|
|
February 13, 2008Lent: “Who told you that you were naked?” -UPDATED
As I’ve written elsewhere, I’m one of those Christians who is completely comfortable linking Creationism and Evolution - whether Adam and Eve found their awareness from a piece of fruit or a God-designed evolution is pointless to carp about. The fact is once Adam and Eve became “aware,” and into human consciousness, the first things they did were to hide themselves and lie to themselves and to God. I like the question, “who told you that you were naked?” Prior to this consciousness Adam & Eve were happily running around naked, like every other creature in the wild. Then: awareness. And what was the awareness? That their nakedness was “dirty”? Unlikely. That their nakedness was “embarrassing?” Also unlikely. They’d had no example of shame or embarrassment. Their awareness of their vulnerability might have led to their excuse-making, too. Until that point they had enjoyed a blissful relationship with the Creator - there would have been no reason to fear and yet, suddenly attuned to their vulnerability, they feared enough to hem and haw and blame anyone else around, and aside from the serpent there was only each other. Was the first sin, then, simple disobedience? That doesn’t really seem likely. Obedience, like anything else, must be learned. Rather, I think the first sin was humanity not trusting in God but trying to guard themselves by hiding from him; humans covering themselves up both physically and metaphorically - with fig leaves and with the sloughing off of blame onto others - rather than revealing themselves and taking responsibility for their actions. The taint of Original Sin: God has been trying to get us to trust Him, to reveal ourselves to Him and to be vulnerable (open) to Him ever since. Perhaps this explains the command by God for the Jews to circumcise the men. The foreskin of the penis affords some protection for the organ - a bit of shelter, a place to hide. When God chose the Jews as His own, he required this symbolic (and real) acquiescence - this willingness to be completely vulnerable and exposed to whatever may come. The unsheathed penis is extraordinarily sensitive and responsive - precisely the qualities God wanted of the Jews. He made a covenant with them; He would be their God, they would be His people, and the deal was sealed in blood. At its shedding, man and God are bonded. The need to be vulnerable and open to God is part and parcel of having a real relationship with Him, just as it is the necessary component in human relationships. We see the blood covenant and the need for vulnerability and openness mirrored in the relationship between a husband and wife - or we did, when virginity was kept for marriage. The thin membrane of the hymen is a kind of counterpart to the foreskin. In shedding the foreskin the Jew becomes openly vulnerable to God. In remaining a virgin until marriage, the woman becomes vulnerable only (but fully) to her husband, and he - in receiving that vulnerability - answers only to her, gives his deepest self and the sweat of all of his labors to her. It is another blood covenant. At the shedding of that blood, they become one flesh. One entity. Why do we not know that? Why is it never taught that way? For centuries and centuries virginity was little more than a premium - a selling point for chattel - and even today, in some cultures, that idea remains. God says, “be my people,” and there is a blood covenant. A man and woman say “be mine” and there is a blood covenant. We have never understood. So God becomes Incarnate and tries to explain: be opened. I will show you how. I will make myself vulnerable to you. You may have my blood. It is shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. It is the greatest of the blood covenants, because the blood covers and draws into oneness not a tribe, nor a mate, but an entire creation - for better or worse. The marriage of heaven to earth, God to man. Looked at this way all of the dogmas no longer seem trite. There was a reason (beyond paternity) for Mary’s virginity. Christ made his first covenant with his mother - the Ark of the Covenant. God could not make Himself any more vulnerable than to come to us - bursting through a hymen, in blood, then laying in a wooden manger, and to go from us hanging upon the wood of a blood-soaked cross. He rose and said “see, I make all things new - even death cannot separate us. Come to me.” Christ has opened God to us, through Himself. God does the unthinkable and makes himself vulnerable and says “Come…stop making excuses, stop hiding yourselves, stop blaming others, stop throwing yourself away, stop running from my love. Turn and face me. Ephphatha, be opened, and let me love you, let me give myself to you as you give yourself to me, and this will bear fruit.” In this Lenten season, let all of our small sacrifices and minor slips render us vulnerable, that we may be opened to Him, the Divine Lover. Let us hear his love-talk, his whispers and his invitation.
The mystery here is that there is no mystery beyond love. UPDATE: Julie at Happy Catholic shares her daughter’s favorite quote and it is appropriate here:
*The Expulsion from Paradise scene - the bronze doors of the Cathedral at Hildesheim…Adam and Eve respond to God’s question by passing the buck…Adam points to Eve, who points to the serpent. http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/02/13/lent-who-told-you-you-were-naked/trackback/ 39 Responses to “Lent: “Who told you that you were naked?” -UPDATED” |
Site SyndicationAdvertise on this blog   
      
 BlogrollMeta Data
|
February 13th, 2008 at 1:28 am
Good points all.
I would only add that the man and the woman were not merely self-consciousness about their physical nakedness. They also became aware that they were emotionally naked and spiritually naked. Suddenly, it seemed as if every tiny little aspect of themselves, inward and outward, was exposed to the world, where others might point and laugh.
We not only cover ourselves up physically, we cover up our inner self, turning inward, and alienating ourselves from other persons and from God. We go hide in the bushes to avoid God, who can nevertheless still see us, while our ability to look up to heaven to see Him is now obstructed by the leaves and branches of those bushes.
(On another point — as you no doubt know, some folks, not me, but some folks have historically taken Mary’s perpetual virginity (before, during, and after) to mean that Jesus did not have the usual vaginal birth, but instead engaged in some kind of teleportation from inside the womb to outside. I don’t believe that birth by normal means detracts from Mary’s virginity (the idea that a ruptured hymen means that one is not a virgin went out in the Middle Ages), but some folks do, including a number of big name theologians, although I do not believe that the Church has actually ever fully defined Mary’s virginity, other than to say that it is perpetual. Myself, I would think that the truth that Jesus is truly and fully human would dictate a birth by truly and fully human means. But what do I know?)
February 13th, 2008 at 2:58 am
Interesting and thought-provoking thoughts expressed as only you can express them.
Since I’m not Catholic I have to ask this question: Do Catholics believe Mary remained a virgin her entire life? Doesn’t the Bible say Jesus had at least one brother named James?
Please understand I am not criticizing, but it seems confusing to me that a man and woman, even such a special woman, would be married and never consummate the marriage.
I believe the Bible tells us he knew her not until she had delivered Jesus, so she was definitely a virgin when He was conceived and born, but until she delivered makes me think they had normal marital relations.
Help me out here.
February 13th, 2008 at 3:43 am
Was the first sin, then, simple disobedience? That doesn’t really seem likely. Obedience, like anything else, must be taught.
Rather, I think the first sin was humanity not trusting in God but trying to hide from him. Humans covering themselves up both physically and metaphorically, with fig leaves and with the sloughing off of blame onto others, rather than revealing themselves and taking responsibility for their actions.
Yes. And that they sloughed off the blame onto others is an indication they were quite aware what they did was wrong. This awareness of wrongdoing is important. Man does wrong only when he is aware. Without awareness, there is no wrongdoing.
Therefore methinks pride is the first sin. Pride is that which lives in denial of sin and error. It’s, as you say, the decision to lie. The pride of man’s egotism is mixed with his deeper awareness that he did wrong.
There would be no pride without awareness. And yet, without awareness, we cannot grow. Therefore, was the fall necessary for man’s higher development?
February 13th, 2008 at 4:12 am
Jeanette - there is dogma that Mary’s virginity is perpetual. When scripture talks of Jesus’ brother some believe this means his cousins as translated from whatever language. And too, the scriptural passage that Joseph “knew her not” until she delivered Jesus is ambiguous on that point. I’ve had conversations with Catholics who really get hung up on this stuff - I never do because it is interesting to speculate about but it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not we are saved in Christ. The early church fathers debated on all of these points, so the tradition is nearly as old as the church (as is the Assumption or, in the Orthodox church, the “Dormition” of Mary) The catechism talks about Mary here.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:58 am
I’ve been mulling over this infinitely profound story for a few hours now. By bringing it into a less mystical dimension I’ve been able to answer the question that always nags at me, which is, if their eyes were opened in what sense had they been closed? How are we to understand having the eyes opened as a bad thing when eventually having ones eyes opened to truth is a good thing?
Seeing Adam and Eve as innocent children who wander around and stumble upon sights, such as trees with fruit, and then realize they have had up until then a partial knowledge of the world, is the same trajectory our children always make in their transition from innocence to experience no matter what. And it is impossible to maintain that self-delighting vitality as the ages pile up. A certain recovery of ‘radical innocence’ is offered through Christ, as you have beautifully explained. I’m presently watching one of our daughters burst the confines of her cocoon as she becomes a phenomenal adult, but there is suffering accompanying this discovery of wings. The existential meaningless of this world, a condition which your faith defies, nevertheless presses itself upon her daily being. I can’t really help as I once did, by tossing pretty little pictures to obscure the devastating big picture of the chasm that yawns under existence, even though the stepping stones of little pictures is the only response the secularist has to occupy time. It’s a creative response.
So we all re-enact the same play as poor little adam and eve, from dancing joyfully naked and eating snow and beholding the miracles of day and night to reading headlines and pondering careers and squabbling with opinions, until we are beaten down masses of frustrated yearning. It seems perfectly natural and tragic.
By the way, there’s that pact boys sometimes make with each other, becoming blood brothers by slicing a finger and letting the bloods mingle. It’s probably somewhat discouraged these days, now that we recognize what diseases can be carried in the once holy serum.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Having our eyes opened is not a bad thing; what we do with what we then learn and percieve is what brings about the bad, I think.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Thanks for the explanation, A. I appreciate it. I had also heard that Joseph had children from a previous wife who was deceased and those children were called the brothers and sisters of Jesus.
As you say, it has nothing to do with our salvation.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Beautiful & important “theology of the body” summary Anchoress! For anyone interested, I just finished a book (easy read-taken from 4 German homilies), by Pope Benedict XVI titled “In the Beginning…” where he describes with clarity and depth the Catholic understanding of the creation and the fall (fascinating as to what all the symbolism means).
With brilliant insight, he even tells of the significance of the numbers in Genesis, such as “God said” exactly 10 times in the creation account, which showed from the beginning that his “commandants” were non less than the echo of creation.
His take on “evolution” and original sin (a much needed explanation for something so often misunderstood), is described with such clarity and logic it would be hard for even the unbeliever to dispute.
Bottom line according to PB, the universe exists and was created for the worship and glorification of God, not US for the universe. It’s because “the lie” is so easy to believe meaning that the “covenant” is a burden which stymies our freedom. Consequently, we “build our own world”, because, in not believing the covenant is necessary, good, and freeing, we fail in the essentials of faith, prayer, and of course, obedience to the commandments, offsetting the “rhythm of the universe.”
In essence, I believe Pope Benedict in this tiny little book answers the Anchoress’s earlier question of “what’s wrong with the world.”
P.S. to Jeanette about “Brothers”–I agree with the Anchoress. The world “cousin” didn’t even exist, consequently, brother was used for everything.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Anchoress –
Thank you so much for this post. I find myself sitting here totally all teared up.
Touching, amazingly touching.
About the “source”, is there any doubt? Not on this end . . .
February 13th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I respectfully disagree with the “first sin” analysis up there. To me it seems that you are trying to elevate analysis of the text above the text. When God first addressed the issue of the fruit, he didn’t say “The day that you hide from me, you die.” It was linked to a specific action. Some people think of God as unfair with a rationale that “Hey, they only broke one stupid rule.” True enough, except that was the only rule. Leading to my second thought on the analysis.
You state that obedience must be learned. I disagree. The fact that God was already in communication with the man and woman and they understood each other and him indicated that they had reached a high level of awareness and understanding. At that point, people have moved beyond obedience as an instinctual context. It is a choice. They were presented with a rule and the consequences of violating it. For various reasons, they chose the action. From that point, the consequences were automatic.
Now I certainly agree that God seeks fellowship and intimacy with us, and that restoration of that fellowship through the forgiveness of sins is why Christ came. I just try to not look too far beyond the text for an explanation of events when an explicit reason is already present.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
gbaker - we all have our different ways.
February 13th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
[…] Lent: “Who told you that you were naked?” […]
February 13th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
The first sin was betrayal, not simple disobedience. They saw nothing but pure love from God, yet they believed the worst about God when Satan told Eve that God was just trying to prevent man from being his equal.
February 13th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I don’t think they believed anything in particular about God, not “the worst” in any case. Eve told the serpent about things in all innocence, got duped in innocence. Can there be “betrayal” without intent to betray? Would God - who is, after all, the Creator - get upset over an unintended betrayal, or in the unwillingness of A&E to trust him? Perhaps then the “betrayal” was not in being duped, which was innocent, but in not trusting?
I land on “unwillingness to be open” once again.
February 13th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
This is a tremendous meditation, Anchoress. Thank you.
February 13th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
It seems as if Adam and Eve learned useful knowledge from eating the fruit. Therefore it seemed essential for Adam and Eve’s development to disobey the only commandment of God.
What I find interesting is how, after “The Fall of Man” occurs, Adam and Eve leave the Garden of Eden as mortals (even though Adam lives to 900 years). He learns the art of agriculture, hunting and gathering, and work by the ’sweat of his brow’ and Eve learns the pains of childbirth. They both know ‘good and evil’ as God does, but they are expelled from the garden.
What of the Tree of Life? And why does Christ’s redemption from “original sin” involve dying on another tree, the cross? It seems like Christ resolves the process Adam and Eve initiated. Christ’s Life vs. Adam and Eve’s Knowledge of Good Evil seem to reflect the Two Trees in the Garden.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Jonathan - hence our Easter chant
February 13th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
[…] Anchoress has written something for Lent that I think should provoke a bit of thought on our parts. She writes about sin and covenants, […]
February 13th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I think Eve knew that God told them that they could eat of any fruit of any tree except THAT particular tree. That, to me, anyway- says Eve was informed of actions and cosequences, eh? And the death seems to be the death of Innocence& trust(not to mention Paradise and sinlessness).
I always wondered- why a tree of death in Eden and entrance of original sin to begin w/? Why all that perfection and then the ability of loss and destruction smack dab in the middle of it all?
I think it’s because God did not create us to love Him; but, created out of love for us. Adam and Eve’s love(& ours) wasn’t expected or coereced or demanded. It was sought and accepted and returned. Yet, it was(is) a choice because there was an alternative choice. And that stinkin’ Eve was smooth-talked right into it.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Actually, if you read Genesis 2, God told Adam about the tree before he created Eve. So, maybe Eve was pretty innocently duped, and Adam was an infatuated schmo who went along!
That chapter ends telling us that he and she were both naked, yet felt no shame…so, the awareness (or evolved consciousness) had not yet occurred. Interesting to speculate on, isn’t it?
February 13th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
I’ve been re-reading this all day, forming questions and then finding them answered. Now this: the attitude of surrender and openness that then leads to the image of the Divine Lover is bit of a sticky wicket for the male supplicant, don’t you see. I’ve come across whiffs of this kind of thing with the church as bride and the song of solomon kissing with the kisses of his mouth, but it really seems you have us at some advantage in the getting ravished department. I mean, this really was a semi-erotic entry today, all towards the divine, of course, but the practice of deepening the relationship visualizes Christ as a male..or am I entirely nuts. If instead our genders are superficial and we are to relate at a level of pure spirit, then why insist priests be male,etc? So male and female are not superficial components and yet,..very confusing dimension.
This is really a serious question or is it only of concern to semi-mystics?
February 14th, 2008 at 12:07 am
In his homily on December 8, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI makes a very succinct explanation of original sin:
” We call this drop of poison “original sin”. Precisely on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, we have a lurking suspicion that a person who does not sin must really be basically boring and that something is missing from his life: the dramatic dimension of being autonomous; that the freedom to say no, to descend into the shadows of sin and to want to do things on one’s own is part of being truly human; that only then can we make the most of all the vastness and depth of our being men and women, of being truly ourselves; that we should put this freedom to the test, even in opposition to God, in order to become, in reality, fully ourselves.”
And again:”In a word, we think that evil is basically good, we think that we need it, at least a little, in order to experience the fullness of being.”
I recommend reading that homily.
It was an early sign of the greatness of this Pope. - [edited to admit link - admin]
February 14th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Roro - the hang up about gender is - in this context of openness to the Divine Lover - simply a limitation of our human imagination. Perhaps an easier way to think of it is to remember that Jesus said the Gospel of Mark - when the Sadducees asked about the marriage bond after death. He said: “they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but they are like the angels in heaven.” If you think of your spirit being completely opened to the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Triune God, the notion of gender becomes moot.
February 14th, 2008 at 5:14 am
I will be the first to admit I know nuts about Roman Catholics. What little I pick up is from my relatives who are RCs. In many ways, I am glad that you are a branch of the Universal church, and I deplore the fact that many Protestant groups decry you as the anti-Christ. However, I also deplore the fact that some RCs do not see fellow Christians as such (and no, I am not referring to Pope Benedict saying we are not in communion with Rome - that’s true enough and irrelevant, becasue the only party we must be in full communion with is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit). What’s worse is the fact that you guys engage in sheep-stealing (and yes, Protestants do the same thing, and I don’t like any of it!)
However, I must take some objections to certain elements in this post;
1. Yes, I am a Young Earth Creationist. I was previously a theistic evolutionist, but the way I have had it explained to me (and which I now pass on to you), is that the issue is not what God can do (He can do anything He wills), but what God said He did. And in the Bible, He plainly says he created the world in 6 days (and rested on the 7th). Further, no blood was shed before the Fall, and there was no death (since perfection implies immortality also). To speak of evolution… well, I was mistaken then, I believe.
2. Sin has always been understood as disobedience towards God. Whether or not Adam and Eve had awareness of the concepts is immaterial. God informed them of a casue-and-effect scenario, and Eve acted it out. Also, notice that Eve exaggerated somewhat God’s one commandment to them, implying that the serpent’s influence was already at work. Nevertheless, Original Sin, and indeed all sin until today, has always been Man’s desire to live a life separate from (and free of, to some people’s mind) God.
3. IIRC, immaculate conception referred not to Jesus’ virgin birth, but Mary’s. Please do correct me if I’m wrong.
4. Mary was selected to be Jesus’ mother, a high position indeed. Is there any need for her to remain a virgin afterwards? Is there any reason for the RC church to continue maintaining this bit of controversy when, to me at least, it’s all just a bit silly?
However, having unburdened myself of all this, I must admit I enjoy this blog. And the fact that His Stupidity, the Imposter Archbishop is being his usual leftist self is a source of major angst to me. Suddenly, all this saint-worshipping (well, ok, talking-to-saint-asking-for-intercessory-aid) and shrine-pilgrimage (not to mention papal infallibility) doesn’t sound all that bad after all. Not for me, but not that bad after all.
February 14th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Thanks, I expected that my limitations were the problem. Yes, if I track marriage into heaven and visualize that relationship heightened somehow, it helps a bit. But isn’t comprehending the Triune God the most difficult contemplative challenge of all? I think I could more willingly surrender myself to a female deity, perhaps that dancing one with the assortment of flapping arms. I do have an ongoing dialogue of sorts with some didactic transcendent self who seems to be male and finds my antics quite amusing… we’re often found having a good laugh at my expense. As you might have guessed, there isn’t much of a formal system here.
Jayrconner, that is a brilliant and rewarding way to think of sin and gives it a friendlier shift. “that we should put this freedom to the test, even in opposition to God, in order to become, in reality, fully ourselves”.
February 14th, 2008 at 7:37 am
It doesn’t really wash to try to cast Eve as the innocent victim. While she is having her conversation with the serpent, he misrepresents what God said, and she corrects him. Pretty hard to make a case for ignorance of the rule in that case.
Maybe their sin was really that they didn’t take God at his word. This would certainly agree with the later scriptures. Abram was declared righteous when he believed God. Christ emphasized salvation through faith. If you don’t believe what God is saying, or selectively believe, then how can you trust the parts that claim you are saved?
February 14th, 2008 at 7:55 am
[…] The Anchoress gives us a remarkable Lenten meditation that explains the significance of circumcision in the Old Testament, relates it to virginity, and brings it all together with the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. […]
February 14th, 2008 at 9:45 am
What a wonderful essay. “There is no mystery beyond love.” Wonderful!!!
February 14th, 2008 at 10:13 am
jay thanks for that link - fascinating.
Roro - I think this is one of the little pluses one gets from being a cradle Catholic - yes, the Triune God is a mystery but Catholics are really comfortable with saying…”well…it’s a mystery…which is okay!”
February 14th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Roro you asked really good questions. I just wanted to let you or anyone else interested know that in addition to the brilliant and Spirit guided insight of the Anchoress, you can get more clairty at Christopherwest.com. One of his basic books on the Theology of the Body would give you much clarity. Even if you don’t buy a book, if you click on his article link, July 2007 he did 3 awesome articles on Song of Songs as JPII related it to the TOB (recently found manuscrpits in Poland; mind boggling).
You also nailed it by your Trinity question, being that, the whole “point” so to speak of sex as God INTENDED is to be in UNITY WITH THE TRINITY. When we get it right, either through HOLY CELIBACY or HOLY MARRIAGE (the “earthly signpost” of heaven), we experieence Heaven on Earth. It’s (sex according to God’s plan) is actually “Eucharitic” in it’s own sense.
As for the Anchoress’s post being erotic. You bet, just as God intented the Bible to be. It’s all one erotic love story, God the lover forever seducing us, to be his bride. After all, Solomon in Song of Songs IS God. It’s only when we are “Naked WIHHOUT SHAME” (this is now a tradmark of TOB), that we “get the ectasy, consequently from the Triune Unity”, the same as a very holy priest during the consecreation of the mass (the celibate consecrated simply “skips marraige” and “goes straight to the Trinity.” Properly understood, holy celibacy is actually a witness on earth of heaven, our Triune unity.
In the event anyone lacks a “Valentine” today, I suggest a quite read of the Song of Songs!
February 14th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
[…] ANCHORESS– Lent: “Who told you that you were naked?” …. […]
February 15th, 2008 at 9:52 am
I have found the observation by C.S. Lewis that of all God’s creation only man can not do as God wills to be an interesting one on this subject. For everything else, percieving what God wills and doing it are an instantaneous thing without any choice, but man can (and does) pervieve the will of God (he has knowledge of good and evil) but still act otherwise.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I really enjoyed this piece, Anchoress, but I agree with some others that you may have put the cart before the horse. I believe the fear and fig leaves were the result of man’s fall, not the other way.
The most remarkable part of the story, I think, was left out of the post, that before banishing them from the garden God made for them a better covering, garments of skin (which required the shedding of blood). Centuries later God once again sent to man a “better covering” for his sin, a righteousness greater than we could ever fashion for ourselves.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
[…] Lent: “Who told you that you were naked?” […]
February 17th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
[…] Nakedness and Blood Covenants From The Anchoress, some penetrating perspective on the myriad ways we hide from God: …the first sin was humanity not trusting in God but […]
February 17th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
[…] 17 February 2008 A very provocative Anchoress post Posted by Mrs. Peel under Religious Ruminations In more than one meaning of the word. […]
February 24th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Weekly Worth News: Islands in the Stream…
David Warren on “the worldview in which “science” is openly substituted for religion, and the sciences (plural) are thereby opened to corruption, to regulation and censorship, to serving the agendas of various smelly little orthodoxies.” Morgan …
February 26th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
[…] wisdom bring the awareness of love, and love the knowledge of […]
March 13th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
[…] love makes us vulnerable, and you can’t love without being willing to hurt, […]