[First posted June 20, 2015.—Admin1]
————————-
What comes to mind when you read the three images in the title of this post? If you’re biblically-oriented:
- the walking-talking serpent in the garden of Eden,
- one of the 3 categories of trees in Eden,
- and the “I” in Eden.
What? There was an “I” in Eden? Actually there were two; you might think there were three but that’s what this post will endeavour to explain..
We have posts explaining the serpent:
- Prooftext 1b – Genesis 3:15 – Who is the “serpent”?
- Prooftext 1d – Serpent Symbolism – Postscript
- Shedding without blood . . .
We have a post about the specific Tree: The Tree of – ‘the Knowledge of’/’the Knowing of’ – Good and Evil
We also have a post about the “I”: The “I” in Image vs. the “I” in Idolatry
What is the point of revisiting these articles? After all the effort to explain the Serpent, we failed to satisfactorily address this question:
When we get stumped with a question we had not yet figured out the answer (to our satisfaction), we go to the logical ‘resource person’ whose Scriptures it is we are seriously studying for the first time minus our former Christian orientation.
Ask the Rabbi is our fallback; so here is Rabbi M. Younger’s answer:
“Free choice is given to Man but his choice will impact on the entire universe, for the whole cosmos was created to be the canvas of Man’s free choice. When Man sins the whole of Creation becomes degraded and downgraded.
The physical snake is the representation of the spiritual force which challenges Man to follow God’s will. When Man fails his test and the spiritual universe suffers there will be a manifestation of that in the physical world which mirrors the spiritual one. When we see the snake crawling we need to associate back to the original story and see the consequences of Man’s sin . . . .”
Great answer, requires reflection, has universal application and relevant to any people, culture at any time in history, even in this day and age. So what, if any, is the loose end?
Here’s what should be the question specific to our position:
If the serpent
is the figurative expression
of humanity’s inclination to go against
the expressed Will of the Creator,
why a literal curse
on a figurative serpent?
Who or what is this figurative serpent? It is the inclination within each individual to do the opposite of good/right, not in line with God’ standard of behavior. Call it the ‘serpent of desire’ as in ‘I want’.
If my ‘I want’ happens to be different from another’s ‘I want’ and specifically against God’s ‘I WANT’, conflict results.
Why is the serpent an appropriate symbol for desire?
- Because the nature of desire is serpentine: winding, twisting, complex, cunning, treacherous, unrelenting— until satisfied.
- Desire when focused on the wrong object (prohibited, dangerous, destructive, belonging to someone else) could lead to disastrous consequences (the serpent’s poison), both for the desirer and the object of desire, particularly if the latter is another individual (someone else’s spouse).
- When the object desired is good (in line with the will of the other and the Will of God), then there is harmony, peace, joy and blessing for all concerned. Sounds simplistic but this is one ‘antidote’ to the serpent’s poison.
- The other ‘antidote’ to the serpent’s poison, just like the medical antidote to a serpent’s poisonous bite — is from within the serpent itself, it’s own poison. Puzzled? Read this post for the answer:
Now back to the Q: why is the figurative serpent cursed at all?
If the Creator Himself infused into humankind two inclinations, why should God curse what He in His wisdom designed into human nature, when one is intended to counteract the other?
Read how the ‘serpent’ is literally cursed in the narrative:
(EF is Everett Fox, AST is ArtScroll; highlights added)
- damned be you from all the animals and from all the living-things of the field;
- upon your belly shall you walk
- and dust shall you eat, all the days of your life.
[AST] Because you have done this,
- accursed are you beyond all the cattle and beyond all the beasts of the field;
- upon your belly shall you go
- and dust shall you eat all the days of your life.
Snakes do move on their belly as we see them today; does the curse imply they used to move in another way? Our former bible teacher taught us to read literally so he explained that snakes originally did walk and talk, and so the curse means they are now deprived of both abilities and have to crawl, ‘bite the dust’, demoted to a lower state.
If that is all that the serpent suffers, from the looks of snakes today they still get around pretty well even on their belly and no, they can’t talk like humans but neither can any other beast, so where’s the curse in that? With no self-consciousness, deprivation of former superior status is simply another condition any beast can automatically adjust to, so where’s the curse in that? However, if one is to read ‘devil’ into this figurative serpent, then there is a whole theology based on angelic spirits who fell from grace. We don’t believe in devils so . . . end of that story.
Perhaps it is in the enmity between the serpent’s seed and the woman’s seed where the curse moves to the figurative level:
[EF] 15 I put enmity between you and the woman,
between your seed and her seed:
they will bruise you on the head, you will bruise them in the heel.
[AST] 15 I put enmity between you and the woman,
between your seed and her seed:
they will bruise you on the head, you will bruise them in the heel.
To save us from explaining this, please read this post:
Prooftext 1c – Gen. 3:15 – Who are the “seed,” “offspring”?
Ponder these:
- The Creator infused into man two inclinations: one for good, and its opposite.
- Humankind has free will which has to be exercised; free will presupposes freedom to make a choice.
- Freedom to make a choice cannot be exercised if there is only one option available; you might have freedom to choose, but there is no way to exercise that freedom.
For man to fully exercise God-given freedom, there has to be outside of him external factors that enable him to exercise it; i.e., options, alternatives, a minimum of two. Those external factors are best and ideally represented in a democratic context where constituents are at liberty to choose their leaders, determine how their society will function with laws, freely live their religious faith, etc.
Unfortunately there are also autocratic, despotic, tyrannical, oppressive, repressive; dictatorial, totalitarian, intolerant governments which suppress individual rights and freedom, where the powerful and mighty lord it over the weak and helpless, depriving them of choice and rights.
One leader or group of leaders who are like-minded in leading for good can influence all others who are similarly-inclined to create a righteous and just society; hence the existence of democratic governments. Unfortunately, the opposite is also true in societies from which in fact, trapped citizens/members flee at risk of everything —- to experience freedom.
The ‘I’ in Idolatry (‘I am’ over God’s ‘I AM”) is bad enough in one individual will, worse in collective wills; this causes evil for all others including planet earth. Just look at the movement of multiplying misguided fanatic-terrorists who now threaten the world in the Name of their God and misuse their claimed religion’s Scriptures, victimizing even people of their own ethnicity, faith and culture.
That ‘I’ in Idolatry — that serpent of desire inside every person— is cursed by the Creator as early as Eden because of its potential to destroy all that the Creator declared as ‘good’ and ‘very good’, yet He allows it to assert itself. That ‘serpent’ lies dormant in every individual until challenged by a commandment that it refuses to yield to; it is then aroused, overpowers the opposite inclination and causes a curse (automatic and natural consequences) upon itself and others.
That ‘serpent’need not be yielded to; it could be overcome. Individuals are not helpless in overcoming it.
How do we know? God said so! Where?
The Creator’s warning to Cain in Genesis/Bereshith 4:
7 Is it not thus:
Each individual could resort to the innate inclination to do good, overcome the potential evil within himself; align his will with God’s Will, causing blessing to himself and to others.
Here’s a Navajo fable that says it so simply and shows that the wisdom of Torah is indeed written in hearts and minds of those who might never have heard of Torah (Jeremiah 31:31):
A wise grandfather explained to his grandson that the conflict inside every person is like a fight between two wolves:
One wolf is evil.
The other wolf is good.
Grandson asks “which wolf wins?”
Grandfather replies, “The wolf that you choose to feed.”
In behalf of Sinai 6000 core community,
P.S. Update 2017
We have changed our mind about this: that freedom to choose is exercised only when there is a minimum of 2 options available. Now we think — that even if there is only 1 option, freedom of choice may still be exercised. How so? Choose that one option available, or . . . refuse it! That’s still exercising freedom . . . read more in the “Readers Comment” below and leave a comment if you don’t agree.
Reader Comments