Genesis 3:1-5 Bible Teaching

WELCOME TO THE CLASSROOM
PRAYER
SONG
SILENCE

Genesis 3.1-5
April 10th 2022

For I am not Ashamed of the Gospel of Christ

So, the heavens and the earth have been created, all the animals, Man in God’s image – male and female created He them.

They are naked in the Garden and we left off with them not being ashamed of this nakedness. We now come to chapter 3 and are immediately introduced to another Garden of Eden character. So, let’s read as Moses writes:

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, “Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

Some chunks of important information here folks, so let’s go back to verse 1 and, as often happens, I am going to bring it all forward and place it on the table so that you can decide what you believe.

This one might serve to open your eyes today or slam them shut – let’s hope for the truth.

What is the standard understanding of this story? We have seen it in books, art, films and referenced in music.

Adam and Eve were in a garden, Satan in and through a snake or as the serpent itself offered them an apple, and Eve being tempted ate it.

Sorry, no. So let’s explore some reasons why by re-reading verse 1 as it says:

3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Isn’t it interesting that Moses just includes the serpent here into the mix without any explanation of origin?

The Tanakh reads,

“Now the serpent was cunning, more than all the beasts of the field that the Lord God had made, and it said to the woman, “Did God indeed say, ‘You shall not eat of any of the trees of the garden?'”

So, in that case this serpent was an “it,” not a “her or a he,” and from all appearances this material serpent was the
More cunning that all the beasts of the field that the Lord God had made.

This implies that the serpent was a created beast of the field which is why Moses says this but some suggest that we do not need to read that added line this way and that all Moses was doing was comparing this serpent (whatever it was) against all the animals God had made.

Most see the serpent as an animal instrument or tool of a higher agent, namely Satan or the devil, who, from our account in Ezekiel, was present in the Garden of Eden, but it is doubtful that now he was in His heavenly form of beauty but instead took over the body of this serpent.

Interestingly, Revelation refers to Satan as “the dragon, that old serpent” and so we see a consistent appeal to Satan through this covering he assumed when tempting Adam and Eve.

And while Moses doesn’t mention this serpent as necessarily “evil or Satan,” the apostolic record repeatedly lays the scene in Eden at his feet as the author of the plot. That is why we read in

1st John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

2nd Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

So again, because of the Apostolic Record we know that Satan was the one tempting Eve, and Moses describes him as more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.

To me, this could have been Satan directly, described and compared by Moses as the craftiest and most cunning animal of all ever created or perhaps it was simply Satan in an animal.

Because God will curse the serpent it seems that the serpent that is cursed, if an animal, had at the time, the choice to allow Satan to use him or herself for his purposes – otherwise why would God curse an animal that Satan just came in and overpowered?

On the other hand, if this serpent was simply Satan himself without a disguise this once glorious cherub sent to protect the couple from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, it makes some sense that Eve would not be surprised by him speaking with her and having conversation.

So we have a choice – was this just Satan, whom Eve was accustomed to seeing in the Garden, even trusted him and was conversing with him after he fell OR was this Satan speaking through an animal?

You decide. But the facts do not make the decision easy.

Of course, standard fair for the creature Satan inhabited is a “dragon-serpent-snake” creature and this is based, of course, on the word, serpent, and due to the fact that they slither, bite and crawl insidiously upon the ground as tricky creatures.
Add in that many human beings are naturally fearful of reptiles and we have progressed forward with the narrative being that “a snake tempted Eve with an apple.”

I happen to think that the fruit was a fig, but nobody can really say. But what was this creature that Satan appears to have embodied?

The last chapter ended with a short but striking account of the perfection and open liberty the first human beings had, not being ashamed in it but this chapter opens with the telling of their transgression, degradation, and ruin.

But seriously, what was the serpent? Of what variety? And how and why did Satan have the ability to use this specific creation (over others) and of all the creations of the field does a snake best fit the narrative?

Emotionally, we love a snake being the creature – and that is the story we have been told, right? So, let’s first ask – “Was this tale allegory or is it a tale of simple facts?”

If it has true historical relations, we ought to investigate the literal meaning. But if it is an allegory, meaning Satan was Satan but is labeled a serpent and compared to the beasts God created in the field then we ought to just read it and make no effort to interpret it with any degree of accuracy because nobody can say, right?

As we said a few weeks back, I believe that one of the cherubs, beautifully created, looked upon the creation of Man (male and female) and turned from his assignment as “protector to that of a defector” and he chose to use its powers of persuasion to get human beings to Fall.

However if this is literal, and because the operator behind it was the heavenly created angel that fell, it appears that it had to assume some sort of physical house to relate with Eve and where scripture calls this house “a serpent” I happen to wonder. Let me explain.

The Hebrew text translated into Greek is called the Septuagint. When the apostolic record was written, most of the citings from the Old Testament were not from the Hebrew but from the Septuagint translation. This will play a role in what I am about to say.

Let me also inform you that what I am about to say is not from me but from Adam Clarke and his commentary on this passage. I just happen to agree more with it that anything else. So, if you are going to go ape over this blame him. He gave me the idea, and I did believe.

In any case the word used in the text which we, following the Septuagint, translate to “serpent,” is

“Nachash”

If you look up nachash in a Hebrew Lexicon it will probably say, snake. But nachash has a few distinct meanings – all of which are really important to our understanding of the word.

First, it signifies “to view or observe attentively,” and to “acquire knowledge by experience.”

Keep those definations tucked away for a minute.

Secondly, nachash means, “brass or brazen,” and is translated in our Bible, not only brass, but chains, fetters, fetters of brass, and in several places steel.

Third, nachash means filthiness or fornication in once place (Ezekiel 16:36)

And fourth, it signifies a “serpent,” but of what kind is not said. For example in Job 26:13, it seems to mean the whale or hippopotamus.

Fifth, in Ecclesiastes 10:11, there is a creature called nachash that is described as “a babbler.”

In Isaiah 27:1, the crocodile or alligator seems particularly meant by the original:
and in Isaiah 65:25, the same creature is meant as in Genesis 3:1, as Isaiah writes,

“And dust shall be the serpent’s meat,” so there is an evident reference to what Moses wrote in these words.

In Amos 9:3, the crocodile is evidently intended through the use, “nachash,” and not a snake as it says:

“Though they be hid in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and he shall bite them.”

So, right out the gate we have to wonder how a snake fits most of these descriptions the word nachash is translated too – which is nine various things, including:

An animal that lives under water.
One that eats from dust the ground.
An alligator or leviathan.
A babbler.
Whale or hippopotomas
Filthiness or fornication
Brazen or bold
Brass or steel or metal of some kind
Something that is extremely observant

Perhaps the word “nachash” was used to describe the animal that best fit the general term itself, which is more often than not, “a careful observer.”

So let’s go out a little farther and examine the root to see if there is an ideal meaning that will help us determine the animal intended in the text.

As stated, the most COMMON meaning of the word nacash in scripture is “to view attentively, to acquire knowledge or experience by attentive observation.”

This suggests a thinking creature with the capacity to learn. In the Septuagint nacash is translated ophis, which is usually translated “serpent.” But its more focused meaning is “acute eyesight, or something that sees really well, again, something that observes keenly,” which is the most common definition of nachash in the Old Testament.

Because the New Testament writers, who seldom quote the Old Testament but from the Septuagint translation, do not change even a word in their quotations, we really don’t get anything by the Septuagint translation of the text. So, we look to more insights instead from root word origins.

And because Arabic is so similar to Hebrew we can appeal to it for potential insight.

And the root in Arabic which is nearly similar to that in the Hebrew text appears to cast some light on the term. How?

ON BOARD

Hebrew – nachash = ??? (
Arabic – chanas = ??? to draw away or se
Khanansa – ??? seduced
Khanas = ??? Devil (because he seduces)

The Arabic word “chanas” or “khanasa” means “departed, drew off, lay hid, seduced, slunk away” and from this root term that is so close to the Hebrew comes the Arabic word akhnas, khanasa, and khanoos, which all related to . . . apes or simian creatures.

It is quite remarkable also that from the same root comes [Arabic] khanas, the DEVIL, which appellative he bears from that meaning of [Arabic] khanasa, he drew off, seduced, &c., because he draws men off from righteousness, seduces.

It’s sort of interesting that that the devil and the ape should have very close to the same name in Arabic, derived from the same root, and that root so very similar to the Hebrew word in our text.

So let us return and consider what is said of the creature in question.

Now the nachash was more subtle, (more wise, cunning, or prudent) than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.

In this account we find,

1. That whatever this nachash was, he stood at the head of all other animals in cunning, wisdom, prudence or understanding.

2. That it walked erect, for this is necessarily implied in his punishment of having (after the fall) to go “on thy belly (i.e., on all fours).

3. That it was originally endowed with the ability to speak, for a conversation is here had between it and the woman.

4. That it also was endowed with the gift of reason, for we find him reasoning and disputing with Eve.

5. That these things were apparently common to this creature and the way it was made and we can say this because the woman has zero surprise to be talking to it.

Apparently Eve had seen this creature or Satan walking upright, talking, and reasoning, and therefore she is not recorded anywhere of being surprise when he accosts her in the language Moses gives! In fact, it seems very very matter of fact, that this animal was upright, talking and reasoning.

Had this creature never been known to speak before his addressing the woman at this time and on this subject, I think it would have scared the heck out of her and she would have asked it, “how is it you speak? And she would have been really cautious as a result.

So, let’s think about this. Do you realized that none of these things mentioned are easily assigned to a snake.

First, snakes are proven to have always slid around on their bellies. In fact, the very name serpent comes from “serpo,” meaning “to creep,” and therefore to such it could be neither curse nor punishment for them to have to after the fall go about on their bellies, right? (unless they used to walk upright?)

Second, snake have no natural organs for speech or any other kind of mouths to articulate sound; they can only hiss.

Even in the case of the Donkey talking to Balaam , at least the donkey has a tongue, lips and teeth. But a snake?

Of course, some people will appeal to the default of, “well God can cause anything to talk,” but remember, GOD was not moving this creature to speech, Satan was, and I therefore think that an animal with the appropriated parts for talk was chosen and used!

Quite frankly, we are not even told that Satan got the animal to talk so it could be that it already could – so talking, walking and reasoning were, perhaps, natural to nachawsh – prior to the fall.

Remember, Moses, said, that the “nachash was more subtle or intelligent or wise than all the beasts of the field that the Lord God had made?”

We have long made snakes the sneakiest slithering creature of the animal kingdom, but is this the result of our giving it these attributes because there are other animals of the field far more intelligent, reasonable and cunning than snakes?

Animals that learn by experience and observation. Animals that babble all the time.

I went online and research what are the most intelligent of all land animals and guess what popped up – a picture of an orangutang!.

I double checked through a reputable zoologist site. Yep. Ye old monkey tops the list.

And taking all we know so far, the Orangutang is beating out Mr. Snake by a longshot.

Simians or primates are known for their ability to focus and observe things closely as a means to learn, and remember this is a synonym for nacawsh; they also have the mouths, teeth and tongues for speech, they have the torso for walking upright, and they are known in the animal kingdom for being supremely tricky, conniving and having a pretty acute sense of humor. And all of this is post fall. Could it be prefill monkeys were far more skilled than we want to believe? But Snakes? I don’t think so.

So under the skin of this creature Satan lay hid, and by this creature he seduced our first parents, then drew off or slunk away from every eye (but the eye of God).

Such a creature answers to every part of the description in the text and it is evident from the structure of its limbs and their muscles that it might have been originally designed to walk erect.

Zoologist have determined that the anatomy of an “ouran outang,” especially related to males and the seminal vessels that pass through their crotch is exactly as humans and some argue that they were originally designed to walk upright.

So being obliged now to walk on all fours as a punishment of the fall and to gather their food from ground grubs.

Add in the other words that are translated from nachawsh – including babbler – I think we have a better understanding of the creature Satan used to do His bidding.

To ask why the New Testament writers appear to lose sight of the animal or instrument used in the temptation is it seems that their borrowing from the Septugint is one reason, and that the main reason is they focus on Satan himself being the main instrument of all evil and not the creature used to do his bidding.

This is not a article of faith or something to disagree over, but to me condemning a snake to going on his belly all the days of its life is a foregone conclusion – but not so with the ape.

So back to verse 1

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”

That’s a pretty remarkable opener isn’t it? He cites some from the mouth of God but there’s no, “but of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil thou shalt not eat.”

We also read that he said this “unto the woman” who was obviously the object of His focus. Perhaps she was only in the world a short time at this point. And remember, she was not there when God told Adam what trees he could eat from and what trees were forbidden. Maybe the serpent saw her as an easier target instead of Adam.

Whatever the case it seems Eve had been taught by Him and I say this because of what she says in return. Verse 2.

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

So she affirms the veracity of the truncated statement the beast delivers to her but adds to her response

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

We notice some little diversions from what God told Adam. First, after saying of the forbidden fruit, “Ye shall not eat of it,” she adds, “neither shall ye touch it.”

That was a mistake. But where did it come from? Many people think she made it up and that it was her error but I don’t think so. I think Adam told her this. Taught her this. Why do I think this? I don’t know. So, I could be dead wrong. But it seems to me that he was the first person on the scene, and since he was the one that God taught, he was responsible for the proper dissemination of the information given. To me, and as a means to emphasize the need to stay away from the forbidden fruit, Adam is the one who added to the warning God gave him – maybe as a means to protect her – but in the end, I think it only served to contribute to her choice to rebel.

Among the Jews some suggest that Satan used this unauthorized addition from Eve to his advantage, and that he in some way had the fruit make contact with her skin, and then showing her that there was no death in touching it convinced her that there was no death in the eating of it either – and she believed him.

The second thing we notice is her paraphrase of the words, “in the day you eat of it you will surely die,” as she simply says, “lest you die.”

So, we have Adam being told that if he ate of it he would surely die (mooth mooth in the Hebrew)

And we have Eve saying that they shouldn’t eat of it because they would die if they did (pane mooth)

And Satan repeating back to her that she would, “not shall not surely die.” (mooth mooth)

Why the subtle difference from Eve? And why would Satan quote what Adam was told and not repeat what Eve says?

We know Satan is super cunning and uses all things to his advantage. A Rabbinical writing suggests that Eve was under the belief that the fruit contained something that made it poisonous to humans. To her eating it and touching it would result in the actual fruit harming them physically.

She knew that their bodies operated on food from the trees, and I am assuming understood hunger as a result.

Perhaps she came to this conclusion on her own or perhaps Adam unintentionally mislead her as a means to keep her from it that the fruit would harm them physically. Whatever the motive, Satan cited what God had said to Adam – which perhaps she knew too.

And so the net effect of all of this was she added that they couldn’t even touch it, and then misquotes how it could harm them, and Satan properly quotes what God actually says, and perhaps she had by this time touched the fruit (and was unharmed) and hearing Satan correctly cite the original command, she was fooled into trusting him.

And here is where the Father of Lies steps right in and says when she says eating it could kill her

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

The emphasis of this statement could make it say that he said, “Obviously, ye shall not surely die” (meaning, you’ve touched it and you are okay, so obviously).

And the liar, through the nachash, slips in a complete lie with a complete truth!

You will not surely die (lie lie lie) however (Verse 5)

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (truth – mixed with more error)

And herein lies the power of Dark seduction. It is rarely ever pure obfuscation but almost always an admixture of great truth and very subtle lies.

That combination makes the best delusions, the best falsehoods and the best cons. In fact, the more truth present in a lie, the better the con because it is the most CONvincing.

That is why the best counterfeit gospels contain so much good, so many biblical principles, but it’s the 1% of evil that makes 99% of the truth unimportant.

I mean we don’t want surgical tools 80% clean, we don’t want our airplanes 90% sound, we want things operating at 100%. And from this early exchange with the personification of Dark seduction we see the means by which it operates.

CONvincing people using the truth mixed with lies. People often ask how are so many people persuaded by the religious cons in the world?

The response is the same: “they contain an awful lot of good, truth and light. But this is why we do not hook our eternal wagons to religion but to Him who is the Truth with a capital T.” Not teachings of Him, not Him as the poster boy for a faith, Him and Him alone – directly.

For this reason we study to learn of Him, and His true identity, by the Spirit, to come to a knowledge of the truth with Him being the Truth with a capital T
.
So, let’s wrap up with verse 5 where the Nachash says

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Notice that Satan takes God’s name in vain here? That he cites what God supposedly knows, but does not give the full recitation. If he had he would have said something like,

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil, and you will experience from this knowledge pains and trials like no other, and you will live lives of sorrow and toil and despair as you watch those you love die – even at the hands of those you love.

But no. Satan short-stops the information and sells it as one big beautiful package to the woman. In the name of God. This is the first example of taking the name of God in vain. It’s was used to teaching something untrue.

Now, when Satan says that “your eyes shall be opened and you shall be as the God’s knowing Good and Evil,” Elohim is the word here, but the Jews often recite this as “you shall be as the angels.”

We know that Elohim is the plural of God’s and so what this is promising is that she would have wisdom of kings, rulers, magistrates.

One ancient translation here makes Elohim singular (the Syriac) and reads, “you shall be like God” with a capital G-O-D, and some suggest that this is the true meaning.

We can’t be sure but what we can be sure about is that in the day she ate of the fruit

Her eyes would be opened, and she would be as God or the gods, knowing good and evil.

The object of the Apish-articulate “standin upright tempter” appears to have been this – to persuade our first parents that they should, by eating of this fruit, become wise and powerful as God, (for knowledge is power,) and to therefore be able to exist for ever, independently of him because they would be LIKE HIM.

Not HIM – but like Him. Interestingly, this was the motivation behind Satan which caused Him to fall.

Remember what we read in Ezekiel about him?

Ezekiel 28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

And Isaiah 14:13-15 says this about Satan

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

In the case of Satan, and now in the case of Satan tempting the woman with what drove him to his demise, we have both the cherub through pride, and now Man, with a desire to be like God.

Both would fall. We will later read of a civilization striving to reach God through a building. It and they would fall.

In Satan’s case, God said that he would “cast him to the ground.” In the case of the woman and man, they too, because of their efforts to be like God in knowledge and wisdom and power (for that is what was being promised to her here) they would be brought low.

Interestingly, the desire to rise and be like God is part of His intentions for us – but only by and through His ways and not our own.

Satan tried his way.
Eve will try her way.
Babel will try its way.

But God says, if you humble yourselves before me, I WILL LIFT YOU UP.

All of these chose to do it by their own power and wisdom.

And from this we return to the principle for us – even in this modern age.

Are our hearts focused on being like God, and in this effort trying to assume a powerful reign over what is not ours to reign over?

Are we feasting from the forbidden tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, becoming wise in the world, mighty in power and sway, as a means to lift ourselves in anyway possible to a throne suited only to Him?

In this narrative we have the heart of the matter that appears to be eternal in nature, present with beautifully created cherubs and present in those made in His image –

To rise up and be Him or to be submitted to Him and let Him do the raising.

It all begins in the heart.

Satan was created beautifully and was seen so until sin was found IN him.

Adam and Eve were created right and good. Until Eve saw that the fruit (that was forbidden) could make her wise like God, knowing good and evil through a source that was both forbidden by Him and would lead to her demise.

Do we want to be lifted up through our own efforts and ways or through Him and His. That is the question.

When it is from Him the elevation is good, right, pure and holy, with Him getting the glory and we getting heavenly wisdom through patience, humility and trust in the Lord – it cannot be obtained in any other means.

But if we choose the short-cut, and pursue knowledge and power (meaning wisdom) of Good and Evil, wisdom that is of this world, wisdom that empowers us here and now, which is wisdom that does not give the glory to God we are in trouble.

That is what Satan sought and that is what Satan was tempting the Woman with.

We will see next week what happens – even though we already know because it happens to all of us.
Questions
Comments
Prayer

Prayers for Melissa – surgeries, well being healing and full recovery