adminShingai Rukwata Ndoro Chiseling the Debris
FOR us to progress gradually in de-constructing chapters 1-3 of Genesis, we need first to do a literal reading. Thereafter, we do metaphoric and allegoric interpretation of the scriptures. This methodical approach of interpreting religious texts is called Pardes. Literalist Christians do not practice this method and it is missing in religious or theological academic studies.
The method uses four levels of reaching the truths –1) plain, simple, literalist and historical (“peshat”), 2) allegorical, symbolical and figurative(“remez”), 3) moral or homiletic, similar occurrences (“derash”) and 4) secret and mystical (“sod”).
Using the Pardes method, one is able to pierce the veil and discover a “key” to realise some truths hidden within the scriptural texts.
In chapters one and two, we have two characters, the non-historical but mythical Adam and Eve. These respectively represent intrapsychic (“psyche”) conditions within every human being as “nous” (Greek’s Concordance #3563), that is, “the reasoning faculty or intellect” and “pneuma” (Greek’s Concordance #4151), that is “the emotions, breath.” In Hebrew, these are Kether (will and drive) and Chokmah (desire), respectively.
In chapter three, there is an introduction of a new character. This is the serpent which is craftier than any other wild animal (Genesis 3:1a).
From the Etymology Dictionary, “crafty” is derived from 12th century Old English for “strong, powerful,” later “skilful, ingenious.” By the 15th century, it became, “skilfully done or made, intelligent, learned, artful, scientific.”
The word crafty is an adjective of craft, itself a 9th century derivation that means power, physical strength, might, German kraft strength, skill, Old Norse kraptr strength, virtue. It later became skill, art, science, talent through mental power.
The character of the serpent was humanised just like the children’s animal fairies or fictional tales (Tsuro naGudo) and programmes and movies like Looney Tunes, Madagascar, Tom and Jerry, Ice Age, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and Scooby-Doo. The tales have moral values that can be derived from them.
The skilfully, learned and intelligent serpent made an open enquiry (v. 1b), He said to the woman, “Did (the Divine) really say, you must not eat from any tree in the garden?”
This is a question that shows four assumptions: the serpent i) may have overheard about a prohibition order for humanity in the garden and wished to make a confirmation, ii) wanted to confirm factually or evidentially using a primary source involved in the matter, iii) wanted to find out if humanity knew something it knew which it reasonably suspected that humanity did not know, iv) may have known of the prohibition order and had considered it as unjustified and unreasonable.
An enquiry is not a persuasion or enticement to do something. Questioning is not a measure by any standard of a bad character. This is not a temptation, that is, “the desire to do something, especially something wrong or unwise” (Dictionary).
This means it’s wrong to consider the serpent as a bad character for making an enquiry.
The woman responded by confirming to the serpent that there was a prohibition order and that they were permitted to touch or eat all fruits except from the one in the midst of the garden. If they were to do so, this was to lead to their death (v. 2,3).
The next statement by the serpent to the woman is decidedly informational and to be the catalyst for the awakening, “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For (the Divine) knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like (the Divine), knowing good and evil,” (v 4-6).
One would argue that this information from the serpent was unmistakable against the prohibition order.
The serpent is representing a person not seeking benefit or an impersonal thing, opportunity or experience that one comes across in life.
The serpent’s statement is a direct attack on unquestioning submission, obedience and compliance. If a prohibition order turns out to be unjustifiable and unreasonable, what does it say about the one who would have given it?
At what point in life does one questions, doubts and become curious?
The serpent countered that the effect or result of eating the prohibited fruit was not death but that it made one to achieve consciousness and wakefulness.
To be awake and conscious is to be “infinitely curious,” ever doubtful and unrestraintfully questioning. This is the measure of an eager intellect and “growth mindset” as compared to the static and stagnant “fixed mindset” of commands and dogma.
The woman heard from the serpent and then by herself she realised, “that the tree was good for food, was pleasant to the eyes, and the tree was to be desired to make one wise,” (v 6a).
She responded accordingly by exercising her own agency when, “she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat,” (v 6b). Immediately she did not die and she shared with the man, who also ate (v 6c).
Her partaking of the fruit may be considered to have been motivated by a selfish desire and egoistic impulse, but this is then disproved after we take notice that her realisation and subsequent eating of the fruit was shared with the man, who ate without suspicion of harm because of the relationship the two had.
Here is a principle of service – when you have something that you know, something you have and something that you can do, be helpful with it towards the deserving others who may be impacted positively without causing detriment to yourself.
Till next week, lets keep chiseling.
Email feedback at [email protected] or tweet @shingaiRndoro. A gallery of previous articles is found at www.sundaymail.co.zw/author/shingairukwata
Online Reporter