A Talking Snake

[The ‘arum] is one who “conceal what they feel and what they know (Prov 12:16, 23). They esteem knowledge and plan how to use it in achieving their objectives (Prov 13:16; 14:8, 18); they do not believe everything that they hear (Prov 14:15); and they know how to avoid trouble and punishment (Prov 22:3; 27:12). In sum they are shrewd and calculating, willing to bend and torture the limits of acceptable behavior but not to cross the line into illegalities. They may be unpleasant and purposely misleading in speech but are not out-and-out liars (Josh 9:4; 1 Sam 23:22). They know how to read people and situations and how to turn their readings to advantage. A keen wit and a rapier tongue are their tools.” —ZIONY ZEVIT, WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN? P. 163.

“Although it is assumed by all the English translations that םורע has a negative sense (“crafty”) in Genesis 3:1, a closer examination suggests otherwise. The description of the serpent commences with its being “more prudent (‘arum) than all the creatures of the field” (Genesis 3:1), and after having tempted Eve, concludes with its being “more cursed (’arur) than all the creatures of the field (3:14). The two lines are nearly identical in Hebrew, suggesting an intentional contrast between them: the cursed serpent is a negative contrast to an initially positive shrewd serpent. Not only does “prudent” make more sense of the narrative flow of events, it also distances God from any responsibility with respect to the origin of evil. God did not make a ‘crafty’ creature; he made a wise creature. The serpent’s “prudence” may even be a sign of God’s special favor toward the serpent above the other animals. The serpent’s decision to use its prudence for evil intentions, however, resulted in a fall from divine favor to eternal humiliation, and this offers a solution to the age-old question of the serpent’s (and Satan’s) fall. When did the serpent rebel and fall? It “fell” in Genesis 3. Thus, Genesis 3 depicts the fall of Adam, and Eve, and the serpent.” —SETH POSTELL, ADAM AS ISRAEL, 123.

A Failed Test

“The serpents obvious inaccuracy in his rendition of God’s prohibition sounds like cunning or lack of subtlety. In fact, it is a well-known trick of the con-man to appear stupid to put others in a position of sham superiority. Any hustler knows that she better start by losing some games and give the impression to other that they will be easy winners.” —ANDRE LACOCQUE, THE TRIAL OF INNOCENCE: ADAM, EVE, AND THE YAHWIST, 145.

“[I]n Genesis 2–3 Adam and Eve’s sin is a departure from a relationship of love and trust of their creator. The ser-pent offers them a fake deification; a tragic imitation of a divine nature that they already have. They are already God’s divine image (both in Gen 1:26–28 and also in Gen 2…), carrying the divine breath (2:7), with divine privileges (such as the ability to name parts of creation as God himself did on Days 1–3) and wisdom (see esp. 2:25 where they are םימורע: “naked” or “shrewd”). God has already showed them the difference between good and evil and would continue to guide them in that discernment. They are the image-idols of the creator Yahweh God, the serpent offers them a shot at becoming only like “gods” (elohim, so, correctly, the LXX). In apparent ignorance or forgetfulness of—or in rebellion against—their true identity they fall prey to the serpent’s insinuations that their creator had deceived them (Gen 3:1–5). The tree that should have proved their discernment between wrongdoing and faithfulness to God, becomes instead a tree that leads to their experience of… both evil and, lingering, good. In the same way that idolaters become like what they worship (Pss 115:4–8; 135:15–18), so the humans become like the (leafclad) tree (3:7). They give up the splendor of their creator, inclining to the voice of the creature, and are left bereft of the glory that was theirs by rights. Their action strikes at the heart of their identity. In succumbing to the lie that they need something they already have, they annihilate themselves, and, so, “after sin there is nothing for it but death.” —CRISPIN FLETCHER-LOUIS, “2 ENOCH AND THE NEW PERSPECTIVE ON APOCALYPTIC,” P. 138-139.

“Precisely at this point the author raises the issue of becoming ”wise”: ”And the woman saw that the tree was … also desirable for gaining wisdom” (3:6). Thus, the temptation is not presented as a general rebellion from God‘s authority. Rather, it is portrayed as a quest for wisdom and ”the good” apart from God‘s provision.” —JOHN H. SAILHAMER, THE PENTATEUCH AS NARRATIVE: A BIBLICAL-THEOLOGICAL COMMENTARY, P. 104.

Bibliography

‌
Mangum, Douglas, Miles Custis, and Wendy Widder. Genesis 1–11. Lexham Research Commentaries. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012.
‌
https://bibleproject.com/course/adam-noah/
‌
https://www.gotquestions.org/two-Creation-accounts.html
‌
Terje Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and Symbolism of the Garden of Eden in Biblical Hebrew Literature
‌
Seth Postell, Adam as Israel: Genesis 1-3 as the Introduction to the Torah and Tanakh
‌
John H. Walton. About The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2–3 and the Human Origins Debate
‌
https://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/02/literal-renderings-of-texts-of.html