1. Most English translations refer to the serpent as "he" and, thus, personifying it. I prefer to use the impersonal pronoun 'it' in line with normal English usage for things impersonal, though I have capitalize it to more easily distinguish it from other 'its'.
2. Sadly Christian theologians are frequently to blame for this pathetic state of biblical literacy. In a major work, e.g., Wayne Grudem says, "When God created the world, he 'saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good' (Gen.1:31). This means that even the angelic world that God had created did not have evil angels or demons in it at that time. But by the time of Genesis 3, we find Satan, in the form of a serpent, was tempting Eve to sin (Gen 3.1-5). Therefore, sometime between the events in Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 3:1, there must have been a rebellion in the angelic world with many angels turning against God and becoming evil" (Systematic Theology, 412). Everything in the quoted paragraph, except the first sentence, is speculative and exegetically dubious. Let me be clear that I am severe not because I am an unbelieving liberal. One cannot honestly engage in Christian ministry in Asia without quickly coming face to face with the reality and the evil power of Satan and his cohorts (something that is, sadly, all too easy and commonplace in the West). My plea—even if I am not doing it very well—is for integrity in our reading of Scriptures. For once we give in to the ease of speculation and reading into the text, we will find ourselves on the slippery slopes of fanciful and unsound doctrines. Unfortunately on a subject such as Satan on which the Bible has relatively little interest, and what it does say is not always straightforward and clear, theologians who do not read back into the Scriptures will have little to say.
3. This passage, interestingly, is often quoted, together with v.14 in such a way as to equate the serpent with Satan. Walter Kaiser, Jr., e.g., asserts that "'The serpent deceived Eve by his cunning . . . for Satan disguises himself as an angel of light' (2 Cor. 11:3, 14). (Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 77) The coupling together of the two verses is deceiving. Satan disguises himself as an angel of light in v14 speaks not of the serpent but of false apostles and deceitful workmen. Whether a case can be made for Kaiser's equation of the serpent and Satan is a question that needs, of course, to be established but such an establishment has not been demonstrated.
4. The NT identifies "that ancient serpent" with the devil and Satan (Rev 12:9; 20:2). But what exactly is "that ancient serpent"? It may be that it indeed has the serpent in the Garden of Eden as its referent. But "that ancient serpent" is also referred to in the same verses as "the great dragon." There is no Scriptural support for Eve's tempter ever being called a "dragon," never mind "the great dragon." While the OT is cognizant of "evil spirit" (7x), "demons" appears only twice (Deut 32:17; Psm 106:37) and on both occasions it translates shed, which "undoubtedly . . . is to be connected with the Babylonian word shedu, a demon either good or evil" (V. P. Hamilton, TWOT). Demonology did not much gain the attention of Judaism until the Inter-Testamental period and afterwards. This is not to say that Eve's tempter was not demonic, only that there is no clear exegetical basis for saying so.
5. As we have noted elsewhere, that it is possible for Karen Armstrong, e.g., to conclude from her reading of Genesis that God "is omnipotent but powerless to control humanity; omniscient but ignorant of human yearning; creative but a destroyer; benevolent but a killer; wise but arbitrary; just but partial and unfair" is, I think, sufficient illustration of this fact. (In the Beginning: A New Interpretation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996), 117.)
6. Christoph Levin misses the theological import of the use of 'elohim instead of Yhwh 'elohim ("there is no discernible reason for the change here") and resorts to an old and rather discredited trick, asserting that "here another author was probably at work" ("Genesis 2-3: A Case of Inner-Biblical Interpretation," in Genesis and Christian Theology, ed. by Nathan MacDonald, Mark W. Elliot, and Grant Macaskill (Grant Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 94.
7. Of this emphatic particle, Martin Luther says, "I cannot translate the Hebrew either into German or in Latin; the serpent uses the word aph-ki as though to turn up its nose and jeer and scoff at one."
8. Mikkol can have a partitive or inclusive sense. By switching the use of this one word from an inclusive sense to a partitive sense, the serpent focused the woman's attention on the one that was excluded when God intended that she should set her heart on the "all" that was included in His gift to them.
9. Martin Emmrich, "The Temptation Narrative of Genesis 3:1-6: A Prelude to the Pentateuch and the History of Israel," Evangelical Quarterly 73:1 (2001):13-14.
10. Gerhard von Rad, Genesis (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1961). 86.
11. It was my privilege to have studied under him (more than half a life-time ago). Though I do not remember him saying so, it would be "very him" to say also that any theology that does not begin its quest with obedience in the heart is just as flawed.
©ALBERITH
181021lch