Genesis 3:1
Commentary:
We ended last week by beginning a discussion on the enigmatic character of the serpent (nachash) in the Garden. This topic introduced several concepts that some people initially find difficult to comprehend. So let's recap and explore the four main perspectives on this creature:
The first view posits that the serpent was a normal snake and that snakes used to walk and speak. While this belief is held by many, it raises questions regarding why only snakes in the animal kingdom were granted the ability to speak. Consequently, I find this perspective challenging to accept as no satisfactory answer is given to the mythical characteristics of the serpent.
Another interpretation suggests that the serpent was a possessed snake, with the devil inhabiting its form and enabling it to speak. However, there is no indication in the Bible that the devil entered into the serpent. I think people confuse this story with Luke 22:3 that says the satan entered into Judas. Although this viewpoint is not entirely implausible, I find it unconvincing due to the lack of evidence.
A third perspective considers the serpent to be a mythological creature. Snakes have never had the capacity to walk or talk. This narrative is not video camera footage of actual people talking with an animal and falling from their privileged status. It’s a later symbolic story crafted to explain why the world is the way it is. This view makes the account somewhat like the tale of Pandora’s Box. There never was a girl named Pandora who opened a magical box. But there are problems in the world, and we each reach points in life where we have a choice between right and wrong like Pandora. So, with this story, there never was an actual Adam and Eve. They represent you and me and the choices we make every day to give into temptation or to choose God’s way.
Understanding the story as a metaphorical representation of the choice between good and evil can provide valuable insights. I’m not necessarily convinced of this view, but I can assure you it’s not heresy. The Bible drew on the culture and popular genres of literature of its time. Pretty much every people group throughout history has had a system of mythologies about larger-than-life figures that represent the mundane experiences we have every day. It is possible to believe the Bible did something similar and still treat the text as meaningful and authoritative. There’s a lot of wisdom and truth that can be found in stories that aren’t necessarily factual recountings of historical events. Think about the story of George Washington and the cherry tree or the Tortoise and the Hare or Narcissus and his reflection. None of those stories likely ever happened, but they’re still meaningful. They still teach truth. And for some people, that’s the best way to understand this kind of story in the Bible. This view answers the problem with talking snakes but is still uncomfortable for a lot of people who are used to viewing the Bible as historical security camera footage.
The fourth view maintains that the serpent was a supernatural being, distinct from an ordinary snake. Snakes were incapable of walking or speaking, but the nachash was a unique creature. It was a spirit-being like an angel, and, also like an angel, it could take physical form when it desired. The form it chose was serpentine or dragon-esque. This is the view I hold to, and it’s been growing in popularity thanks to the work of scholars like Michael Heiser.
It's crucial to note that the serpent in the Garden is not explicitly identified as the devil. Nowhere does the Tanakh (or Bible as a whole) suggest that Satan as we often think of him was present in the Garden. The nachash, a unique spiritual being, harbored jealousy towards humans, who were chosen by God to rule the earth. By deceiving them, the nachash sought to bring humanity down to its level. The nachash was a creature meant to be under human rule, yet humans allowed it to assume authority. This narrative reflects a recurring theme in the Tanakh, where God often chooses individuals other than the firstborn, resulting in attempts by the older ones to regain dominance. Spiritual beings were likely created before humans on Day 4 of Creation in Genesis 1:16, yet God chose the late-comer—the human—to rule on His behalf. Adding insult to injury, the human passed over all other created beings in favor of the newly-created woman to rule the earth with him.
Recall as well that subtil (arum) is not a negative description. It’s a neutral term and is even used positively in various parts of Proverbs. Interestingly, it is the same word used for "naked" in the preceding verse.
The idea that the devil was the serpent stems from specific passages in Revelation, where a dragon is used to represent ultimate evil. That dragon is pictured as warring with God and Jesus, and Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 call it “the dragon, that old serpent, called the devil, and the satan.” So, people look at that and assume the devil was the serpent in the Garden. That is one way to view it, but the verse doesn’t explicitly state that. Furthermore, that connection doesn’t appear anywhere else in the Bible. On closer review, neither verse specifically says that the devil was the serpent from the Garden. The serpent is called “old.” That can mean ancient or original, but it can also just mean old. Think of someone who is known for always lying to cover his own butt. Maybe a friend says they talked with him the other day, and you say, “What did that old snake say this time?” You’re using old as a pejorative, insulting term. The person may be thirty years old, but we all know you meant by calling him an old snake. Some suggest that’s closer to what John was doing here.
Another perspective is that John may be associating the dragon with the serpent in terms of character rather than actual being. This usage parallels how we might use the name Jezebel to describe someone with a similar negative disposition, without implying that they are a reincarnation of the ancient Israelite queen.
Additionally, Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are often linked to the satan, despite being separate prophetic visions concerning different individuals. The mention of Lucifer in Isaiah 14 does not necessarily pertain to the devil as commonly understood, and the term itself is a title rather than a name. In Ezekiel 28:13, the passage compares the King of Tyre's domain to the beauty and blessings of the Garden of Eden. This poetic language emphasizes that the king, like Adam and Eve, chose self-interest over the communal good, causing harm to those around him. While the popular interpretation associates these passages with the devil possessing the King of Tyre, I find it more fitting to understand them as metaphorical descriptions of the king's prosperous kingdom.
These are brief overviews of complex topics, and I plan to delve deeper into them in future discussions. However, I wanted to provide you with a glimpse of alternative interpretations and assure you that I am aware of these passages and believe there are more nuanced ways to understand them.
Regarding the nachash's choice to approach the woman instead of the man, multiple theories exist. Some argue that the serpent targeted the woman due to the perceived notion that she was mentally weaker and easier to deceive. However, I find this perspective demeaning to women, despite its prevalence in our circles. It is important to remember that the woman was a literal half of the man, making them equally intelligent. They were two halves of a whole.
Based on the observation that the woman's words differed from God's, some speculate that the nachash knew she was misinformed about the tree and intentionally approached her. While this explanation is plausible, it does not align with the view I hold, which we will explore further in the upcoming discussion on the woman's misrepresentation of God's command.
Alternatively, some propose that the nachash would have targeted whoever happened by him first. Others suggest that both the man and woman were present during this encounter, a perspective we will address next week.
Personally, I believe the nachash specifically targeted the woman to hit the human where it hurt. As previously discussed, the nachash's anger stemmed from being overlooked by God for rulership and by the human for partnership. Therefore, targeting the woman was akin to a scenario where a guy picks a girlfriend and another girl becomes jealous, devising a plan to sabotage the relationship. It’s like a soap opera. Or, consider a superhero movie where the villain doesn't capture the hero but goes after their loved ones instead. This does not imply that the targeted individual is inherently inferior to the hero, but rather serves as a means to torment and disrupt the hero's life. I believe a similar dynamic is at play in this narrative.