exists in part that she is described in Genesis {B’Resheet} 3:1 as cunning/subtil ערוּם ‛ârûm which has the exact same meanings as ‘arom, and ‛êrôm which means, “to become shrewd, to uncover ones mind, to make oneself naked” and to do so that would have to be totally plausible for the Serpent to have rational.

Meaning the Serpent was capable of human rational thought because I put forth she was Lilith the first woman. Just think, Adam and Eve weren’t shocked when they heard the Serpent speak and the Serpent was not a snake but in fact the most cunning creature ever created by G-D.

Perhaps the fruit was just the precursor to the actual sin! The sin of uncovering ones mind, the act of becoming cunning as the Serpent had become and perhaps Hashem was trying to prevent Mankind from the possibilities of the darkness of mankind becoming subtil mentally.

Libby

It seems that the misogyny of women starts out early in the Torah. It is good to know this was not God’s design.

As my cousin told me ego exists in the serpent. Fruit of the spirit must be the tamer.