In the third chapter of Genesis we read the account of how a snake persuades Eve to sin by eating fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
I am convinced that this account is not supposed to be interpreted
literally. In other words, I believe that historically there was no actual
snake or snake-like figure that plotted against Eve or spoke to her. Instead,
what we have here is a fictional story that symbolises how human sin began when
Satan tempted Adam and Eve.
There are many Christians, however, who insist that this
story is supposed to be taken literally, and who claim that an actual snake, or
Satan in the form of a snake, or Satan speaking through an actual snake,
persuaded Eve to sin. In what follows I will explain why I disagree with these
interpretations of the passage.
The passage
Let’s start by setting out the text of Genesis 3:1-6. It
reads as follows:
1 Now the snake was more
crafty than any animal of the field which the LORD God had made. And it said to
the woman, ‘Did God really say, “You are not to eat from any tree of the garden”?’
2 The woman said to the
snake, ‘We are allowed to eat fruit from the trees of the garden. 3 But
God has said, “You are not to eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of
the garden, and you are not to touch it, or you will die.”’
4 The snake said to the
woman, ‘You certainly will not die. 5 For God knows that on the day you
eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good
and evil.’
6 The woman saw that the tree
was good for food and pleasant to look at, and that it was desirable for
obtaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some
to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
Satan making himself look like a snake
Some of those who interpret this passage literally claim
that it refers to Satan manifesting himself as a snake to Eve and speaking to
her. Under this interpretation, there was no actual snake involved. Rather,
Satan just made himself look like a snake, and spoke to Eve in this way.
This interpretation is on the wrong track, however.
To begin with, we must note that the first sentence of v.
1 tells us that the snake was more crafty than any animal of the field. The way
that the snake is set alongside other animals and compared to them surely shows
that we should understand the snake in the same way that we understand the
other animals. These other animals in the storyline are surely real animals. So
in the first sentence of v. 1 the snake should be understood as a real animal
too.
In the second sentence of v. 1 we read, ‘And it said to
the woman’. The subject of this clause is the snake that has been referred to
in the first sentence. Because the snake in the first sentence is a real snake,
this means that in the storyline it is a real snake that speaks to Eve.
However, if this passage were simply about Satan
manifesting himself as a snake, there would be no real snake involved. It would
just be some sort of snake-like appearance. Therefore, the fact that the
storyline refers to a real snake seems to rule out the idea that this passage
is about Satan making himself look like a snake to Eve.
Satan speaking through an actual snake
There are other Christians who attempt to interpret this
account literally by drawing a parallel between the account and the story of
Balaam’s donkey in Numbers 22:28-30. Those who take this view rightly accept
that the account portrays a real snake speaking to Eve, not just a snake-like
appearance of Satan. But they claim that Satan spoke through the snake in a way
similar to the way God spoke through Balaam’s donkey.
This interpretation should also be rejected.
To start with, in the story of Balaam’s donkey there are
two actors, God and the donkey, and God miraculously speaks through the donkey.
By contrast, in the Genesis account there is only one actor, the snake. There
is not the slightest hint in the text that a second actor is involved who
speaks through the snake.
Furthermore, when the passage says in the first sentence
of v. 1 that the snake was the most crafty of the animals, this clearly implies
that each animal has a certain amount of craftiness in itself. And this
obviously includes the snake. Each animal is somewhere on the implied scale of
craftiness, with the snake at the top.
Therefore, when in the rest of the passage we are told
that the snake uses craftiness to tempt Eve, it must be its own craftiness that
it uses. The whole point of referring to the snake’s craftiness in the first
sentence is to prepare the reader for the snake using craftiness in the rest of
the passage. After reading the first sentence, the reader understands that the
snake has craftiness, so the snake’s use of craftiness in the rest of the
passage now makes sense.
However, if Satan simply spoke through the snake in the
way that God spoke through Balaam’s donkey, it would be Satan’s craftiness that
was involved, not that of the snake. So, because it is clearly the snake’s own
craftiness that is used, it cannot be about Satan speaking through the snake.
Just a snake miraculously plotting against
Eve
The two interpretations I have mentioned, then, both
fail. We should have no hesitation in saying that in the storyline of this
passage there is a real snake that uses its own craftiness to tempt Eve.
But is it possible that this storyline should be
interpreted historically? In other words, is it possible that this literally
happened?
There are some Christians who would answer yes to these
questions, and who claim that an actual snake was miraculously enabled to plot
against Eve and tempt her to sin.
This is also a mistake. Snakes, like all other animals,
are not moral creatures. By God’s design, animals are unable to know right from
wrong or plot against people to get them to sin.
I would suggest that the idea of an animal being miraculously
enabled to know right from wrong is a contradiction in terms. 2 Peter 2:12 and Jude 1:10 refer to ‘irrational
animals’, and these verses show that animals exist on a vastly lower level than
human beings. By God’s design, the ability to reason in the way that humans do
or to know right from wrong is something that is impossible for an animal. An
animal can no more know right from wrong than a rock can know right from wrong.
I think it would be correct
to say that God could miraculously transform a snake into a creature with
knowledge of right and wrong. But importantly, it would then cease to be a
snake. It would cease to be an animal. But in Genesis 3:1-6 the snake clearly
remains a snake. It remains an animal. And there is also not the slightest hint
in this passage anyway of any miracle taking place.
The idea, then, that an
actual snake was miraculously enabled to plot against Eve makes no sense.
A symbolic story
All attempts to interpret this passage literally and
historically therefore fail. Instead, we should see the passage as a fictional
and symbolic story.
The snake in this passage certainly symbolises
Satan. The passage is teaching us that Satan was instrumental in leading Adam
and Eve to fall into sin.
But on the level of the story, it is the snake as an
animal that plots against Eve and tempts her to sin. And this cannot reasonably
be taken literally and historically. To interpret this passage literally is to
seriously misunderstand the type of literature that is present here.
We should also note carefully that in Revelation 12:9 and
20:2 Satan is described as ‘the ancient snake’, which surely refers back to
this passage in Genesis. These verses in Revelation fit perfectly with seeing
the snake as symbolising Satan in Genesis 3.
See also:
Beware
of Taking Genesis 1-3 Too Literally
The
Problems with Claiming to Interpret the Bible Literally
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.