Did the snake lie or tell the truth? He only speaks two sentences in this story, "Indeed God said, you will not eat from every tree in the garden" (Gen 3:1) and "I assure you that you will not die, because God knows that when you eat from it both your eyes will be opened and you will become like gods/God, knowing good and bad" (Gen 3:4-5). Consider the rest of the story. After eating the fruit, God did not kill Adam and Eve on the spot and they realized the difference between good and bad. What the snake predicted came to pass.
But did he know this for certain? After the couple ate the fruit he was condemned to slither and be the lowest of animals, why would he subject himself to such a fate? He must not have seen that coming. But was he really 'beguiling' Eve (like she says in 3:13) or simply stating the facts to her without any motivations? This comes back to the question of the snakes motivation. Just because he was crafty does not mean he was evil. Perhaps he is better described as clever and he was clever enough to know the truth about the tree.
Maybe he did have wicked intentions, if so did he really know that God would not kill Adam and Eve on the spot and they would realize the difference between good and bad? Did he think he could get away with it? Did he want to be cursed? My logic would say that one of 3 scenarios is possible.
1) The snake had wicked intentions and despised God and/or Adam and Eve and wished to spoil what God created by having the humans disobey God. If he hated the humans, he may have wanted them to just die. If he hated God, he was just acting to annoy him.
2) The snake was acting against God but not if 'evil' intentions. Perhaps the snake knew that God wouldn't kill the humans and sought to prove that God was a liar.
3) The snake was ignorant and was just telling Eve the real facts about what the tree would do to her if she ate it. He may have told her and been on his merry way.
If the snake was evil, then most might agree that his punishment was warranted. But if the snake was trying to prove God a liar, then God sounds almost evil himself. And if the snake was ignorant of the repercussions, why such a harsh punishment?
There is other information in the story about the snake other than what it said or what the woman said about it. There’s also the problem of translation. The NIV has “more crafty” for ‘arum in Gen 3:1, already a negative, although not so much as “cunning.” Both words address intentionality, and therefore motivation. However, as we’ve seen, in the Hebrew Bible ‘arum isn’t a negative term (Prov 12:16, 23; 13:16; 14:8; etc.); it wasn’t understood as negative in the midrash about the snake being the “king of the beasts” before the punishment; and the purpose of the punishment itself, which was to humiliate it. Nor have you considered the second part of its punishment.
ReplyDeleteAs for its knowledge, it claims to know what God knew, which, not surprisingly, turns out to be correct. It is certain, however, that it didn’t know how God would respond.
And when you speak of God being a liar, that’s too strong. Just as we don’t know the snake’s motivation, we have to consider God’s motivation in giving the warning in the first place. As for its “hating the humans,” what’s the evidence for that.
I don’t know where you got “beguile” in 3:13 (NIV has “deceive”), maybe there’s no real difference there, although “beguile” has a smattering of seduction about it.
And lastly, can we use the word “snake” instead of “serpent”? The latter already prejudices the argument.