In my previous study I questioned the identity of the serpent. At least the greater majority of believers, today, have always assumed the serpent must be Satan, a rebellious archangel who opposed God and wanted to steal away mankind and destroy the whole race. Never mind the fact that the only archangel mentioned in the Bible is Michael, who is Lord of the angels, just as Christ is Lord over mankind, and if Christ is Lord of heaven and earth, it appears that Michael is Christ, not an angel, but God, himself.
Moreover, no one has ever been able to use scripture to show when an angelic rebellion ever took place. Do angels have free moral agency like man has? Even that is presumed, for none of the angels are ever recorded as sinning or having trouble carrying out their instructions from God. Moreover, why would God unleash such a powerful being on humanity, if, indeed, one exists, especially upon inexperienced humanity during the early stages of the growth of his race. It seems quite unfair to me, not to mention unwise of God, who knows all and is wise beyond measure. Yet, this is the story/myth that scholars have painted of God and the serpent.
Sometime after God created both Adam and the woman, a mysterious scene takes place that the text records in chapter three of Genesis. We are introduced to a figure described as a serpent, which is described further as a being that is more subtle or clever than any of the wild beasts of the field.[1] (Genesis 3:1). After all is said and done, it can be shown that man, himself, is quite capable of slaying or capturing any of the beasts of the field. He is more cunning than they are. Moreover, he has used his subtility to take advantage of the innocent, which was clearly described by Jesus in the Gospel narratives (cp. Matthew 12:34; 23:33; Luke 10:19). Nowhere in the Bible is an angelic being ever described as a serpent.
Therefore, without a word of introduction, we are introduced to a serpent, and a talking serpent at that! Yet, nothing is said of the mysterious ability the serpent possesses. The woman never questions how he could speak, nor does Moses offer a parenthetical explanation (cp. Numbers 22:28). The serpent spoke to the woman, pointing out that God had said it was permissible to partake of any tree in the garden (Genesis 3:1).
The woman agreed, but made an exception for the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden, which she claimed was not to be eaten. She then added that even if one touched it one would die (Genesis 3:2-3), but this was something the Lord never said (cp. Genesis 2:16-17).
Once a lie or a falsehood is introduced and accepted as true, the enemy, no matter who he is, is able to prove the falsehood is wrong, simply be demonstrating it is false. In the context of Genesis 3, the serpent merely had to touch the tree to demonstrate the woman’s error. Consider for a moment, how did the woman come by this error? Clearly, God told Adam not to eat of the tree prior to the Lord creating the woman. Therefore, Adam had to teach the woman what the Lord said about the tree. So, Adam lied to his wife, saying ‘don’t touch it, or you’ll die!’
If, indeed, it is true that Adam is the serpent, as I believe he is, it would be easy for him to prove to his wife that touching the tree wouldn’t cause her death. Once this is proved, the Lord’s integrity would come into question. So, after he touched the tree, the serpent (Adam) questioned the Lord’s integrity, saying he doesn’t want mankind to know good and evil, like he does. He says he wants us to be like him (Genesis 1:26-27), but he tells us to keep away from the very thing that would enable us to be like him (Genesis 3:4-5; cp. verse-22).
Convinced of the truth behind the serpent’s logic, the woman took and ate the fruit, and also gave it to Adam who was there, with her all the while, never objecting to anything that was said (Genesis 3:6). Thus, if this is all logical and true, Adam was a coward, suspecting the Lord didn’t have mankind’s good interest in mind. However, afraid to be the first to partake of the forbidden fruit, lest he die, Adam convinced his wife to do so. Once it was clear that she didn’t die, physically, he thought it was safe to do so himself, and he ate the fruit, as well. Thus, once they rebelled from God, their eyes were opened, and they realized they were naked (Genesis 3:7; cp. 2:25). For the first time, they felt shame, so they made a garment for themselves out of fig leaves.
__________________________________________________________
[1] This is not speaking of cattle or the animals that man has domesticated, raising them for food, clothing and even shelter. The beasts of the field are the wild animals who often have to depend on their cunning ability to capture and eat a meal, or, on the other hand, to avoid being eaten.
Smoodock's Blog 