Lesson 4: Genesis 3: When The Strength Of Men Failed
Let us now examine the symbols which convey a very important point for the rest of redemptive history: the way back to the garden, back to the tree of life, which must pass through God's judgment.
Explanation of Genesis Three, Part 1
When the Strength of Men Failed
A. Genre
1. narrative: a broad category distinguishing from other broad categories such as poetry, prophecy or apocalyptic; but, remember the boundaries are fluid
2. tale: "short narrative characterized by a minimum number of characters .... the tale will establish the circumstances for its plot, then develop a point of tension as the subject of the plot. The plot unfolds as an arc running from the tension to a resolution of the tension." (Coats 7)
3. proto-history (Wenham) or suprahistorical (Waltke): acknowledges the narrative intends to convey historical data; also acknowledges that this is not bare historical record, but also intends to be normative, and representative of every human being
B. Structure
1. scene arrangement (Wenham, Matthews)
A Narrative: God sole actor, man passive (2:5-17)
B Narrative: God, man actors; woman, snake passive (2:18-25)
C Dialogue: snake and woman (3:1-5)
D Narrative: man and woman (3:6-8)
C' Dialogue: God, man and woman (3:9-13)
B' Narrative: God, man actors; woman, snake passive (3:14-21)
A' Narrative: God sole actor, man passive (3:22-24)
C. Verses 1-7
1. the serpent
a. "the serpent was more crafty": Wenham (72) notes that direct characterizations in Hebrew narrative are rare, therefore, the alert that the serpent is crafty or cunning is significant, it alerts the reader to be wary of the serpent's words. In addition there is an interesting word play between 'crafty' and 'nakedness.' In their singular forms, both of these adjectives have the same consonantal spelling, arum. In the former case, the word signified the innocence of the couple, in the latter the cunning that would destroy the innocence (Brown, 147). There is shamelessness in both cases. For the couple it is the result of innocence; for the serpent it is a corrupted shamelessness.
b. Why the serpent?
i. Various responses have been offered, the most common for Christian interpreters has been the view that the serpent was none other than Satan. More recently it has been argued, however, that Satan as a personal incarnation of evil is a later development in Jewish and Christian thought that was not in view of the author of Genesis.
ii. Some have tried to identify the presence of the serpent with other ANE myths but none offers a sufficiently significant parallel, the serpent is a multifaceted symbol in the ANE. The most prominent connection has been made with the Leviathan, also a serpent (cf. Is. 27:1), but again the ties are not sufficiently strong
iii. Wenham (73) recognizes that the serpent serves nicely as an archetypal symbol of evil given Levitical legislation where because of its form of locomotion is an unclean animal
iv. E. J. Young handles the problem in a reasonable way that takes into account the progressive nature of revelation. He grants that neither Eve nor even Moses considered the serpent as anything other than a serpent. But, given later revelation we can safely conclude with Young that "Satan is at work here."
v. Cassuto (142) takes the serpent to be a personification of Eve's own inner dialogue. While we may be inclined to take the serpent more solidly, nonetheless, Cassuto raises an important insight. The temptation ultimately lies within Eve and the serpent merely awakens what is already fomenting. Waltke suggests something similar when he likens the temptation with Saul's encounter with the witch at Endor in which case no one heard the dialogue except Saul. Perhaps the narrator is 'verbalizing the psychological dynamics of temptation.'
