Previous | Next

Spring 2024 · Vol. 53 No. 1 · pp. 65–78 

The Literary Purpose of the ‘Eve and the Serpent’ Narrative in Genesis 3:1–7

Pierre Gilbert

How we arrive at truth, more precisely, metaphysical truth—truth that pertains to the nature of God, human identity, and the relationship between God and humanity—remains a question of utmost importance. 1 How we discern truth is particularly relevant in the current cultural context as the ideological triumvirate of secularism, scientism, and naturalism have colluded to erase the vertical dimension of human life. As the American philosopher, J. P. Moreland, states:

The encounter between Eve and the serpent suggests that we are dealing with . . . the very fabric of spiritual reality itself.

Sadly, during the process of my various studies, I constantly bumped into something dark, hideous, and, I dare say, evil. It was the philosophical notion of scientism, roughly the view that the hard sciences alone have the intellectual authority to give us knowledge of reality. Everything else—especially ethics, theology, and philosophy—is, at least according to scientism, based on private emotions, blind faith, or cultural upbringing. As a result, {66} these disciplines, long regarded by the Western world as a source of knowledge and a path of wisdom, are said to give us no truth about reality, at least no truth that could be supported by evidence and argumentation—which, according to scientism, means that theology and philosophy offer no truth at all. 2

As for those who believe that there is a spiritual dimension to human life, the epistemological question remains relevant for at least two reasons. First, believers do not live in a sealed ideological bubble. Because cultural trends impact them as much as anyone else, the convictions believers hold and how they arrive at them must constantly be examined. This is necessary because the influence of cultural hegemony is omnipresent, and the pressure to comply is nearly overwhelming, especially when, as we see increasingly occurring in Canada, it is reinforced by the threat of legal sanctions. 3 I have, for instance, witnessed over the years surprising cases of theological drift among retired Christian leaders who have abandoned the orthodox position on human sexuality to embrace the culturally prescribed perspective, apparently without recognizing the profound implications such a theological reorientation entails.

Reflecting carefully on how we arrive at the moral views we hold remains for these reasons more important than ever. The purpose of this article is to examine how Eve’s encounter with the serpent (Gen 3:1–7) may offer an epistemological model for the determination of metaphysical truth.

While this essay will focus on Eve’s dialogue with the serpent, I will give but minimal attention to some of the gender issues that have emerged out of the study of this text. The primary interest of this investigation resides in discerning the literary purpose of the temptation narrative in the context of its immediate setting. Considering, however, the degree of attention this text has received in terms of what it may have to say about Eve and women more generally, a few observations are nevertheless in order.

The first hint that this text is not primarily intended to address gender issues lies in a statement of principle that is found in Genesis 1:27: “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” 4 If it was the narrator’s intention to teach that women were inferior to men, the attribution of the image of God would only apply to men. The exclusion of women would be evidence of men’s privileged status and would therefore be consistent with other statements that are generally viewed as disparaging for women, such as Eve’s creation out of Adam’s side (2:21–22), her capitulation to the serpent (3:1–7), and her subordination to Adam (3:16). The characterization of the woman as made in the image of God suggests, on the contrary, that she has a status equal to the man. In the logic of the creation account, this statement of {67} principle represents the primary lens through which the rest of the narrative must be interpreted and should incite the reader to give the texts referring to Eve the benefit of the doubt with respect to their primary agenda.

In 2:20, the narrator offers a complementary view of Adam and Eve, with Eve being described as a “helper” (‘zr), which, despite some of the negative connotations of the English word, does not at all entail an inferior status. Biblical scholar Howard N. Wallace writes:

In Gen 2:20 it is stated that Eve is created to be an ʿēzer kĕnegdô, “a helper fit for him” (RSV). This expression has often been seen to indicate the subordination of Eve to Adam and hence generally of women to men in societal and family life. However, the word ʿēzer, “helper,” does not imply subordination. It can be used to refer to a superior person or even to God, e.g., Ps 146:5. The phrase ʿēzer kĕnegdô is best understood as meaning “a companion corresponding to him.” 5

Genesis 3 outlines the tragic reality of a fallen world where suffering and conflict become an integral part of human existence, indiscriminately impacting men and women. The notion of a patriarchy where privileged men rule over oppressed women does not constitute an accurate representation of ancient society; for the vast majority of both men and women, life was short and exceedingly difficult.

I also wish to clarify that I do not intend to interact to any major extent with feminist interpretations. While it is a perspective that deserves consideration, it has received, particularly since the publication of Phyllis Trible’s seminal article in 1973, 6 such a great deal of critical attention that little of substance can currently be added to this conversation. 7

In the initial part of this article, I will briefly review the main lines of interpretation pertaining to Eve’s role in the creation narrative. Following this brief survey, I will focus more particularly on Genesis 3:1–7. The study will conclude by summarizing the most salient observations that pertain to the epistemological question and propose possible areas for further research.

PROPOSALS

Two dominant approaches have been adopted with respect to the role and status of the woman in Genesis 1–3. Some propose, on the one hand, that the text reflects the chauvinistic and paternalistic attitudes of the surrounding culture. 8 Among those who hold this position, some maintain that by altering God’s command, Eve showed a remarkable lack of judgment and deserves, therefore, much of the responsibility for the first couple’s disobedience. {68}

The woman removes the infinitive absolutes (אכל תאכל to נאכל [and] מות תמות to תמתון) and the כל (מכל עץ הגן to מפרי עץ הגן), but she also adds a proscription not to touch the tree (לא תגעו בו). Although Trible interprets the woman’s addition as praise-worthy, most readers are left rattled by the woman’s change. As a result, most modern commentators inculpate the woman, criticizing her for altering the divine command and insinuating God’s parsimony and severity. 9

Others contend that this negative view of Eve is strictly the product of ancient Israel’s patriarchal culture and must not be interpreted as a normative assessment of womanhood in general. 10

On the other hand, there are scholars who, following Phyllis Trible, propose that the solution is to “depatriarchalize” the text. According to Trible, “Depatriarchalizing is not an operation which the exegete performs on the text. It is a hermeneutic operating within Scripture itself. We expose it; we do not impose it.” 11 Richard Hess further explains:

Thus an alternative interpretation is set forth which emphasizes the ways in which the minor or oppressed characters “subvert” the narrative so as to exert power where it is denied to them. This is the approach of most of the feminist literary readings of the text, which either build upon or critique the work of Trible. 12

Trible is not the first to propose a divergent view of Eve. York notes that “Long before Trible, significant voices from ancient Judaism and early Christianity already found nothing wrong with the woman’s words and read her proscription positively.” 13 The woman’s words served to “construct a fence around the divine command.” 14 York adds that this positive view of Eve’s response portrays her as honoring God rather than misrepresenting his Word. The modifications Eve introduces were intended to clarify and bring out the real significance of God’s command in order to avoid any confusion with regard to God’s intent. 15

As signaled earlier, it is not the purpose of this paper to determine whether this text affirms or subverts a patriarchal view of women. It is also beyond the purview of this article to critique more recent hypotheses pertaining to the possible historical settings of this text. 16 The primary purpose of this study is to assess the possible literary significance of Eve’s encounter with the serpent within the context of Genesis 1–3.

WHAT KIND OF TEXT IS THIS?

When it comes to the study of the Bible, the most basic rule of interpretation consists in identifying the genre of the text that is under investigation. In this case, Genesis 3 is part of a larger narrative that is generally characterized as a creation story. 17 Creation myths, as they are commonly {69} known, are intended to provide the basic building blocks of a worldview, particularly so with respect to the divine, humanity, and the nature of the physical universe. 18

As has been noted by many scholars, the creation account also displays an unmistakable polemic element. The narrative does not simply reflect the worldview that was predominant in the region. It seeks to offer an alternative to the cultural hegemony of the time. 19

Evidence of the theological distinctiveness of the creation account includes, for example, the proclamation of a universe that comes into being at the behest of an all-powerful creator (Gen 1:1), thus unambiguously and vigorously evacuating any trace of divine consciousness from the physical universe. This narrative also differs from other ancient New Eastern myths in one critical respect. Not only does the account go beyond outlining the theological elements required to construct a coherent worldview, it also devotes considerable attention to how humans are to relate to God. This motif is developed in 1:26–29, where the text delineates both humanity’s unique status as being in the image of God and its mandate to rule over creation, and 2:15–17, which further specifies the overall framework that is to characterize God’s relationship with humanity, most notably the notion of partnership, loyalty, and moral accountability.

In addition, the narrative displays an unmistakable wisdom motif. 20 In and of itself, this observation should not be surprising, for if the creation account is intended to address the relationship between God and humanity, the insertion of a significant wisdom component is to be expected. Because the knowledge embedded in the text is deemed to be indispensable to living a good life, it follows that the information must also be communicated in a way that will be credible and compelling, a rhetorical imperative that is also central to the wisdom tradition. 21

The presence of a vigorous wisdom motif is highly significant in terms of discerning the purpose of the Eve and the serpent encounter. As such, it is important to remember that Hebrew wisdom is not simply about teaching dogma; it is also about discerning truth and living a successful life. The acquisition of Hebrew wisdom entails, however, an inevitable vertical dimension. Proverbs 9:10 states that the “fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.” According to this text, the ability to access wisdom is contingent on adopting or, perhaps more accurately, developing a specific type of epistemological muscle. The kind of wisdom that produces life, meaning, and purpose is contingent on cultivating an attitude of respect and deference towards God.

As noted earlier, one of the most evident sapiential features of the text resides in the injunction attested in 2:15–17, which enjoins Adam to refrain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This command, {70} in a manner that echoes one of the most basic themes of Hebrew wisdom, sets the future of Adam and Eve in terms of obedience and disobedience, each option entailing clear and inescapable consequences that are subsequently deployed in chapter 3.

That the Eve and serpent encounter is a reflection on how we access metaphysical truth in the absence of knowledge directly received from God is based on three observations: (1) the wisdom motif permeates the larger creation story; (2) the dialogue primarily orbits around the trustworthiness of God’s word and God’s character; (3) Eve is put into a situation where she has to make an existential decision on the basis of a statement that is transmitted to her.

While the text does not explain why Eve rather than Adam is given a dominant role in this encounter, which in and of itself, is not particularly remarkable, as Hebrew narratives generally contain elements that remain unexplained, 22 it is important to remember that the presence or the absence of certain literary features, even if they seem inconsequential, can prove to be of critical importance for capturing the significance of the text.

Whatever the case might be, it is highly improbable that the author’s agenda had anything to do with confirming Eve’s inferior nature or status. There is nothing in the text that would indicate that Eve was selected because of some inherent personality or character flaw that would make her particularly vulnerable to the serpent’s assault. The fact that Adam is described as eating the fruit without any hesitation whatsoever argues against such an explanation.

If the text does indeed betray a sapiential agenda, it may well be that if Eve is selected rather than Adam, it was because she was not a primary witness to God uttering the command pertaining to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As such, her response to the serpent’s challenge becomes a case-study for how the readers are to adjudicate moral and ethical issues.

The epistemological question of how one accesses metaphysical truth outside of a direct encounter with God is highly relevant, for, historically, only an infinitesimally small number of people have had such an experience. Other than a few select individuals in the Old Testament such as the patriarchs, Moses, the people whom God liberated from Egypt, the prophets, etc., very few had such an experience. The same can be said of the New Testament where, other than a relatively small number of primary witnesses who met Jesus, the rest of those who would eventually be invited to believe in him would have to do so on the basis of eye-witness testimony. This is, in effect, the significance of Jesus’ mild rebuke to Thomas in John 20:29. {71}

THE ENCOUNTER 23

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.’ ” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die; 5 for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

The precise reason for featuring a “serpent” is not stated. 24 The antagonist simply appears. This is of course no ordinary serpent. Its ability to speak and the implication, in 3:14, that the reptilian agent could originally walk upright, support the contention that it is more than a mere serpent. The narrative maintains a relatively sober view of this actor. While it is an exceptional creature, it remains a creature on par with all the other animals God has made. The narrative also clarifies that the serpent does not have any supernatural or magical powers. It is simply described as “more crafty” (aroum). 25

The introduction of this unique and most remarkable creature signals that something of great significance is about to unfold. From a rhetorical perspective, the introduction of a serpent-like creature that can walk and talk would serve to attract and firmly hold the reader’s attention. The serpent’s role within the narrative is to draw Eve’s attention to the forbidden fruit and engage her in a debate about God’s command and God’s motives. The introduction of the serpent signals a new agenda. 26

The serpent opens the discussion with a query that evokes the mandate spelled out in 2:15–17. While the question does not seem particularly “crafty,” it enables him to take control of the conversation and put the woman on the defensive. The opening salvo represents a conspicuous misstatement of God’s injunction. In 2:16, God tells Adam that he is free to eat from any tree in the garden. The only proviso is that he refrain from eating from “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (2:17).

In her response, Eve correctly notes that the injunction only applies to the tree “that is in the middle of the garden” (3:2). She, however, {72} incorrectly notes that in addition to the injunction not to eat of the fruit, they are also to refrain from touching it. Eve furthermore indicates that she is aware of the penalty that would result from violating the divine command.

In verses 4 and 5, the serpent vigorously objects to Eve’s riposte by asserting that they would not die, “for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” The serpent’s strategy is now in plain view. It has been said that the bigger the lie, the more likely people are to believe it. The serpent is about to test this aphorism.

The serpent’s move incorporates two lines of attack. On the one hand, he challenges Eve’s belief about the punishment that will be meted out to her and Adam if they disobey. His denial is emphatic, using the same grammatical form attested in 2:17 to state the opposite of what God had said, namely, that Adam and Eve would surely not die. 27 The serpent does not pretend to misquote God’s words. He simply claims that it is all a lie. On its own, this strategy may not have been sufficient to sway Eve. In verse 5, the serpent introduces the second leg of his strategy. He proceeds to redefine all of reality.

The belief that they will die is not only false. It is false because God is lying. The oldest lie in the world has just been birthed. The command not to eat of the forbidden fruit is not about Adam and Eve, but about God. According to the serpent, God has ulterior motives. The creator knows that when they eat the fruit, they will, in one critical respect, become like him. The real reason behind God’s prohibition is to keep Adam and Eve from attaining a higher level of existence: “your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

If what makes the serpent’s lie so convincing is tied to the forceful tone of his pronouncement, it is ultimately driven home by impugning the very person of God, his character, trustworthiness, and integrity. It is God’s very integrity that is at the heart of this debate.

The net impact of the serpent’s words is twofold. First, Eve is thrust into a situation where she must adjudicate the credibility of God’s command. Eve must make a judgment call as to who is telling the truth. Her decision entails an appraisal of God’s character and whose word she will trust.

Like a seasoned attorney, the serpent then falls silent. He has made his case. It is now all up to the woman. At this point in the narrative, there is no longer any use in pondering the nature of the serpent. The point is that through his agency, Eve is now confronted with the issue that will determine her destiny and that of the entire human race.

How does Eve resolve the dilemma she faces? Verse 6 states that the woman decided on a course of action through a careful consideration {73} of the fruit’s physical characteristics rather trust God and his word. In doing so, she committed two errors. She accorded more credibility to the word of the serpent though she had no evidence to do so, and she based her decision on an aesthetic assessment of the fruit: “good for food . . . a delight to the eyes.”

The futility of this approach is obvious. There was nothing in and of itself about the fruit that could enlighten Eve. There were no objective criteria she could use to test the serpent’s claims. The fruit did not appear to be poisonous. Why should it be anyway? What would be the point of forbidding a fruit that was obviously unfit for human consumption? Parental injunctions to young children always pertain to cookies not stones. The fact is that Eve made her decision on purely empirical considerations.

CONCLUSION

Epistemology is about how we arrive at knowledge. In the context of the ancient Near East, this more precisely applies to how one ascertains the will of the gods. This was crucial, for every aspect of human existence was under divine control. Since the gods expressed themselves through the elements of nature, ascertaining what the gods may have had in store for humans was achieved through the application of an inductive methodology entailing various divining techniques such as the examination of the entrails of animals, the configuration of the stars and other celestial phenomena, bird migrations, etc. 28

The creation account was written to provide the basic building blocks of a worldview that would reflect an accurate representation of God, human nature, and the physical universe. As a text reflecting the fundamental tenets of the wisdom tradition, it also exhibited a rhetorical and epistemological element. Considering the strong sapiential elements embedded in creation account, it is very likely that the encounter between Eve and the serpent was primarily intended to lead the reader into a reflection on how one is to arrive at metaphysical knowledge in the context of Israel’s covenantal relationship with Yahweh.

As with the rest of the creation account, the Eve and serpent encounter can be interpreted on two levels. The first is historical. Eve gets to a point of critical choice where she must adjudicate the validity of a propositional statement made by the serpent. The second layer of interpretation is archetypal. Eve stands for every human being who is invited to make a similar decision, such as, for instance, for the later Israelites who face the issue of loyalty to Yahweh throughout their history. Will they serve Yahweh or Baal? And on what basis will this decision be made? {74}

As stated earlier, the process for determining the will of the gods is inductive and empirical. 29 When it comes to Yahweh, however, the Eve and serpent encounter teaches that it is futile to use empirical criteria to ascertain metaphysical truth. God’s will is to be discerned through a careful and precise assessment of divine revelation. Period. In this respect, Eve makes two grievous errors. First, she modifies the original wording of God’s command, which, in this context, may betray an incipient manifestation of epistemological arrogance. Second, having rejected God’s words as her primary frame of reference, she resorts to using empirical criteria to determine her course of action. For Eve, it eventually all comes down to whether she trusts God and whether she trusts God’s word, which was transmitted to her.

Eve did not, unlike Adam, have the benefit of having received the divine injunction directly from God. She had to adjudicate the moral dilemma she was facing on the basis of information she had received from Adam. By featuring Eve instead of Adam, the text provides an epistemological model of inquiry for those who have not been primary witnesses, which of course is the case for all of us.

If Eve was not going to rely on the objective terms of God’s offer, there remained no effective way of determining where truth lay. She needed and indeed possessed a transcendent word on the issue at hand, but she chose to ignore it in favor of an assessment, which was grounded in the self rather than divine revelation.

But as I have suggested earlier, this text is not only about one individual. This is a creation story, and as such the story is also archetypal. This is not just about Eve; it is about every human being who is confronted with an existential decision. And in keeping with its sapiential character, the text reinforces the principle of obedience as the pathway to life and disobedience as the pathway to death.

I am not suggesting that every moral dilemma believers face can be expediently resolved by appealing to a biblical text that can be subserviently applied to the issue at hand. The insertion of the encounter between Eve and the serpent in the creation story suggests that we are dealing with fundamental principles, matters dealing with the very fabric of (spiritual) reality itself such as who God is and human identity.

Our text suggests that when it comes to adjudicating the most basic existential dimensions of human existence, we can adopt one of two approaches. The first is informed by Wisdom. Its starting point is an attitude of trust in God’s absolute integrity. It is anchored in an objective and authoritative word about God and humanity. The second is the way of Eve (and Adam), who set aside divine revelation in favor of her own subjective assessment of the moral choice she faced. Rather than searching for truth {75} in the Ground of all truth and reality, she chose to anchor her appraisal of the moral dilemma in her subjective self. 30

Eve’s decision was not without dire consequences for her, Adam, and all of humanity. In Genesis 3:8–24, the narrator gives the reader an insight into the deployment of the curse that had been announced in 2:17: “. . . for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” In good sapiential fashion, the narrative offers an ominous lesson to the reader. Those who, like Eve, base their understanding of metaphysical truth on the subjective self will experience alienation, fear, suffering, and death (see also 2 Cor 11:3). In sharp contrast, the men and women whose most fundamental convictions are anchored in God’s revelation will experience life.

“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” (John 10:10)

NOTES

  1. Author and philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer defines metaphysics as “the discipline of philosophy that addresses the fundamental nature of reality. Ontology, a subdiscipline of metaphysics, is concerned with questions of ‘being’ or ultimate reality. It asks, ‘What is the thing or the entity or the process from which everything else comes?’ ” Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind behind the Universe (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2021), 219.
  2. J. P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 23.
  3. For instance, Bill C-4, “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy),” could potentially be used to criminalize a pastor or a therapist who appeals to the Bible during a counseling session with a person who seeks guidance regarding his or her sexual orientation. For more details, see Paul Carter, “Bill C-4: History, Concerns, and Response,” TGC Canadian Edition, January 3, 2022, https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/ad-fontes/bill-c-4-history-concerns-and-response.
  4. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version (1989).
  5. Howard N. Wallace, “Eve (Person),” in David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 677.
  6. Phyllis Trible, “Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 41 (1973): 30–48. See also Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, Overtures to Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973). {76}
  7. This is in great part because the feminist lens tends to funnel the reading of this text into an overly narrow interpretive framework, much like some use a creationist literal lens to interpret Genesis 1. In both cases, the initial agenda has the potential of imposing such a narrow frame of interpretation as to cause the interpreter to lose sight of the text’s primary intent. While such an approach can yield interesting insights, the range of possible interpretations can be very limited.
  8. D. J. A. Clines, What Does Eve Do to Help? And Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament, CTSOT Supplement 94 (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1990).
  9. Dan York, “Make a Fence for the Torah: A Positive Reading of the Woman’s Words in Genesis 3:3,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 84 (2022): 548–49.
  10. For more details, see Richard S. Hess, “The Roles of the Woman and the Man in Genesis 3,” Themelios 18 (1993): 15.
  11. Trible, “Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation,” 48.
  12. Hess, “Roles of the Woman and the Man,” 15.
  13. York, “Make a Fence for the Torah,” 549.
  14. York, 549.
  15. But if it is the case that Eve intended to clarify God’s command, doesn’t that suggest a greater degree of culpability on Eve’s part? Even though she intended to construct a “fence” around God’s words in an attempt “to honor God rather than to smear God’s integrity” as York suggests (550), she still manages to disobey God’s command.
  16. Several proposals have been made regarding the historical setting of Genesis 3, and what these could suggest in terms of the significance of Genesis 3. Hess summarizes them as follows: (1) An allegory defending royal control in monarchical Judah over against peasant independence; (2) a polemic against Canaanite religion; (3) a story from the Early Iron Age world of Israel’s struggle to settle in the hill country. (For more details, see Hess, “Roles of the Woman and the Man,” 15–16.)
  17. While many scholars view the narrative as a compilation of two separate creation stories, for the purpose of this article, I treat Genesis 1–3 as a unit. From a rhetorical point of view, it is the story as a whole and in its canonical shape that is of significance and should be considered. While there may be some merit in investigating the history of the text, it is the final version of the story, not some hypothetical reconstruction of earlier versions, that constitutes the primary point of reference to reflect on the significance of the encounter between the woman and the serpent.
  18. For an insightful discussion of the significance of myth in the context of biblical studies, see Robert A. Oden, “Myth and Mythology,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 4:945–56 and “Myth in the OT,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 4:956–60.
  19. For more details on the polemic character of the creation story, see Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 60–3; Jean Bottéro, “Le Dieu de la Bible,” in La plus belle histoire de Dieu : Qui est le Dieu de la Bible ? ed. Hélène Monsacré and Jean-Louis Schlegel (Paris: Seuil, 1997), 15–46; Naissance de Dieu : la Bible et l’historien (Paris: Gallimard, {77} 1986); Gerhard Hasel, “The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology,” EQ 46 (1974): 81–102; Pierre Gilbert, God Never Meant for Us to Die: The Emergence of Evil in the Light of the Genesis Creation Account (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2020), 28–46.
  20. The reference to Adam naming the animals (Gen 2:19b–20), the life and death thematic attested in Gen 2:16–17, which represents one of the central tenets of Hebrew wisdom (Prov 2:18; 5:5, 23; 7:27; 8:36; 10:2, 21; 11:4, 19; 12:28; 13:14; 14:12, 27; 15:10; 16:25; 18:21; 19:16, 18; 21:6, 25; 23:13), the reference to the “knowledge [from the root yada’] of good and evil,” the allusion to Eve discovering that the tree is to be “desired to make one wise” (from the root sakal, Gen 3:6), the use of the Hebrew word aroum to characterize the serpent, a term that can evoke the positive idea of shrewdness, a virtue that the wise should cultivate (Prov 12:16; 13:16) or, used negatively, wiliness or guile (Job 5:12; 15:5; see also Exod 21:14 and Josh 9:4). Furthermore, the serpent opens the dialogue with a question on the truthfulness of a divine statement. The debate between Eve and the serpent eventually comes to center on an assessment of Yahweh’s character, which, of course, evokes the most basic characteristic of wisdom spelled out in Proverbs 1:7: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (see Luis Alonso-Schökel, “Sapiential and Covenant Themes in Genesis 2–3,” in Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom, ed. J. L. Crenshaw [New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1976], 468–80). In this context, the word for knowledge, daat, is a synonym of wisdom as evidenced in the second part of the verse (“fools despise wisdom and instruction”). The verb yada (to know) in 3:7 denotes an insight Adam and Eve did not possess before eating of the fruit.
  21. For a more detailed discussion of the relationship between wisdom and creation, see Roland E. Murphy, “Wisdom and Creation,” Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (1985): 3–11. The prominent European theologian, Henri Blocher, writes: “Again, along with several specialists, we can recognize that the way the story is treated places it with Wisdom writings.” In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis, trans. David G. Preston (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1984), 36.
  22. In the Cain and Abel story (Gen 4), for instance, the narrative does not provide a clear explanation as to why God approves Abel’s sacrifice but not Cain’s. It is also in the nature of storytelling in general to leave some aspects of the story unexplained so as not to impede the flow of the narrative.
  23. The material that follows is adapted from my book, God Never Meant for Us to Die, 95–107.
  24. In the ancient Orient, “snakes were symbolic of life, wisdom, and chaos.” Karen Randolf Joines, “The Serpent in Gen 3,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 87 (1975): 1–11. See also Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 72–73. The image of the serpent may also have echoed the familiar mythological motif of the snake that swallows the plant that would have given Gilgamesh the gift of immortality. For a detailed treatment of the function of the serpent and the history of interpretation, see Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 237–40. See also Sydney Page, Powers of Evil (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995), 12–23 {78} and Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984), 151–54.
  25. As noted earlier, the adjective used to describe the serpent is significant in two ways. While the meaning of the word “crafty” (aroum) is ambiguous and may refer to either the knowledge of the wise (Prov 12:16; 13:16) or its reprehensible counterpart: guile and shrewdness (Job 5:12; 15:5).
  26. See Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1982), 47.
  27. The Qal infinitive absolute and the Qal imperfect.
  28. For more details, see Jean Bottéro, Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia, trans. Teresa Lavender Fagan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001 [1998], 170–86; Édouard Dhorme, Les Religions de Babylonie et d’Assyrie, 2nd ed. (France: Presses universitaires de France, 1949).
  29. For an excellent discussion of a possible connection between divination and empirical science, see Jean Bottéro, Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods, trans. Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992 [1987]), 125–37.
  30. For an excellent treatment of the recent evolution of the notion of selfhood in the Western world, see Carl R. Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020).
Pierre Gilbert is associate professor emeritus of Bible and Theology at Canadian Mennonite University in Winnipeg, Manitoba. His latest book is God Never Meant for Us to Die: The Emergence of Evil in the Light of the Genesis Creation Account (Wipf & Stock, 2020). He lives in Winnipeg where he attends Fort Garry MB Church.

Previous | Next