We are suspicious of talking animals - and rightly so. However, this is not the point of Genesis 3. Unfortunately, we may miss the meaning of this story by focusing on its extraordinary elements - elements that held deep significance to the original audience (as we will see below).

The main point of the ancient story of humankind's fall into sin is to clarify that sin is not a direct result of God's creative will, but rather, a parasite in God's good creation. It exists because of human choice, and not divine intention. Put simply, God is not the author of sin. The story sheds light on our present human situation. We can all relate to the seductive process of self-rationalization the story exposes.

The True Myth

As we study this story, there are two approaches that I will intentionally avoid. First, I won't try to go "beyond" the story in order to ascertain "what really happened." The point of the story is the story. To go "beyond" the story is to miss its profound meaning.

Second, I won't assume the story is "just a story" - a mere metaphor and nothing more. The story has connections to reality. The Christian faith is not established on mere fantasy. We may enjoy Star Wars, but no one in their right mind should hope to make a religion out of it. (And if they do, it will certainly not have the lasting power that this story has had in human history!) Though the story certainly contains extraordinary elements, it is not mere myth and nothing more. It is not "just a story." If anything, in the words of C. S. Lewis, it is the true myth, thus we do well to pay attention to its meaning and significance.

Genesis 3 is the definitive story recounting humankind's fall into sinful desires and subsequent behaviors. It reveals patterns that we continue to justify in the same way that Adam and Eve justified their sin. These rationalizations and justifications come from within, but are also stirred up from without. The creature that represents external pressure to stray from God's will is the snake.

The trouble in paradise begins with a snake in the garden. However, the focus of the story is not on the serpent, but on the human response. For the original readers,

the serpent was a symbol of that wisdom which rules the world and of the fertility through which human beings plunge into the divine current of life and for a few moments experience themselves fused with its divine power. Thus the serpent also serves as a symbol of the attraction that these religions exerted over Israel in contrast to the mystery of the God of the covenant.[1]

Because of the snake's association with pagan religions, if this were a movie, the mood of the music would change from celebrative and peaceful to ominous and gloomy.

The serpent serves as a tool to present options to seduce the humans away from God. In Hebrew the word "crafty" (arum) is a play on "naked" (arummim). "The link suggests that human beings may be exposed at times to shrewd or crafty elements in the world, language often associated with temptation."[2] Though we may find it difficult to take the serpent literally, it would be wrong to assume that the serpent is merely a metaphor. Old Testament scholar, Walter Brueggemann writes,

Nevertheless, the reality embodied in the serpent is transpersonal, not simply a product of the individual will. Language about the seed of the serpent, as well as God's judgment upon it, prevents us from seeing here simply an externalization of an inward struggle. In one sense, the serpent becomes transgenerational. The serpent may be a metaphor, yet no "mere metaphor"; it bears some correspondence with reality beyond the individuals involved.[3]

The serpent represents all the external forces that cause us to raise the potentially faith-destroying question: Is God good? This is the fundamental issue at the heart of this account. Can we trust God? Does God have our best interests at heart or only God's interests? Can we trust God even when we don't know the whole story - like a child must trust a parent? Or should we trust only ourselves, short-circuiting a relationship with God?

Seduction begins with "Did God Say?"

Did God say "You shall not eat from any tree in the garden?" (Genesis 3:1)

"Did God say?" The seduction does not begin with an outright denial of God's goodness, but with an innocent question. Or so it seems. The remainder of the dialogue between the serpent and Eve reveals that this is not a harmless query, but rather, a subtle attempt to obscure the plain meaning of God's command. As one theologian has cleverly put it, "The first time [the serpent] opens his mouth is to put a question where God had put a period."[4]

Questions are generally good. They allow us to penetrate deep into the meaning of things. They evidence that we are taking a subject seriously by working through its significance and meaning from multiple perspectives. They increase our understanding, and hopefully also, our faithfulness. But this is the rub: Good questions should lead to greater faithfulness to God's word. God's word should never become merely a matter for debate, but rather, a reason to obey. We do not stand in judgment over God's word; God's word stands in judgment over us. It has been given to us for our spiritual transformation. Though we may certainly debate interpretations, we must maintain a stance of faithful devotion to God's word. God's word invites us to trust, not doubt. It calls us to wisdom and understanding and warns us of foolishness and infidelity.

The serpent's question would have been more noble if it had true understanding and wisdom as its design, but it is clear from the direction the serpent takes in the remainder of the discussion that the serpent does not have Eve's best interests in mind. The serpent makes no initial attempt to seduce Eve to directly oppose God (this will come later). The seduction comes under the guise of good intentions, with the façade of genuine curiosity rather than outright deception. What appears to be a harmless and open question is actually a subtle strategy to mislead Eve by lowering her defenses and creating a fissure through which Eve may come to doubt God's goodness.

The serpent's strategy in this "innocent" question is to amplify the exception and focus Eve's attention on the forbidden. He desires to stir up discontent with God's abundant provision. There was no end to the pleasant and fulfilling beauty God created in the garden. Hundreds of exotic trees lined the walkways of the luxuriant garden. The serpent seeks to blind Eve to the abundance of what God allows by focusing her attention on the one thing she did not have. If the serpent could get Eve to focus on the one thing forbidden, it would rob her of the joy she could derive from all the things she legitimately possessed. Her obsession with the forbidden would bring frustration and cause her to believe that God's provision was inadequate.

We easily forget the abundance of God's provision. Far too often, all the good gifts in our lives are eclipsed by the one thing we fail to possess. Our joy in what we have is eclipsed by our frustration over what we do not have. Our lives are haunted by "If only's" - "If only I had this [fill in the blank], my life would be complete." Our gratitude is diminished. Ingratitude is stirred.

We must never forget all the good things we currently enjoy. God gives Adam and Eve permission to enjoy so much. But sadly, "The God of the garden is chiefly remembered as the one who prohibits."[5] Our capacity to amplify the exception and focus on the forbidden, all the while failing to be grateful for God's current provision, is a sign of our sinfulness. What we have is never enough. Our hunger for more is rarely satisfied.

The Presence of Adam

Before we continue further in our study of this text it is vitally important to note that the "you" in the serpent's question is in the plural in the Hebrew text. In fact, the plural pronoun is repeatedly used throughout the entire text. The serpent is speaking to both the woman and the man. Adam is with Eve during the entire discussion: "her husband, who was with her" (Genesis 3:6). When Eve partakes of the fruit, she acts "in harmony with the man, rather than as an individual set apart from him... Thus no scene recounts the woman's seeking to influence the man to eat; they were in total accord."[6]

Adam is Eve's silent partner throughout the conversation. Walter Brueggemann writes,

As a silent partner "with her" throughout this exchange, the man puts up no resistance, raises no questions, and considers no theological issues; he simply and silently takes his turn. The woman does not act as a temptress in this scene; they both have succumbed to the same source of temptation. They stand together as "one flesh" at this point as well.[7]

The second-century theologian, Irenaeus recognized Eve as being the stronger of the two in this account:

Why did the serpent not attack the man, rather than the woman? You say he went after her because she was the weaker of the two. On the contrary. In the transgression of the commandment, she showed herself to be the stronger... For she alone stood up to the serpent. She ate from the tree, but with resistance and dissent and after being dealt with perfidiously. But Adam partook of the fruit given by the woman, without even beginning to make a fight, without a word of contradiction--a perfect demonstration of consummate weakness and a cowardly soul. The woman, moreover, can be excused; she wrestled with a demon and was thrown. But Adam will not be able to find an excuse... he had personally received the commandment from God.[8]

Eve may have been legitimately deceived through the subtle seduction of the serpent, but Adam outright disobeyed. He put up no fight whatsoever. He failed to intercede for their good. As Eve's silent partner, Adam is equally culpable.

Eve's Response

It is impossible for her to answer the question with a simple "yes" or "no." Eve's response, though mostly accurate, reveals small inaccuracies, exaggerations, and omissions. Scholars who pay careful attention to the text suggest that minute "hairline fractures" seem to be developing in her perspective. For example, Eve:

• Minimizes God's provision: "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden." She forgets to emphasize the wondrous abundance of beautiful trees in the garden. She possessed full freedom to eat from any of these. There was no end to the sights, sounds, and tastes she could enjoy through God's abundant provision. Her curiosity could have been endlessly satisfied with that which God allowed. In contrast to God's emphatic pronouncement in Genesis 2:15 - "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden" where the Hebrew that is interpreted "freely eat" is literally, "eat eat" - Eve seems to short sell God's provision.
• Omits the name of the tree: "But God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden." By omitting the name of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, she is losing sight of its divine purpose. It is not just any tree, but a means through which God would teach Adam and Eve to wisely discern between good and evil.
• Exaggerates the prohibition: "God said, "...you shall not touch it." God had not said that they could not touch the tree. Her exaggeration may represent adding to God's word, and thus making things harder than God intends things to be. We tend to make God's commands more restrictive than God intends, and this negatively affects our view of God's requirements. Another view is possible. Brueggemann suggests that her exaggeration may represent her anxiety about death. She exaggerates because she wants to avoid death at all costs.
• Diminishes God's penalty. Again, Eve seems to underemphasize God's emphatic warning - "you shall surely die," where the Hebrew literally reads, "die die." When the consequences to disobedience are belittled, it is easier to consider the possibility of disobedience.

Finally, by identifying this tree as the one in the middle of the garden, she perhaps elevates its importance above that of the tree of life (see Genesis 2:9).

The Serpent's Lie

Having heard Eve recount God's warning about eating from the tree, the serpent directly challenges her response. The serpent's seduction proceeds from subtle to not-so-subtle. In contrast to God's clear warning, the serpent denies that there is any danger whatsoever in eating from the tree. God had clearly said, "You shall not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for in the day you eat of it you shall die." The serpent says, "You will not die." He argues that eating from the tree will bring no negative consequences, but rather, will be to their advantage: "your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5).[9] This knowledge will grant power. Eve will be "like God" - equal to God and therefore, no longer, dependent on God for anything.

The seduction of evil lies in its ability to deceive - to hide its bitter consequences. The serpent says, "There's nothing to worry about. You can disobey God and there will be no consequences." Yet the scriptures are clear - our actions have consequences: "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow" (Galatians 6:7). Though we may feel that there are no negative consequences to disobedience to God's will, this is simply not the case. What is hidden will be revealed. Our lives are an open book before God. We must give account to God for all our actions, both the good and the bad.

The serpent denies the truth of God's word, but by doing this, a greater accusation is made. The serpent implies that God's word is not true because God is a selfish liar. God does not have Eve's best interests at heart, but rather, God's own selfish ends. God does not tell the truth, but withholds information that may make God look bad. Here, the serpent takes the role of truth-teller. The serpent takes the place of God by undermining God and exalting itself as the arbitrator of truth. We hear here the first faint overtones of the evil one's temptation of Christ, "Worship me, and I will give you all the kingdoms of the earth."

At the heart of every temptation is the subtle accusation, "God is not good." Therefore, "God can't be trusted." At the deepest level we are dealing with matters of trust. Can we trust God to have our best interests at heart even if we do not know everything? It is only worthwhile to obey God if God's intentions are for our good. The serpent causes Eve to question God's character: Is God good? Can God be trusted?

Taking the Fruit

With the seeds of doubt firmly planted in her soul, Eve now views the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in a whole new light. Contrary to God's command, she now sees the tree is good for food. The intrinsic beauty of the tree adds to its allure. She believes the tree will make her wise. She takes its fruit and eats it. Adam follows suit.

In her action, Eve becomes her own standard for good and evil. As such, "good" is distorted. Against the Creator's command, the couple decide what is good for themselves apart from God's counsel. God's command becomes subject to their judgment. They will be "like God" without God. Once God's word is reasoned away, you can define "the good" as anything you desire. Seeking to be their own gods, their relationship with God is severed by their own distrust and disbelief.

The Aftermath

The serpent is correct. Their eyes are open, but it is not at all as they expected. "Having decided to be on their own, they see the world entirely through their own eyes. They now operate totally out of their own resources."[10] They are immediately self-aware and ashamed - no longer at peace with themselves and one another. They seek to hide their shame through fig leaves and loincloths. Their newfound knowledge did not even give them the skill to make adequate clothing for themselves. The intimacy and openness they once knew is at an end. Worst of all, they seek to hide from God. Instead of godlikeness, they are overwhelmed by a deep sense of inadequacy and guilt leading to fear of God and accusations toward one another.

The deceiver lures to great heights and then casts down into a deep abyss. The object of temptation never lives up to its press. "Temptations never fulfill the expectations they arouse, for evil possesses no source of life within itself. It satiates without ever satisfying or quenching thirst."[11]

Our temptations still take the same form. They begin with rationalizing away God's word: "Did God really say?" They progress: "Even if God did say it, God doesn't really mean it. God's word is empty of significance." They ultimately end with, "God doesn't care for you. God's not really good. You're on your own. Seek your own will, not God's will. God's will is oppressive. Your desires are the only standard for good and evil."

The seduction continues even today. We find ourselves often at the whims of forces seemingly beyond our control. Our challenge is to remain thankful for God's provision, to continue trusting in God's promise, and to continue believing in God's goodness.[12]

The serpent's questions are primarily about the amount of freedom God has given humans. This is always a sensitive topic. In our individualistic and rationalistic culture, it is relatively easy to convince others that a covenant relationship with God robs them of freedom and joy. And yet, it is only within a faithful covenant relationship with God that true intimacy, trust, and joy can develop. We cannot walk with God if we do not seek the will of God. We will not seek the will of God if we do not trust that God seeks our best interests, that is, if we do not believe that God is good. When we seek to live apart from God, we follow in the footsteps of our first parents rather than in the way of Christ. For the one who is most truly "like God" did not grasp at selfish autonomy, but rather, lived a life of complete dependence and trust toward God (Philippians 2:5-11).

The Cause of the Fall

The account exists in order to demonstrate the seduction of evil and to clarify that God is not ultimately responsible for human sin. What then ultimately was the cause of Adam's fall?

The blame does not completely lie with the serpent. Indeed, if we are careful with the account, we notice that the serpent had no real power to coerce Adam to take a certain course. The serpent could only persuade through shrewd deception. In other words, the serpent did not force Adam and Eve to take the fruit. He only nurtured the desire. They took the fruit of their own free will.

This passage allows us to wrestle with the root of evil. Is it pride, lust, selfishness, or unbelief? All these are evident in Adam and Eve's sin. Their pride is aroused in that the tree is "desirable to make one wise" apart from God. Their lust is aroused in that the fruit is "desirable." Their selfishness is aroused by the promise, "you will be like God." Their unbelief is revealed in that they reject God's command and instead believe the serpent: "you surely shall not die."

Arguments could be made for the primacy of any of these, but they can be combined: The primal sin is mistrust of God manifest in disobedience to God's command. Pride, lust, and selfishness is aroused and fueled by this departure from the divine design. Left to themselves, their own desires become the center of the universe. Trust in God's goodness is abandoned for autonomy - independence from God.

God's redemption addresses each sinful manifestation. Thus, through humility (rather than pride), love (rather than lust), self-denial (rather than selfishness), and trust (rather than disbelief), salvation comes.

The remainder of the biblical story has to do with regaining of these virtues by the grace of God. God does not leave the couple in their sin. Grace is greater than sin. Through the Spirit, we learn once again how to live humbly in trust, denying self and living in love toward God and one another.

God pursues us because, contrary to the serpent's lie, God is good!

---

© Richard J. Vincent, 2008