Now the serpent was more subtle

Posted on October 5, 2009 by Sam

Now the serpent was more subtle….

Subtle. This word is connected to logic. Some translate it as “crafty.” The serpent clearly manipulated the word of God. But, how did he do it?

First, the Commandment itself: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Eve’s interpretation: “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.’” “lest ye die” is in the Hophal form, which is the causitive passive. Eating from the tree will cause death. Eve has added, “neither shall ye touch it.”

The serpent: Ye shall not surely die, for God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

What’s so subtle about this direct contradiction of God’s word? Either Eve was stupid, or something crafty was going on here.

By paralleling the serpent’s words, “in the day you eat, ye shall surely die” with “in the day you eat of it your eyes shall be opened” equates “surely die” with “eyes being made open.” Death means, not loss of life, but is a good thing. Death means your eyes will be opened. Ah….subtely.

“Death” has another meaning, too. Physical expiration. To understand the commandment, Adam and Eve must have had some conception of “death.”

So, the serpent is clearly playing on the meaning of “death.” He is defining is, and, he is also stating two results: eyes will be opened, and you will be like God in the capacity of deciding what is good and what is evil. This proposition needs to be tested. So, Eve tested it. She ate. She did not die.

Adam watched as she ate, and she did not die. In fact, nothing visible happened at all. There she stood, chomping on the fruit. This must have enticed Adam. “Death” does not mean “Death” in terms of physical expiration! The serpent was right! Eve is still alive!

The subtle-ness of the argument is that the serpent used an old trick: the fallacy of equivocation. “death” has more than one meaning.

So, what did happen when Adam ate in that day? His eyes were opened. They knew shame, fear, and guilt. And, they saw that they were naked. The became like God in that they now would decide Good and Evil based upon their own rationale. They would become Law unto themselves. God is Law unto Himself. He decides Good and Evil on the basis of His self-referential knowledge. Man would now be like God and determine Good and Evil on the basis of his own self-referential knowledge. Human autonomy, the illusion of it anyway, brought human enslavement to “the death” and “the sin.”

In the end, man did die: he was separated from “the Life”, the “eternal” Life, “And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now therefore lest perhaps he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.” Separation from Life means “death.” All this happened “the day” he ate.

You see, the serpent played on the meaning Eve had for “death.” For Adam and Eve, “death” was physical expiration. The serpent, being crafty, said, no, death means your eyes will be opened. Death is a good thing. For God, “death” meant separation from Life eternal. By playing on these meanings (equivocation), Adam, seeing that Eve did not “die” the way he thought she would, was convinced and ate, too. Their natures changed. They became creatures with eyes opened, and by what they seen, felt, touched, tasted, smelled, and heard, “good and evil” would be determined. Things seen became the source of knowledge because they were both drawn away by what things seen: Eve was drawn away by what she “saw” in that fruit was desirable, and Adam was drawn away by what he saw: Eve didn’t drop to the ground. Crafty indeed.

God, on the other hand, condemned Man for perverting His word and misinterpreting his commandment. God revealed in the final act that “day” what He meant by “death in the day you eat”: loss of life; loss of eternal life. I would have gladly exchanged physical death for loss of eternal life! For, when Adam naturally expired 900 years later, the loss of eternal life followed him to sheol, the grave, the pit. He didn’t go to heaven. He was not raised from the dead. He did not enter into righteous bliss with God. He entered into a cold, dark, gloomy abyss where the conscience is barely functioning, and the others are gloomy “shades” or “shadows” (the rephaim). Unless something was done to rescue the man from this place, he would spend eternity here. Him and all his descendents, Jew and Gentile.

And, then there was Jesus……

Related Posts

“You Shall Certainly Die”: A Response to Dr. Talbot .::. Genesis 3 .::. Genesis 1 & 2 – Adam’s Death .::. Genesis 4 .::. Genesis 5

About Sam

Completed a M.A. in Christian Studies and a M.A. in Religion from Whitefield Theological Seminary, Lakeland, Florida (with combined credits in Hebrew exegesis from Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida - and in Greek exegesis from Church of God School of Theology, Cleveland, Tennessee). Author of Misplaced Hope, and Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection of the Dead. Also edited A Student's Hebrew Primer for Whitefield Theological Seminary. Samuel M. Frost co-founded Reign of Christ Ministries, and has lectured extensively for over 8 years at Preterist conferences, including the Evangelical Theological Society conference, of which he is currently a student-member. Samuel is ordained, and has functioned as Teaching Pastor at Christ Covenant Church in St. Petersburg, Florida (2002-2005). He helped host the popular debates between Don Preston and Thomas Ice (with Mark Hitchcock) and Don Preston and James B. Jordan. Samuel is widely regarded by many of his peers as being one of the foremost experts on prophecy, apocalypticism, and Preterist theology. He is currently working on a Doctor of Ministry in Theology from Vision International, Ramona, CA. Samuel Frost owns and operates his own business and resides in Florida with his wife Ann Marie, and his children, Janet, Jacob, Hunter, and Olivia.
This entry was posted in Genesis and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Rich

    Sam, Good stuff.

    You stated, "You see, the serpent played on the meaning Eve had for “death.” For Adam and Eve, “death” was physical expiration. The serpent, being crafty, said, no, death means your eyes will be opened."

    Yes, death was physical for them, and they knew they were going to die physically at some point. This is why it was such a temptation for Adam. With his "eyes opened" he thought he would have autonomy from God. He would become (in his eyes) self-sufficient, able to have life unto himself. He wasn't willing to accept that he was going to die physically. He wouldn't be obedient to the point of death (physical).

    That was the first Adam. The second Adam, however, did what the first wouldn't. He (Jesus):

    "being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name".

    -Rich

  • Rich

    Sam, Good stuff.

    You stated, "You see, the serpent played on the meaning Eve had for “death.” For Adam and Eve, “death” was physical expiration. The serpent, being crafty, said, no, death means your eyes will be opened."

    Yes, death was physical for them, and they knew they were going to die physically at some point. This is why it was such a temptation for Adam. With his "eyes opened" he thought he would have autonomy from God. He would become (in his eyes) self-sufficient, able to have life unto himself. He wasn't willing to accept that he was going to die physically. He wouldn't be obedient to the point of death (physical).

    That was the first Adam. The second Adam, however, did what the first wouldn't. He (Jesus):

    "being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name".

    -Rich

  • http://thereignofchrist.com Sam

    It changes the story when you see it from the idea that Adam, quite simply, rebelled against God, knowingly, and willingly.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/samuelmfrost Sam

    It changes the story when you see it from the idea that Adam, quite simply, rebelled against God, knowingly, and willingly.

  • http://preterism.ning.com/profile/Martin Martin

    Interesting article Sam. Let's assume for a moment that Adam properly understood the consequence of disobedience to be expulsion from the garden rather than physical death. In your scenario, he would have beheld Eve as she ate and noticed that she was both still in the garden and very much alive. His response: "Hey, you gonna eat all that?"

  • http://preterism.ning.com/profile/Martin Martin

    Interesting article Sam. Let's assume for a moment that Adam properly understood the consequence of disobedience to be expulsion from the garden rather than physical death. In your scenario, he would have beheld Eve as she ate and noticed that she was both still in the garden and very much alive. His response: "Hey, you gonna eat all that?"

  • Jim Nicolosi

    Sam…

    for a number of years, I have been of the personal opinion that the serpent in the garden was none other than Adam….as I understand it, Eve had not yet been created when God gave the instruction to Adam not to eat of the tree….he was willing to let Eve die (or suffer the consequences) in order to see if God was good on His word….that would square with the the scripture "you are of your father, the devil, he was a murderer from the beginning"…..in my book, Adam was the first murderer (in his heart), not Cain…there are references in the scripture calling men snakes…i.e. OT…Dan is a serpent….just some thoughts….I know this is an emotional subject for many so I do not openly debate it as it is my opinion….kind regards….Jim

  • Jim Nicolosi

    Sam…

    for a number of years, I have been of the personal opinion that the serpent in the garden was none other than Adam….as I understand it, Eve had not yet been created when God gave the instruction to Adam not to eat of the tree….he was willing to let Eve die (or suffer the consequences) in order to see if God was good on His word….that would square with the the scripture "you are of your father, the devil, he was a murderer from the beginning"…..in my book, Adam was the first murderer (in his heart), not Cain…there are references in the scripture calling men snakes…i.e. OT…Dan is a serpent….just some thoughts….I know this is an emotional subject for many so I do not openly debate it as it is my opinion….kind regards….Jim

  • http://thereignofchrist.com Sam

    Jim, it's not "emotional" (or at least shouldn't be). I don't want to read too much into the Adam/Eve narrative. From the text of the Hebrew, it is made quite plain that there are three actors on the stage: Adam, Eve, the Serpent. God is the Director. I don't think Jesus was using "father" there in a literal sense. First century Judaism certainly held to an idea of a literal "devil." Had Jesus meant "father" literally, the reaction in that text would have been noted. It would have been pointed out. Adam didn't "murder" Eve (defining "murder" as the deliberate taking of life). I think that is far too fanciful an interpretation.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/samuelmfrost Sam

    Jim, it's not "emotional" (or at least shouldn't be). I don't want to read too much into the Adam/Eve narrative. From the text of the Hebrew, it is made quite plain that there are three actors on the stage: Adam, Eve, the Serpent. God is the Director. I don't think Jesus was using "father" there in a literal sense. First century Judaism certainly held to an idea of a literal "devil." Had Jesus meant "father" literally, the reaction in that text would have been noted. It would have been pointed out. Adam didn't "murder" Eve (defining "murder" as the deliberate taking of life). I think that is far too fanciful an interpretation.

  • http://thereignofchrist.com Sam

    Satan being a "father" (one who concieves), and men being called "snakes" only shows their sharing in the "spirit" of rebellion. In other words, these are associative words and meanings, not one to one corresponding terms. We do not want to advocate the type of exegesis that avoids homonyms in the Bible. That is, "cat" means one thing, and another time means something else. Same word. Beyond Creation Science falls into this problem as well. It finds one word that has a meaning, then runs to every place where this same word is used, and makes that the same meaning as well, completely disregarding the context.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/samuelmfrost Sam

    Satan being a "father" (one who concieves), and men being called "snakes" only shows their sharing in the "spirit" of rebellion. In other words, these are associative words and meanings, not one to one corresponding terms. We do not want to advocate the type of exegesis that avoids homonyms in the Bible. That is, "cat" means one thing, and another time means something else. Same word. Beyond Creation Science falls into this problem as well. It finds one word that has a meaning, then runs to every place where this same word is used, and makes that the same meaning as well, completely disregarding the context.

  • http://thereignofchrist.com Sam

    Now, certainly, it is true, also, in heremenuetics, that this approach has its merits. Contexts over here can be the same as contexts over there. They can be compared and judged as definitely speaking about the same things (allusions, echoes, parallel accounts, etc). Hence, you see the word "devil" and "father" and "murder" and "beginning" and that takes you to Genesis where we see "beginning", "serpent" – we don't see "murder" and"father." Since, though, "beginning and "serpent/devil" match, why not read "murder" and "father" into the narrative as well coming to the conclusion, "Adam was the first murderer, the devil, the serpent, who killed Eve in the beginning."

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/samuelmfrost Sam

    Now, certainly, it is true, also, in heremenuetics, that this approach has its merits. Contexts over here can be the same as contexts over there. They can be compared and judged as definitely speaking about the same things (allusions, echoes, parallel accounts, etc). Hence, you see the word "devil" and "father" and "murder" and "beginning" and that takes you to Genesis where we see "beginning", "serpent" – we don't see "murder" and"father." Since, though, "beginning and "serpent/devil" match, why not read "murder" and "father" into the narrative as well coming to the conclusion, "Adam was the first murderer, the devil, the serpent, who killed Eve in the beginning."

  • http://thereignofchrist.com Sam

    I just think that when one looks at this, it does appear to be a bit of a stretch to string all of that together. The more it appears to stretch, probably the more better judgment is that we are doing something to the text that simply was not intended by the author(s). At least one caveat is clear: I wouldn't be dogmatic on what you are saying here. It could not enter into the category. It's an opinion, an imaginative attempt, and colorful, but perhaps, unlikely.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/samuelmfrost Sam

    I just think that when one looks at this, it does appear to be a bit of a stretch to string all of that together. The more it appears to stretch, probably the more better judgment is that we are doing something to the text that simply was not intended by the author(s). At least one caveat is clear: I wouldn't be dogmatic on what you are saying here. It could not enter into the category. It's an opinion, an imaginative attempt, and colorful, but perhaps, unlikely.

  • http://thereignofchrist.com Sam

    You can only post so many words on these posts! Hence, the several replies, sorry. One thing I do see, though, is that, taking the devil as a real person, Jesus flatly says "he was a murderer from the beginning." The term "from the beginning" certainly brings us to Genesis. It would suggest that the serpent was "created" as such (Genesis 3:1). He never "fell." The devil was created as "crafty" and a murderer. God made him that way. Chew on that! Thanks Jim.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/samuelmfrost Sam

    You can only post so many words on these posts! Hence, the several replies, sorry. One thing I do see, though, is that, taking the devil as a real person, Jesus flatly says "he was a murderer from the beginning." The term "from the beginning" certainly brings us to Genesis. It would suggest that the serpent was "created" as such (Genesis 3:1). He never "fell." The devil was created as "crafty" and a murderer. God made him that way. Chew on that! Thanks Jim.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Mazuur Mazuur

    "Satan being a "father" (one who concieves),"

    Genesis 3:14-15

    " 14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
    “Cursed are you above all the livestock
    and all the wild animals!
    You will crawl on your belly
    and you will eat dust
    all the days of your life.
    15 And I will put enmity
    between you and the woman,
    and between your offspring and hers"

    That verse just popped into my head as I read your post.

    Concerning BCS. It isn't as simply as that Sam and you know it. :)

    -Rich

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Mazuur Mazuur

    "Satan being a "father" (one who concieves),"

    Genesis 3:14-15

    " 14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
    “Cursed are you above all the livestock
    and all the wild animals!
    You will crawl on your belly
    and you will eat dust
    all the days of your life.
    15 And I will put enmity
    between you and the woman,
    and between your offspring and hers"

    That verse just popped into my head as I read your post.

    Concerning BCS. It isn't as simply as that Sam and you know it. :)

    -Rich

  • Anonymous

    Hi Sam,
    Do you have the Strong's number for 'rephaim' or a verse reference? I couldn't find it with that spelling. Thanks.

    Robin

  • MoGrace2u

    Hi Sam,
    Do you have the Strong's number for 'rephaim' or a verse reference? I couldn't find it with that spelling. Thanks.

    Robin

  • http://thereignofchrist.com Sam

    Rich….somehow you got in between my posts…but, respond to the whole thing. No, I know it is not that simple, but see what I wrote further, then we can chat on it, brother!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/samuelmfrost Sam

    Rich….somehow you got in between my posts…but, respond to the whole thing. No, I know it is not that simple, but see what I wrote further, then we can chat on it, brother!

  • Jim Nicolosi

    Sam…like I said, it is an opinion….I did a three year study of evil and came to the personal conclusion that the traditionally taught material on satan left something (read great quantity) to be desired, especially in the first part of Romans where it calls men “the inventors of evil”….as Arthur Melanson said….”if the Romans statement is true, where does that leave satan?”….and this was long before I met John Anderson…I met in the early '90s with a woman by the name of Meta King who was 98 years old at the time….she was a former Sunday school who questioned why God would creat an entity to trip up man….she had done a tremendous amount of work which she put in a book (which I think I still have a copy of)…I don't believe she quite made her point but she raised enough questions to cause me to do my own research…..I chose Satan entering Judas as the test case and was able to satify my self that it was not an entity that demon-possessed Judas but rather something else….again, my own opinion based on my own hermenutical work…kind regards…Jim

  • http://thereignofchrist.com Sam

    Jim,

    that's fine. It's not that God would invent an “entity” that would trip up mankind. The Law did that. Without Law there is no sin, and without command, Adam would have not fallen. The Law was the vehicle through which the knowledge of Good and Evil came….The heart is evil. Man trips himself up. But, we know who made the Law, and we know who made the knowledge of Good and Evil in the Tree. God did. Satan did not “invent” evil. God did. “He has become like one of us, knowing Good and Evil.” Evil was in the mind of God, for God knows all things. He knows what is truly evil and what is truly good, and in his knowing of evil, he is righteous in that he does no evil. Satan was what his name suggests: accuser, prosecutor. I think he was “the angel of death” as well. He prosecuted the case against God's people in the courtroom of God (Job). He had a specific role in terms of Law (prosecutor of Law). Now that the Torah is fulfilled, he has no more purpose. Now that Christ has come, there is no more accusation he can make. His head was crushed.

    What, then, do we make of the evil we see today and in history since the parousia? “Knowledge”. Evil is not a “force”. Evil is knowledge. People do evil things because they are acting on evil knowledge. “Out of the heart comes murder, sorcercy, evil thoughts….” Hence, “planners of evil” in Roman 1 (don't read too much into the Greek word, often translated “inventors” – don't read “originators”). We are not dealing with a “force” or a “enitity”. We are dealing with knowledge, evil knowledge. It erects itself up against “the knowledge of Christ.” It is evil when it comes to planning government offices, when it comes to ruling over peoples, when it comes to money, when it comes to laws and peace keeping efforts. God's Law has an answer to these things. God's Law is supreme. God's Law hold evil men accountable. We are witnessing the effects of evil and ill-devised schemes today in our own land.

    Thus, I think Satan was a prosecutor, an accuser before the courts (he was a lawyer!) lol. He had a case, and was awarded victory for a time by God (remember, God is King and runs the whole show, He's duh Judge!). When the Law (which stood against us) was fulfilled (not removed, just fulfilled), his role was finished. Why have him around anymore? This is another problem with futurism. If Christ fulfilled the Law, why is satan still around? What's his purpose? He can't accuse us anymore……

    Just some thoughts.

  • Jim Nicolosi

    Sam…

    The case of Job presents some interesting considerations….the land of Uz, if I have correctly understood OT geographical maps, was not located in the land given to the 12 tribes of Israel…that begs the question as to whether Job was a Jew or not….it could be postulated that he was not….the “satan” or “adversary” in Job may well have been a jealous Jew who was dumbfounded/jealous that God was blessing a non-Jew who honored Him….and the scene, usually supposed to be in the heavenly realm, may well have been in the earthly realm as God resided in the ark of the convenant in the tent….an earthly structure….the term”sons of God” can easily be demonstrated to be simply men who were believers….again, just my opinion formed from study…..kr….Jim

  • rod smith

    ADAM is the serpent who became wicked in Genesis 3:1. God is using the SERPENT as PERSONIFICATION for crooked, lying, and wicked behavior. This is easily proved if we read Psalm 58:3 “The WICKED are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a SERPENT” We must let SCRIPTURE interpret SCRIPTURE. You can't make up your OWN meaning for the SERPENT. Let psalm 58:3 do it for you. So then in Gen 4: ADAM knew EVE. They produced Cain and Abel. They are the SEED of the SERPENT ADAM. God put enmity between Cain and Abel, as a punishment on the SERPENT ADAM. We don;t have ANY OTHER possibilities. The ONLY people in the garder were the MAN and the WOMAN. What is so hard about. Rom 5:12 says “Whereas by ONE MAN,, sin entered into the world. Obviously this Man was ADAM, for Death reigned from ADAM to Moses.Rom 5:14. Why do you still insist on puting the blame on some fallen angel. There are some serious consequences for this blasphemy.as laid out in Jude 7-8 Those that SPEAK EVIL of DIGNITIES will suffer the VENGEANCE of eternal fire. Read it for yourself. Why put your soul at such great risk?. Where is the benefit in believing in FALLEN ANGELS? God is trying desperately to make us aware of the GRAVITY of our sin by using words like SATAN, DEVIL, SERPENT, DRAGON.etc. Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? isa 33:14. I hope and pray that you, my friend will escape this terrible state. Amen.

  • http://thereignofchrist.com Sam

    Jason, ROFL….how did this insanity make it through?

  • Understandingtheword

    I love the story of Adam and Eve eating the tree of “knowledge” of Good and evil. I believe this tree may quite possibly represent the law of GOd, by the law is “knowledge of Sin”, or knowledge of good and evil. When they ate of this tree, their eyes were opened. The pharisees said they could see, therefore their sin remained according to Jesus in the scripture. Paul did not teach the law for salvation, he said he “knows” nothing but Christ and him crucified. HE also said I “know” nothing by myself, yet am I not hereby justified. We are justified by not knowing good and evil, by not following the law of works for salvation. The commandments are teaching us to trust in Jesus for salvation alone through faith. For example, the bible commands us not to lie. The spiritual definition of a liar according to 1 John 2:22 is one who denies Jesus is the Christ Therefore, when we believe JEsus is the Christ, we are no longer liars. Therefore, the commandment not to lie means for us not to deny JEsus is the Christ through unbelief. This commandments as all others is a commandment to believe in JEsus. When the law is seen by faith as this comandment not to lie, the commandments all mean to trust in Jesus through faith. When the law is seen in this spiritual manner, we know longer know what is right or wrong, only to believe in JEsus. AS Paul said I know nothing but Christ, was he lying? HE had abundant revelation. Paul knew the law, but he seen it was spiritual pointing only to faith in Christ. We must all study to show ourselves approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Here is a great bible study website that unlocks the hidden, spiritual wisdom of the word of God.

blog comments powered by Disqus