In the previous post, we saw how the last portion of Genesis 2 described how we are to desire wholesome relationships. And we saw that the text actually challenges many patriarchal notions to insist that women are equal to men in every way possible. We now move to the next chapter in which we see the first humans being tempted and giving in to the temptation. Because of the richness of these verses, we will actually be discussing these seven verses in multiple posts.

Hebrew text:

1 וְהַנָּחָשׁ֙ הָיָ֣ה עָר֔וּם מִכֹּל֙ חַיַּ֣ת הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָׂ֖ה יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֑ים וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־הָ֣אִשָּׁ֔ה אַ֚ף כִּֽי־אָמַ֣ר אֱלֹהִ֔ים לֹ֣א תֹֽאכְל֔וּ מִכֹּ֖ל עֵ֥ץ הַגָּֽן׃

2 וַתֹּ֥אמֶר הָֽאִשָּׁ֖ה אֶל־הַנָּחָ֑שׁ מִפְּרִ֥י עֵֽץ־הַגָּ֖ן נֹאכֵֽל׃

3 וּמִפְּרִ֣י הָעֵץ֮ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּתוֹךְ־הַגָּן֒ אָמַ֣ר אֱלֹהִ֗ים לֹ֤א תֹֽאכְלוּ֙ מִמֶּ֔נּוּ וְלֹ֥א תִגְּע֖וּ בּ֑וֹ פֶּן־תְּמֻתֽוּן׃

4 וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הַנָּחָ֖שׁ אֶל־הָֽאִשָּׁ֑ה לֹֽא־מ֖וֹת תְּמֻתֽוּן׃

5 כִּ֚י יֹדֵ֣עַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים כִּ֗י בְּיוֹם֙ אֲכָלְכֶ֣ם מִמֶּ֔נּוּ וְנִפְקְח֖וּ עֵֽינֵיכֶ֑ם וִהְיִיתֶם֙ כֵּֽאלֹהִ֔ים יֹדְעֵ֖י ט֥וֹב וָרָֽע׃

6 וַתֵּ֣רֶא הָֽאִשָּׁ֡ה כִּ֣י טוֹב֩ הָעֵ֨ץ לְמַאֲכָ֜ל וְכִ֧י תַֽאֲוָה־ה֣וּא לָעֵינַ֗יִם וְנֶחְמָ֤ד הָעֵץ֙ לְהַשְׂכִּ֔יל וַתִּקַּ֥ח מִפִּרְי֖וֹ וַתֹּאכַ֑ל וַתִּתֵּ֧ן גַּם־לְאִישָׁ֛הּ עִמָּ֖הּ וַיֹּאכַֽל׃

7 וַתִּפָּקַ֙חְנָה֙ עֵינֵ֣י שְׁנֵיהֶ֔ם וַיֵּ֣דְע֔וּ כִּ֥י עֵֽירֻמִּ֖ם הֵ֑ם וַֽיִּתְפְּרוּ֙ עֲלֵ֣ה תְאֵנָ֔ה וַיַּעֲשׂ֥וּ לָהֶ֖ם חֲגֹרֹֽת׃

Transliteration:

1 wə·han·nā·ḥāš  hā·yāh ‘ā·rūm, mik·kōl  ḥay·yaṯ haś·śā·ḏeh, ’ă·šer  ‘ā·śāh Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·hîm; way·yō·mer  ’el- hā·’iš·šāh, ’ap̄ kî- ’ā·mar ’ĕ·lō·hîm,  lō ṯō·ḵə·lū, mik·kōl ‘êṣ hag·gān.  

2 wat·tō·mer  hā·’iš·šāh ’el-  han·nā·ḥāš; mip·pə·rî  ‘êṣ- hag·gān nō·ḵêl.  

3 ū·mip·pə·rî  hā·‘êṣ ’ă·šer bə·ṯō·wḵ-  hag·gān ’ā·mar ’ĕ·lō·hîm,  lō ṯō·ḵə·lū mim·men·nū, wə·lō  ṯig·gə·‘ū bōw; pen- tə·mu·ṯūn.  

4 way·yō·mer  han·nā·ḥāš ’el-  hā·’iš·šāh; lō- mō·wṯ  tə·mu·ṯūn.  

5 kî  yō·ḏê·a‘  ’ĕ·lō·hîm,  kî, bə·yō·wm  ’ă·ḵā·lə·ḵem mim·men·nū,  wə·nip̄·qə·ḥū ‘ê·nê·ḵem; wih·yî·ṯem  kê·lō·hîm, yō·ḏə·‘ê ṭō·wḇ wā·rā‘. 

6 wat·tê·re  hā·’iš·šāh kî  ṭō·wḇ hā·‘êṣ lə·ma·’ă·ḵāl  wə·ḵî ṯa·’ă·wāh- hū lā·‘ê·na·yim,  wə·neḥ·māḏ hā·‘êṣ lə·haś·kîl, wat·tiq·qaḥ  mip·pir·yōw wat·tō·ḵal; wat·tit·tên gam- lə·’î·šāh  ‘im·māh way·yō·ḵal.  

7 wat·tip·pā·qaḥ·nāh  ‘ê·nê šə·nê·hem, way·yê·ḏə·‘ū,  kî ‘ê·rum·mim hêm; way·yiṯ·pə·rū  ‘ă·lêh ṯə·’ê·nāh, way·ya·‘ă·śū lā·hem  ḥă·ḡō·rōṯ. 

NIV:

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 

3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 

5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 

7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Study:

In this first study of Genesis 3.1-7, we will focus on the serpent. A snake and a tree is not unique to the Hebrew scriptures. To the contrary the earliest instance of the use of just such a motif comes in the form of the Sumerian deity Ningishzida.¹ Ningishzida, which in Sumerian means, ‘lord of the sacred tree’, was originally a tree deity who eventually became associated with fertility, healing and the underworld. Ningishzida had the form of a serpent with the head of a man or often with two heads coiled in a double helix. Eventually, the tree became simplified into a staff and with a double headed serpent wrapped around it became the familiar caduceus, the symbol of healing universally used in the medical field.

Some centuries later we see the snake dragon of Marduk in Babylon, which had the head of a serpent, the body of a dragon, forelegs of a cat, hind legs of a bird, and the tail of a scorpion.² It also had feet and claws and presumably was able to walk. 

Of course, just because there is a link between the biblical text and some Ancient Near Eastern religions and cultures does not mean that the bible has blindly drawn from those traditions. Indeed, in Genesis 3 it is clear that the link between the serpent and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is intended to evoke the image of Ancient Near Eastern serpentine gods which were also linked to trees that gave wisdom. Moreover, from the curse pronounced on the serpent, it would appear that the serpent was able to walk in the initial parts of Genesis 3. However, the way the text introduces the serpent makes it clear that, while there are definite allusions to the serpent gods of the nearby cultures, the text is not simply replicating the views of those cultures. 

To the contrary, the serpent is one of the creatures God had made. The text insists that the serpent, far from being a deity, is simply another creature. Moreover, since the serpent has not yet been explicitly named in the first two chapters, the text is tacitly claiming that the serpent was not a hugely important creature in the larger scheme of things.

Further, in opposition to the claim that the serpent was a repository of wisdom, the text insists that the serpent was crafty and not to be trusted blindly. The craftiness of the serpent is mentioned right at the start of the narrative of Genesis 3 so that the reader is primed to view its words with suspicion.

The text is extremely polemical and if we do not recognize this we run the risk of reading into the text rather than reading out of it. The serpent and the tree it is associated with are dangerous to the humans and the reader is told of this right at the start. 

But do we take the presence of the serpent literally? In other words, was there really a literal serpent in the garden which could walk and talk? Are we to see in the later curse on the serpent the hint that this creature was actually quite different from the serpentine creatures we see today? I’m not sure which option I could choose with certainty. A walking, talking serpent like the one associated with Marduk sounds quite fantastical. However, that in itself does not preclude the possibility. On the other hand, it is clear that since God made all the creatures with the ability to reproduce, there were more than one serpents in the garden. And one of the serpents successfully tempted the humans. But as a consequence the entire suborder of Serpentes is cursed. This does not seem to be quite just on the part of God. It’s not as though every serpent was involved in tempting the first humans. So why should the entire suborder suffer?

In much the same way as I spoke of the first humans being archetypal rather than prototypical, we should see the same idea in operation here with the serpent. The narrative is not telling us about the fall of the serpent. Rather, it is using the serpent as a polemical literary device to undermine the claims of the beliefs of the nearby cultures. The serpent, rather than being a deity worthy of worship, is a devious symbol that should be shunned. In other words, we are not being told that we should stay away from real-life snakes (though perhaps we should from the more aggressive and venomous ones) but that we should stay away from belief systems that promote the serpent as a source of wisdom, knowledge, and healing. 

But why this fixation with the serpent? If there wasn’t a literal serpent tempting the humans, why does the narrative focus on the serpent? I think the answer to this is that the serpent was most commonly associated with mystical religions in which the goal was to acquire knowledge and wisdom for oneself. The inward focus of these mystical religions precluded the possibility of fulfilling the vocation of being the image of God and representing God to the rest of creation. The ‘I, me, myself’ chasing after esoteric wisdom does not allow for respecting and caring for the rest of creation. In other words, what the serpent represents in these mystical religions is antithetical to the original vocation of humans and the narrative appropriates the pre-eminent symbol of these religions to issue it’s warning.

Prayer:

Our loving, almighty Father. You are the one who desires that we become wise and that we receive healing. However, very often we look to receive these in ways that do not allow us to lovingly represent you to the rest of your good creation. And in so doing we reject the vocation you have given us. We ask you to enable us to reach out to you daily for all the wisdom and knowledge and healing we need for you are a good Father who does not withhold the good things from us. And we ask this in the name of Jesus. Amen.

---

^{1. Wayne Ferrebee. Sumerian Double Helix Snake God. (Accessed on 4 July 2019)↩}

^{2. Bible History Online. Dragon of Marduk. (Accessed on 4 July 2019)↩}