Ambiguity, Misinterpretation, and Self-Determination: Considering the Fall

00:00 - James Spencer (Host)
Like the woman in Genesis 3, we often face these situations where truth and lies are hard to distinguish and sin thrives in that ambiguity, twisting God's goodness into something questionable, convincing us that the paradise that God has provided is actually a prison, we start to understand the depths of our own rebellion, of our own desire to direct our own lives.

00:20 - Speaker 2 (None)
Welcome to PREPPED, the podcast that equips you to live out God's story, not the world's story. Hosted by James Spencer, phd, each episode bridges the gap between academic insights and everyday life, preparing you to understand the Word of God and put it into practice. Whether you're diving into biblical studies, looking for ministry guidance or aiming to deepen your faith, PREPPED empowers you to think biblically and theologically in a world that encourages you not to Ready to get PREPPED. Subscribe now and transform the way you bring God's story into the world.

00:54 - James Spencer (Host)
Hey everybody, I feel like I've been teasing this episode for a while, but welcome to PREPPED, the podcast where we dive into biblical and theological topics to help you think more deeply about scripture. I'm your host, James Spencer, and today we're exploring one of the most foundational and complex passages in the Bible Genesis 3, 1 through 7. This is about the fall. That's what I mean when I say I think I've been teasing this for the last few weeks. We've been talking a little bit about different aspects of the creation narrative in the fall and different things, and so now we're finally going to address Genesis 3, 1 through 7. And I will just say, as a disclaimer, this is one of my favorite passages in all of the Bible. I've studied it multiple times throughout my academic career and it's just one of those that I always come back to and I find something new in every time. So this passage is going to narrate the temptation and fall of humanity, but it also you know details a little bit more than that. It's more than just the fall of humankind. I think there's much more in this narrative than we often give it credit for, and in these seven verses we're gonna get a lot of insight into what's going on, how we could read the scriptures. I often use this in sort of a basic Bible study or Bible reading methods. It's one of the narratives that I go to to help people understand how to read the scriptures. I think it's just got some really great elements to it that we're gonna go through, but today we're gonna focus on four key aspects of the passage. The first one is the ambiguity of the serpent. The second one is the translation and the significance of the serpent's initial question. The third is the woman's response and connection to clean and unclean legislation. And finally, we're going to look at the recurring biblical pattern of seeing good and taking, and these elements don't just tell us about the fall. They expose dynamics of temptation and trust and chaos that still resonate today. So let's get started. So the first thing we want to do is we want to think about the ambiguity of the serpent, and so the serpent in Genesis 3 is described as crafty. That translation is kind of rough because crafty in our language automatically assumes something evil, and so my encouragement for most people when they read this is don't go into it as if you know the rest of the story, right. Don't go into it assuming that you know that the serpent is evil, even though you do Try to suspend that understanding and read the Bible from the serpent is.

03:18
The Hebrew word for translated crafty or shrewd is arum, and arum isn't necessarily a bad characteristic. It's a Hebrew word that does hold a certain ambiguity. It can be used in different ways in different contexts, and while crafty does carry that negative connotation in English, the Hebrew arum is far more nuanced. It can mean shrewd, or prudent or wise, depending on the context. So, for example, in Proverbs we see this term used positively. You know Proverbs 12, 23,. It says a prudent arum man conceals knowledge, and I tend to think that the ambiguity is significant for the narrative.

04:01
Now, there's a couple of reasons, probably, that arum is used here. One is this ambiguity, but just to be real, as we get to Genesis 3, 7, and we see that the man and the woman have eaten and they find that they are naked and they hide themselves. That word for naked is arumim, and so you have this interesting Hebrew wordplay that comes out really well in the original languages but that is completely missing from our English language. We can't quite figure out how to translate this arum in the first line with the arumim in the last line and make that work. But I think arum is chosen in Genesis 3.1 to create sort of a literary envelope, an enclosure around this narrative. A lot of times that was done in oral cultures to help people remember things, and so, in addition to the fact that a room is a little bit of a flexible term when it comes to whether this a room is good or whether this a room is bad, we also have that wordplay.

05:00
But I absolutely think that the ambiguity is significant for this narrative and at this point in the story the serpent isn't explicitly evil, it's not presented as evil, it's presented as Arun. And so to the woman, the serpent may appear wise or insightful, someone who offers guidance or even help, and the reader. Of course, we know that the serpent is this agent of chaos, but the woman's interaction with the serpent highlights an important dynamic this agent of chaos, but the woman's interaction with the serpent highlights an important dynamic and that is discernment. The serpent's craftiness introduces confusion about whether he represents life or death, good or evil, and it's this ambiguity that allows the serpent to subtly twist God's words, drawing the woman into a conversation that will ultimately lead to doubt and disobedience. Now why is it that the serpent is uniquely well-suited to do this?

05:47
Well, I think number one, it's because, if you think through the way animals sort of the symbols we have for animals, so think about, for instance, an owl. An owl can be, in our culture, construed as wise. They're featured on the Tootsie Roll commercials. For a reason, this owl comes out and he's an animated owl. He's got the you know, the graduate cap on, he's dressed in a little robe or whatever, and he tells you how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll pop. This is the owl being represented as wise. But if we think about an owl in connection with Halloween, we get a totally different vibe on the owl. It's associated with darkness and spookiness and probably you know the evil, mystical aspects of life. And so we have these two different perspectives on the owl and this is what the serpent was really in the ancient Near East.

06:41
The ancient Near East, they would see the serpent as a symbol of life and wisdom. It's probably related to the serpent shedding of the serpent's skin that they got this idea of life, that the serpent is shedding off this dead skin and emerging out as a new life, and so it came to symbolize life and wisdom, but it was also very much a symbol of death and chaos. So you have, the serpent itself is sort of an odd figure, an ambiguous figure. And so as we think back, you know this ambiguity of the Arum whether it is good or bad to be this Arum and the picture of the serpent as either life or wisdom or death and evil. Now we see sort of the dilemma that faces the woman. She's not. You know, I often hear some people say you know well, why wasn't the woman surprised the serpent could talk? How could she ever have trusted the serpent? Why would you ever believe it? Well, the context, and in this case the ancient Near Eastern context and the words used, is actually really important, and so we just have to think that through and that I think the woman in this passage is doing her level best to represent God well and to try to combat the serpent's arguments, but ultimately she's convinced that the serpent does represent life and wisdom as opposed to death and chaos. And so let's leave that there and let's think back to Genesis 1, 1 through 2, 3, just for a second.

08:16
In the creation narrative we've seen God pictured as sovereign, wise and benevolent I talked about this in the very first episode that we see these three characteristics of God throughout the creation narrative. He's sovereign in that he proclaims what is to be done and, without hesitation, the creation responds to his word. He's wise in that he creates a world that is well-ordered and to the design that he had intended. And he is benevolent in the sense that all that he created, all of his sovereign power and his wisdom, were given to humanity for human flourishing. And so we see God as sovereign, wise and benevolent. Here, what we're going to see is that the serpent is going to raise doubts about who God really is. He's going to question God's sovereignty, god's wisdom and God's benevolence, and so he's ultimately going to make a transcendent God, a God who is up here, unreachable beyond anything that humans could come to know, and he's going to make him imminent. He's going to make him reachable, now, attainable, vulnerable in many ways, and this is what the serpent is arguing. And so the serpent's rhetoric begins with a, a question did god actually say you shall not eat from any tree in the garden?

09:35
Now, on the surface, this question may appear to clarify God's command, but the Hebrew construction can also be understood as exaggerated or accusatory. So it begins with a really interesting Hebrew construction. It's afki, and afki is usually found in between two phrases, but here it stands at the beginning of the phrase. When it's found between two phrases it usually connotes a greater to an even greater sort of argument. Right, and so you'd have something like you know, if Jacob, how much more Abraham? You know, if Jacob, how much more Abraham? Right, if Joshua, how much more Moses? And it has that sense of if how much more.

10:25
And so I think one of the ways to sort of understand the servant's question is not as clarifying, not as asking about the content of God's command, so much as he is questioning the motivation of God's command. Command, so much as he is questioning the motivation of God's command. And so we might paraphrase that and say it would be something like what more could God demand? Has he said, you can't eat from any of the trees? And so it takes on this accusation that if God is holding back this, you know, if we read a little bit forward in the narrative, it's going to become about the tree in the midst of the garden and the serpent is saying you know, if he's holding back this tree in the midst of the garden, he might as well be starving you, I think is essentially the force of the serpent's question. And so if God is going to demand this, he might as well just kill you.

11:08
And the serpent is implying that God's command is unnecessarily harsh and is intended to hold the human couple back, and in doing so he introduces the idea that God's prohibitions might not be for the human couple's good. Instead, it seems as though God is limiting their potential. It's almost as if, you know, god has presented himself as untouchable right. He is so far above and transcendent that the human couple could never reach him. And what the serpent is saying is nope, god's reachable, he's prohibited the one thing that would allow you to become like him. And so this is the the opening question of the serpent. I've gotten a little bit ahead of myself, but the opening question of the serpent is he's accusing god of withholding something of a precious value to the human couple, and I think that rhetorical exaggeration sows the seeds. It elicits the response from the woman, and the woman's response to the serpent is particularly interesting.

12:07
A lot of people will say that she is interpreting the command, and I think there's a sense in which that's true, but I don't think she's misquoting the command. It isn't as if, you know, when God gave the command to Adam, adam added some things before he told it to Eve, and now Eve is just repeating what's going on. I think Eve actually is really trying to tell the serpent no, no, this, the, the prohibition right, is not because God is withholding something from us. It's because God is protecting us from something that would harm us. And so she says this we may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden. We have all of this around us, all of this wonderful prosperity, all of this food. We have plenty. It's an abundant life. But God has said you shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.

13:02
Now again, some readers will say this is a misquotation of God's command, since the original command says nothing about touching the tree. So Genesis 2.17 reads but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in that day that you eat of it, you shall surely die. There's no reference to touching there. But I think the idea here is that God gave the original command to Adam. And when Adam conveys the command to Eve, he either adds the additional prohibition or Eve misremembers the command as given by Adam, and I think that is possible. But it also underplays a pretty significant part of the woman's response and I think we need to note that.

13:44
You know these words to eat and to touch are only found again together in the Old Testament legislation prohibiting contact with unclean animals. So if we look at Leviticus 11.8 and Deuteronomy 14, we're going to see these verbs come together. So Leviticus 11.8 is you shall not eat any of their flesh and you shall not touch their carcasses. They are unclean to you. So we have the eat and the touch there. And then in Deuteronomy 14.8, and the pig, because it parts the hoof but does not chew the cud, is unclean for you. Their flesh you shall eat and their carcasses you shall not touch. So again, the eat and the touch. And I think this suggests that the woman isn't merely adding to God's command or misquoting it, she is interpreting it.

14:32
Her response frames the tree as something inherently unclean or corrupt, something that brings death. Not because of its very nature. It is unclean, it's somehow against nature, out of order, and so the serpent accuses God of depriving the human couple of something valuable. God's command is keeping the human couple from transcending their current condition. By reframing God's command as protective, the woman initially defends God's benevolence against the serpent's insinuations. Now we should also note that in her response she does not say the name of the tree. That's pretty crucial.

15:14
The serpent does not reference knowledge of good and evil. Up to this point His language has been ambiguous. He just references any of the trees in the garden, and when the Roman responds, she says the tree in the midst of the garden. Nobody's mentioned anything about knowledge of good and evil, or good and evil or anything like that. And so I think we have to just be aware of that, because this is another one of those ways in which the ambiguity, I think, plays into the narrative. What isn't said actually becomes pretty important. And so, after she interprets this command, she suggests that the tree has not been prohibited because God is withholding it from them, but he's prohibited it because it's bad for them.

15:56
The interpretation begins to unravel, and you know, because part one the woman looks at the tree more closely. But I also think it's because the serpent says something that makes it appear as if the serpent has knowledge that the woman didn't necessarily know he had before. So in Genesis 3, 4, and 5, we hear this. But the serpent said to the woman you will not surely die, for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. Okay, this is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, right, and it can be difficult to understand why the serpent's response is compelling if we don't notice that this tree hasn't been explicitly referenced in these verses up to this point.

16:44
The woman has claimed that God has prohibited the tree because it's unclean. The serpent's response does not seem to address that matter, and in some rabbinic texts what you see is the serpent portrayed as hanging onto this tree with its arms and legs and shaking it, and so in those texts the serpent is touching the tree, but it doesn't die, and so his interaction with the woman in the tree becomes convincing. And while that picture is kind of interesting and I think it's helpful to think about, it isn't exactly rooted in the biblical text. And so what I would point to is the use of the phrase knowing good and evil in the serpent's response. This phrase echoes the original command in Genesis 2.18. And her response to the serpent the woman uses that more ambiguous phrase tree in the midst of the garden. And the serpent's phrase use of the phrase in 3.4, knowing good and evil demonstrates he has some knowledge about the tree. The serpent understands the tree's nature. To kind of underscore the point, if you imagine that the serpent had responded by saying the tree would give humanity the ability to fly, it would have been unconvincing because flight doesn't square with what the woman already knew about the tree. His response suggests that the serpent has special insight in the tree. He understands what he's talking about. She's almost like testing his knowledge through the ambiguity in the serpent pass.

18:03
So Genesis 3.6 is a turning point in the narrative because the serpent's response is persuasive. He's telling the woman that no, this is not unclean. God really is withholding this from you. This is the pathway to knowing good and evil. This is the pathway to being like God. And so now the woman turns and looks at the tree, she starts to examine it for herself. And we read so when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. Okay, so what are we really seeing here? She's argued that the tree is bad just in its very nature, but now she evaluates it, she's recognizing no, no, this doesn't look bad, this doesn't look undesirable. In fact, it looks kind of beautiful. It looks like it has good food on it. I don't see anything wrong with the tree.

19:01
And so this verse in the Bible follows a pattern that tends to recur throughout the rest of scripture. So, seeing that it was good as an act of discernment or judgment, whereas God has warned that the tree would bring death, the woman decides that God's judgment can't be trusted. And in seeing the tree and assessing its goodness, the woman is echoing the repeated judgments of God about the various aspects of creation in Genesis 1, where God looked at the world he had created and determined that it was good. Here, however, the woman assumes the role of arbiter. She decides what is good apart from God's authority. Now, a lot of times when we're reading this passage, what we're seeing, you know the tree we saw. The tree was good. So she saw and it was good. And then the next aspect of this is she's going to take from the tree.

19:49
Taking doesn't actually occur in Genesis 1, though we do see it repeated in various other Old Testament texts. These three words see, good and take are found in other places, such as Genesis 6-2, where we read that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful or good it's the same Hebrew word there and they took as their wives any they chose. So we have the see good, take following there. We also see this in Joshua 7.21, where Achan sees the forbidden treasure, finds it desirable or good Again, it's the same Hebrew word it takes it. And so this pattern tends to reveal sort of a critical dynamic. Humans are seeking to determine their own course, make their own judgments, apart from God, and they decide what is good for themselves and take it regardless of what God has said. And the woman is persuaded by the serpent's wisdom and her own sensory judgment. She sees it, she declares it good and she takes it, and in doing so she aligns with the serpent's chaotic wisdom rather than trusting in God's order. So I think the serpent's question, the woman's interpretation, this pattern of seeing good and taking offer a profound understanding of sin.

20:59
Number one I think ambiguity can undermine our trust like nothing else. Like the woman in Genesis 3, we often face these situations where truth and lies are hard to distinguish and sin thrives in that ambiguity, twisting God's goodness into something questionable, convincing us that the paradise that God has provided is actually a prison. It's not as hard as it sounds, and so, as we look at this narrative of the woman interacting with the serpent, we wonder how it is that she has all of this beauty around her, all of this lush garden, this paradise. Why does she then shift to believing that that's a prison? I think we start to understand the depths of our own rebellion, of our own desire to direct our own lives. I think we also see this idea of distrusting God's word. The serpent's exaggeration involves the woman, you know, invites the woman to doubt the trustworthiness of God and interpret reality on our own terms and that's a common theme throughout the scripture and in our own lives.

21:58
And I think also misjudging goodness. You know, sin often begins when we see something as good apart from God's word. This rejection of divine wisdom lies at the heart of the human condition. Now I'd also say, as I said, you know, the serpent is questioning God's goodness, God's sovereignty and God's wisdom, and so let me just pick that apart for a minute. When the serpent says you know, number one, the benevolence of God is sort of the number one question in my mind when we look at this narrative. Because what the serpent is saying is that God is holding the human couple back for his own ends. He doesn't talk about what those ends are, but it's not for the human's good. And so God is not benevolent. God is manipulating the situation. He's trying to control Adam and Eve and keep them from fulfilling their true human potential. We also get into questioning God's sovereignty, because no longer is God's word just enough for everyone to obey. Now what the serpent is doing is he's saying look, god's word doesn't have to stand, you can choose your own path. And so in suggesting that, number one, god is not benevolent, that he's holding the human couple back, he also suggests that the human couple can be like God, and so they can achieve this sort of relative autonomy from God.

23:21
And finally, I think the wisdom comes in when we talk about the knowing good and evil. This is how they can be like God. They can determine their own course, they can order the world in the way that they see fit. They are not constrained by what God has said they need to do. And so those three aspects come out pretty clearly, I think, in Genesis 3, 1 through 7, and it starts this sort of cycle of unmaking the creation narrative that as we don't trust God, as we misjudge goodness, we start to see the world and we start to see God very differently.

23:55
And so I think Genesis 3, 1 through 7 isn't just a story about the first sin. It exposes these dynamics of temptation that remain alive today. When we doubt God's goodness, trust other voices over his word and assume to you know, take the right up to declare what is good, we step into the same pattern of seeing, declaring and taking. But I think the gospel offers us a way back. I mean, where the woman saw, judged and took Christ trusted, obeyed and gave In Christ, the broken pattern of Genesis 3 is reversed and we're invited to trust in God's goodness again.

24:28
So Genesis 3, 1 through 7 is a story of subtlety and ambiguity and tragedy, and the serpent's craftiness, the woman's reasoning and the pattern of seeing good and taking hold a mirror to our own struggles with trust, discernment and sin. And as we reflect on this passage, I just urge you to consider where ambiguity tempts you to doubt God's goodness. How might you learn to trust his word more deeply and discern what is truly good according to his wisdom, even when life seems like you don't understand what's going on? How is it that we get to the point where we obey, even when obedience doesn't really make that much sense to us? How do we avoid distrusting God simply because we don't fully understand what's going on? And I think that's one of the big aspects that we need to take away from Genesis 3, 1 through 7.

25:13
Hey, thanks for listening to Prep today. Everybody, if you found this episode helpful, share it with someone who's wrestling with these questions. Don't forget to subscribe, leave a review and join me next time as we continue preparing our hearts and minds for God's mission. Take care, everybody. See you on the next episode of PREPPED.

25:29 - Speaker 2 (None)
Thanks for tuning into PREPPED. If today's episode helped you view the world through a God-centered lens, be sure to hit subscribe so you're always prepared for what comes next. Don't forget to rate and review us on your preferred podcast platform. Your feedback helps us reach more believers eager to live out God's story. Share this episode with a friend, family member or loved one, and together let's keep challenging the world's narratives. Until next time, stay grounded, stay inspired and continue living out God's plan. See you soon on our next episode of PREPPED.