God(s), Humanity, and Open Eyes — Part 3: Open Eyes

Welcome to Part 3 of God(s), Humanity, and Open Eyes! If you haven’t already read Part 1: God(s) or Part 2: Humanity (or if you read them a long time ago because I take forever to write blog posts and you may have already forgotten that which has lead us to Part 3, which, let’s be honest, you could have read them yesterday and already forgotten) then go ahead and skim back over them and come back! This post will still be here.

Welcome back!

Let’s jump right into it.

Chapter 3 of Genesis is the climax of the creation account’s “cold open” (don’t know what this means? That’s because you didn’t go back and [re]read Part 1). This is the turning point of the story and provides us with an understanding of why the story, now, doesn’t look like the story of Genesis 1 and 2. Why the world, which was carefully created to look and operate one way, now “makes no sense,” as the author of Ecclesiastes writes.

The scene opens up with a serpent dialoguing with Eve and Adam (see v. 6b. Though Eve is the only one recorded responding in the conversation, the serpent’s questions are always framed in the plural — it is always speaking to “you both”). The serpent questions humanity’s understanding of the boundaries God has established. Eve responds with the prohibition given in Genesis 2:16: they are able to eat the fruit of any tree in the garden, save for the tree “in the midst of the garden” — and adds a further prohibition that they must not touch it either — or else they will die. The serpent ignores Eve’s additional prohibition and instead seeks to challenge humanity’s understanding of death.

The serpent (correctly) informs humanity that this death does not mean they will immediately cease to exist but, rather than providing a definition for what type of death will be experienced, the serpent distracts humanity from such a thought and instead informs them they will actually “become more” in that their “eyes will be opened” and they will “be like God.” And the part that should upset them? God has known this and has kept this from them.

The serpent casts God in the role of deceiver: not only has God been untruthful about the consequence of breaking established boundaries, God has actually been keeping humanity from what is good. The serpent plants a seed of doubt in humanity’s mind that God should, maybe, not be trusted. That God doesn’t actually love them as much as they think. That God doesn’t actually know what is best for them. Why would God prohibit something that will actually make them more like God? Isn’t that what humanity is supposed to be?: “More like God”?

Adam is silent. No objection on his part. Maybe the serpent is right?

Thus, both Eve and Adam take hold of the forbidden fruit because it is seen to be “good for food, . . . a delight to the eyes, and . . . [capable of making] one wise.” All life-giving characteristics: food sustains, delight enlivens, and wisdom expands discernment. All good things, right? All things God supposedly desires for humanity, right? So Adam and Eve eat the fruit. And what happens?

Nothing.

And that is precisely what causes their eyes to be “opened.”

In the absence of death (as they understood it), Eve and Adam’s doubt of God is affirmed. Their mistrust of God is validated and the serpent is understood as speaking truth. “God said we would die — we are still alive. The serpent was right. What else is God keeping from us?” Something takes place in the space between verse 6’s “she took of its fruit and ate . . . and he ate” and verse 7’s “then the eyes of both were opened.” The fruit, itself, did nothing. God could have prohibited any of the trees in the garden and the result would have been the same. What opened up humanity’s eyes was the acting on their doubt and mistrust of God in a way the moved them out of relationship. And because they did not understand death as God did, what they experienced was an affirmation of their own ignorance at the expense of trust that God was and is for them.

However, humanity’s relationship with God was not the only thing affected. Once Eve and Adam’s eyes were opened they immediately “knew that they were naked” and sought to cover up.

Queue humanity’s introduction to shame.

As noted in Part 2, the concept of nakedness becomes the definition of a relationship without shame. Nakedness embodies a relationship of total vulnerability (physically, emotionally, spiritually) and of mutual giving and receiving. It is a relationship typified by trust that the other will love them and care for them well. Shame introduces mistrust into the relationship.

Adam and Eve’s rush to cover up their nakedness extends far beyond their physical appearance — it is an indication that they no longer trust the other will hold and care for them well. It is the opening of eyes to seeing that the other is capable of harming them (physically, emotionally, spiritually). That this is even a possibility. They are the only humans in existence and they do not trust that the other actually wants them or loves them fully.

Doubt.

Doubt leads to mistrust which moves one out of relationship and into a state of self-preservation. If the other is not to be trusted then who can I count on? I must care for myself. I must discern for myself what is good and right.

You see this distrust in the immediate conversation God has with Adam and Eve.

God’s calling out “where are you?” implicitly contains a revelation of separation between God and humanity. When God confronts humanity about their newfound way of viewing the world, both Adam and Eve immediately turn to blame in order to preserve their innocence. Adam blames Eve but ultimately God for giving him Eve in the first place (can you hear Adam denying his inherent relational identity and proclaiming that it would have been better to have remained alone?!). Eve blames the serpent. Neither take ownership of their decisions (because if they are found to be in the wrong, what will God do to them? Even this is mistrust of God’s love for them) and instead cast the other as unreliable and ultimately the source of problems. This blame game only further distances one from the other and further solidifies a belief that the other is not actually “for them” and will not care for them in their time of need. In fact, the other will ultimately harm them. Throw them under a bus. Leave them to reap the consequences of their action: death.

And here we arrive at the current state of creation.

What is introduced in “the fall” is technically a “falling out of relationship.” Part 1 establishes our understanding of God as a God of love and relationality in order that we understand in Part 2 that humanity, which is made “in the image of God,” is created to find life in the engagement of love and relationship. That life is found in the nakedness. In the vulnerability. In the mutual giving and receiving in trust. What Part 3 introduces is that when we move out of our created identity — when we move out of love, relationship, and trust — we move away from life and we move into death.

Thus, “sin” becomes understood as ultimately being found in a relational mistrust that further removes one from relationship with God, creation, and/or one-another and the story of scripture becomes one of God’s continuous pursuit of humanity and calling it back into relationship. Back into our created identity. Back into life.

Jesus (the ultimate manifestation of God’s pursuit of relationship with creation) invites humanity into an experience of the Kingdom of Heaven — that heaven (the way God intended for creation to be) could, in fact, be experienced now. Jesus continuously invites people into relationship with God and with one another. That the key to life, and life in its fullest, can ultimately be found (and summed up) in loving God and loving others (Mark 12:30–31; Matthew 22:37–40). In intimate, vulnerable relationship.

This is the story we find ourselves in.

In understanding the beginning of the story, we better understand where we find ourselves in the story, where the story is headed, and how we are called to participate in bringing the story to its redemptive conclusion. We understand that we were created to be in relationship with one another, with creation, and with God and that the story has taken a turn away from relationship by the introduction of doubt and mistrust. Our mistrust of God and one-other drives us away from relationship as we seek to look after ourselves and in doing so, moves us away from the relational image of God we were created in. This moves us away from the experience of life.

The sabbath, as mentioned in Part 1, is a weekly reminder that we were created to be in relationship with and trust that God is for us, that creation will continue to do what it was created to do, and that the people around us will care for us in our need. It is a reminder that we don’t hold everything together. That are not on our own. That we shouldn’t be. Nor were we created to be.

May we risk and find life — and life in its fullest — in the pursuit of relationship with God, creation, and one-another.