[This is part of the 4-posts in connection with the post: Q&A: “If the devil doesn’t exist, how come the snake/serpent in the story was punished by the Creator for tempting Eve?” This was first posted June 27, 2012. —-Admin1]
—————————————
There is a whole series on the topic of no devil, no fallen angels in this website — please read those articles first so you know what to expect here: the same message that we cannot blame non-existent evil spirits for making us sin, we do a pretty good job without outside help.
So, if the “serpent” in Genesis 3 is neither the devil nor ha satan [the challenger, the adversary, who obediently carries out specific assignments from the Creator], then who is this serpent character or what does this character represent? To answer this, one has to decide how to read this narrative: literally or figuratively?
The best recourse? Read both ways, how?
It is literal in the sense that there were indeed a first man and a first woman; in Hebrew, “adam” is the word for earth or dust, meaning man made from the earth. But since we, readers in the English language, don’t know that, we accept the translators’ rendering of that first man as “Adam” and in fact, many men are named Adam. It was Adam who was given by the Creator the privilege of naming all creatures and so he names Eve— in classical Hebrew Hawwa or in modern Hebrew Khavah meaning “living one” or “source of life” and “mother all living.” What we think are names are actually descriptive words giving the essence of what identifies the person.
It is literal in that there was a reason for the first couple to have been expelled from Eden. What exactly happened? It was time for God to test man’s free will. The test takes the form of a specific prohibition — we know how that story progresses and ends.
Here’s the figurative part: think of the serpent character as simply a good literary device, a personification if you will, of the alternative choice that every person is confronted with upon learning of any commandment from God that conflicts with his desire, that is an inconvenient truth for him, that he simply does not want to do. We all can relate to that—the expression “we have our demons,” meaning we have instincts or strong urges that we allow to defeat us, could also be expressed as “we have our serpents of desire.”
Why use an animal such as a serpent? Why not use a visually attractive peacock, or innocent looking pussycat? Because if you watch Animal Kingdom or Discovery Channel which constantly feature snakes and their beastly nature, you will realize that while you can’t stand looking at snakes, upclose on TV, they are truly gorgeous creatures with an animal life that is fascinating . . . the way they move slithering on the ground, wrapping themselves up around branches; they moult or change their skin, and when provoked, protect themselves by striking back with a poisonous bite that leaves their victim condemned to die. What a perfect symbol indeed for this part of man’s nature that comes to fore only when awakened by, in Eve’s case, a prohibition she is inclined to violate.
Playwrights resort to similar devices, for example: in Shakespeare’s plays, soliloquy [an act of speaking one’s thoughts aloud when by oneself or regardless of any hearers, esp. by a character in a play] allows the audience to follow the trend of thought or struggle of a protagonist such as Hamlet’s “To be or not to be . . .” Another example — in a modern film about the Filipino national hero Dr. Jose Rizal— a scene shows Rizal writing the sequel to his first novel Noli Me Tangere [Touch Me Not]. The playwright effectively portrayed what was going on in Rizal’s mind regarding a character in his first novel named Basilio. Rizal was contemplating whether he would kill off this character or include him in the sequel. An imaginary Basilio was portrayed by another actor as circling Rizal as he wrote with quill on parchment, giving him reasons why he should be included in the sequel El Filibusterismo [The Filibuster]. It is a very effective way to depict inner struggle of characters.
Think of the interaction between Eve and the serpent in the same way: God’s one and only prohibition arouses in Eve a desire for something she knows she is not allowed to have. Free will that may not have been apparent in her consciousness before is suddenly apparent now, as she is attracted to the forbidden tree. She debates in her mental and rational faculties whether to obey God or give in to her growing desire and curiosity. That serpent character is the outward projection of Eve’s desire to violate; she could have done a soliloquy just like Hamlet but instead the literary device of a tempter in the form of a serpent is used. Plain and simple!
What will prevail, her wants or God’s? She chooses “I, me, myself” over God, and Adam chooses Eve as well as “I, me, myself” over God. Is this a universal struggle? Absolutely. Every person is confronted with the same dilemma: if I give in to my wants, I sin against God; if I give in to God’s wants, I deprive myself of something I really want. . . but there is no struggle for those who have learned to align their lives with God’s instructions and teachings and laws, that would be Torah.
Continued in Prooftext 1c: Who are the “seeds”?
NSB@S6K
Reader Comments