Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis

[nanex208]

If the serpent in the garden was not satan or the devil
What could it be? Could it be, Eve's own free will(modulation of actions,potential courses etc)?

[jimwalton]

Eve certainly had free will, but that's not what the serpent is.

First, it may not have been a literal snake. The Hebrew word for serpent is nahash, which is indeed the common word for snake, but it also possibly means "able to stand upright." There are all kinds of verbal possibilities here. For instance, nahash has the same root as nehoset, which means "bronze". We see that the shiny, upright snake in Number 21.9 is the same root: it was a literal thing, but a spiritual symbol. "Snake" could also be a word play, because the Hebrew word for "deceive" is very close to it, and is the same root as for magic and divination. Snakes in the ancient world were very much associated with spiritual powers, magic, and cultic rituals. So maybe that's why it was a snake and not another animal.

Back to Genesis now. So what if this "thing" (the nahash) was a spiritual power, represented to the woman as a bright creature, speaking "spiritual wisdom", and yet was deceiving her—all of these can be expressed by the word for snake? Just a little bit of research could change the whole picture. Bible scholars are still working on this text. New archaeological data, as I have just explained, are motivating them to rethink what we thought we knew. So maybe that's why there was a snake in the first place—it was actually a spiritual power (same word group).

So maybe, as I said, this wasn't a snake at all (though logically that is the word used by their culture). Maybe it was a deceiviant (my own coined word. You like it?) upright spiritual being. That may have been why Adam & Eve didn't think it was weird to converse with it. After all, who would talk to a snake? But they would talk to a spiritual being. The nahash distorted God's words, deceived them both, and was cursed by God for what he did. And, by the way, nahashim are often the object of curses in the ancient world, and the curse of Genesis 3.14 follows somewhat predictable patterns, conforming to the culture's expressions and forms. The word curse ('aror) also means "banned," so what was happening was that this spiritual being was being thrown out of the garden, so to speak, removed from God's presence (banned), and that was his curse. Maybe that's why God punished the spiritual being. It distorted God's words, deceived them both, and motivated them to rebel against God. You'll notice in the text that the serpent was cursed, but not the man or the woman. There were consequences for what they had done, but only the serpent and the ground were cursed.

[nanex208]

In John Walton's book demons and spirit, "he stated"
In fact, the text ascribes no motive to the serpent at all; the serpent merely speaks (“he said to the woman”; Gen 3:1). Eve in Genesis 3:13 says that the serpent deceived her, but Eve is not exactly an objective observer of the situation; the evaluation conveys more about Eve’s mindset than the serpent’s, and the text gives no indication that the narrator endorses Eve’s assessment.

According to him, he says the serpent being deceptive is Eve's mindset but we can not attribute "Deception" to the serpent.
Afterall, it (serpent) never told a lie.

[jimwalton]

I find it incredulous to assume that the serpent had no motive. It seems to me that every time and any time someone speaks, there is a motive behind opening our mouths. In addition to that, the serpent is identified as "more crafty than...," leading us to the belief that something cunning is about to happen, and that the serpent was speaking with a motive to disrupt. In that same book, same page, John writes, "If the serpent is a chaos creature, we would expect its actions to be opportunistic rather than premeditated, and arbitrary rather than calculated. He’s a disrupter, not a tempter to evil." To me, this is still an attribution of motive. I find it hard to believe his approach to the woman was serendipitous rather than premeditated. To me, the text paints the picture of a deliberate approach rather than an unfortunate accident.

[nanex203]

Yes, i believe the serpent has an agenda. But it is like we are thinking into the text and not allowing the text to explain itself.
Here the word "Arum" does not always indicate a negative sense,
State in the same book
The only description given of the serpent is that it is wise (‘ārûm, NIV “crafty”). ‘Ārûm is a neutral trait that can be either used positively (Prov 1:4; 8:5) or negatively (Exod 21:14; Josh 9:4). It indicates that the possessor is skilled in the use of words. This trait, however, is not an indicator of the serpent’s essential nature.

Excerpt From: "Demons and Spirits in Biblical Theology: Reading the Biblical Text in Its Cultural and Literary Context" by John H. Walton.


I still see The diviner neutral.

[jimwalton]

I'm surprised the serpent gets cursed, then, if his encounter was random, he had no agenda, and his words were neutral. The serpent must be guilty of something ("because you have done this," Gn. 3.14). What has he done? I believe he has deceived the woman and encouraged her on false pretense to eat the forbidden fruit. He has apparently abused his relationship with the woman (and henceforth that relationship will be defined by enmity (3.15) rather than presumably the easy access he had. It all speaks to me of an intent to harm, his success, and the judgment that came upon him.