« Ge 3:1…The serpent was naked, more than any
living of the field that had done IHVHAdonaï Elohîms » (Chouraqui). God uses His servants in
different ways depending on the specific gifts he gave to everyone. We can
notice that the same Gospel was reported to us
in four different styles and
each of the four authors had to identify a number of issues that had
particularly caught his attention according to the gift of the spirit imparted
to each. It seems that this applies to the true servants of God in whose heart God
placed the burden to translate the Bible. Among those who have done this work
with a sincere heart without leaning to a certain religion, some have preferred
the word-for-word translation, others the thought-for-thought, others the middle
translation and there are those who have focused their translation on the
perception of the ordinary reader.
Since everyone cannot study the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts
to comprehend the original idea, alternatively, one who wants to approach the
original meaning can make a comparative study of different versions. For the
story of the fall, the Jew Dr. Andrew Chouraqui, who favored the preservation
of meaning of words even if this affects the grammatical structure of the
target language, has raised in his translation another interesting aspect. The
Hebrew term ‛ārūm which has
been variously translated (subtle, crafty, advised, crooked), Dr. Chouraqui has
rather rendered it as 'NAKED'. All this should help us understand that the
enemy, like the way of a serpent upon a rock, is imperceptible and difficult to
describe! But nudity also reveals the physical identity of this ancient serpent
and its distinction from all other field animals.
Indeed, all other animals are hair-dressed to cover their bodies – the
concept ‘field animals or beasts’ in the account of the creation applies to
mammals distinguished from fish, birds, amphibians and reptiles (see Gen. 1:
20,26). For man, only certain parts are hair-covered, the rest of his body is
naked. Moreover, usually the male sex is hidden inside their bodies and does
not come out until and unless they need to use it for copulation. This is not
the case with man whose sex is always externalized in all circumstances. So of
all field animals that God made the animal man is naked more than all the
others.
But this notion of sex and nudity is introduced a verse earlier: “Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, Man and his wife,
and were not ashamed.” All other animals were hair-dressed and and
theirs penises were (and are) hidden inside; only the man and the serpent were
naked, i.e. on the external identity plan there was no distinction between the man
and the serpent. Now, another key element that is added is that the man and his
wife had no shame in that state. In our growth process, we all went through
that stage where we had no shame to expose our sexual parts. At this stage the
sexual parts were innocent, in other words we had sex, but we did not have sexuality
or sexual function.
When the sexual organ is void of any function or any idea of sexuality, it is just as honest
and decent as the nose, finger, ear, knee and other non-suspect organs of the
body. And in this context, since it is neither suspect nor taboo, one does not need
to be ashamed or hide it. A little boy, a little girl who has not yet developed
sexual function in organs will not be ashamed to expose them or to hide them,
since sex without sexuality is not taboo just as the toe or the eye is not the
subject of any taboo. But when sexual function develops, hormonal secretions take
place in the girl and the boy, the boy realizes wet dreams, the girl and the
boy realize that sexual function in their bodies; so they make their sexes a
subject of taboo: they are ashamed and they feel the need to hide them.
Adam and his wife were adults, but their sexual organs were as decent
or honest as the other organs of the body, just as no suspect as the sexual
parts of a child before puberty. And had they remained in this state until
today, men and women would not have been ashamed of their sexes nor had felt
the need to hide them. So they had genitals without knowing their function or,
shall I say, sexual function was neither active nor revealed in their members.
This notion of sex and nudity comes back with a special emphasis as
the first finding in consequence of sin that they just committed: “Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and
they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig-leaves together, and made
themselves aprons.” For the
first time in the garden, man and woman realize the specificity of the sexual
organs in relation to other organs of the body: they realize that the penis is
not to compare with the finger for men, that the vagina is not to compare with
the mouth for women, etc., since they discovered sexual function or sexuality
that had that far been dead in these organs.
And how did they come to realize that they were naked, in other words
that their genitals were a subject of taboo? they had taken a meal: the woman
took twice the meal, the man took it once: “Gen 3:6
And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a
pleasure for the eyes, and the tree was to be desired to give intelligence; and
she took of its fruit, and ate (first time for the woman), and gave
also to her husband with her (second
time for the woman), and he ate (first time for the man).” In French
Darby the rendering gives more insight: … and gave also to her husband to eat with her.
Because of the unbelief of man, we are sometimes asked to explain
biblical expressions that are so clear in themselves. In the case of this
passage it is so clearly articulated, at least for the second time, that the
woman had to take the meal with the man “and gave also to her husband to eat with her.” It was a
meal that could not eat alone, but a meal that is shared between a man and a
woman. Which states of its own that when she took the meal for the first time,
she had to share it with the serpent, another one that was as naked as her
husband and who had seduced her and had introduced her to the delights of this
meal.
Since the concept of sex and
nudity surrounds this meal, as it comes back still before and after eating; we
are entitled to ask ourselves this question: what is the meal that a woman
takes with a man which demands both to undress to take it? Indeed, for any
meal, men or women just need to wash their hands; but for the meal of Genesis
3, there is no question of the hands but it is sex and nudity that are
mentioned! “Rev
17:9 Here is the mind that
has wisdom” Our God commands us “1Co 14:20
Brethren, be not children in your minds, but in malice be babes; but in your minds be grown men.”
As for this meal of Genesis 3,
the question we asked is certainly in itself the answer, even for the simplest
man. Otherwise there is no fruit that would involve in its consumption the nakedness
of the serpent, the woman and the man, a fruit that would open the eyes of the
man and the woman to understand sexual and reproductive function that was that
far dead in their genitals, and reach the judgment that sex was a taboo
subject. If someone gets caught eating an apple, they do not blame themselves
for anything, they do not startle, they do not clean their lips in a rush; just
say that there is no problem eating an apple, the person is quiet. By cons, if
a man and a woman, though married legally, are caught having sex in full, they
startle and, in a rush, they try to cover themselves.
Why this reaction while everything is taking place in a legitimate
framework? The same causes produce the same effects: they were sharing the meal
of Genesis chapter 3. When the very first consumers had finished sharing this
meal they realized what it actually was: a taboo, indecent act. It is the most
animal (unspiritual) act in the life of man under the sun and in which there is,
neither can be, nothing spiritual. Now with regards to this meal of Genesis 3,
the Jew Dr. Andrew Chouraqui had the perfect understanding of what actually
took place and titled accordingly the account of the downfall reported in Genesis
3 “A
Naked Serpent” in his bible version.
And you ask me the question:
Brother Paulin, how can you assert that sex is a meal, do you have any scripture
to support this or is it an own thesis to you? Of course, I am not here to state
any personal thesis, I am a slave of the scriptures. And based on them, I
explicitly assure you that sex is indeed a meal from the bible point of view. I
will provide many biblical passages that attest it, we will also discover that
every woman has two mouths and she can eat by either mouth, and we will show
biblically what we said a little more above, that sex is the most animal act in
the life of man under the sun, but also the most opposed to any spiritual (unspiritual)
activity; but all this in the Epistles to come, God willing.
If
you feel blessed, share and pour out the same blessings!
No comments:
Post a Comment