Eve, “the mother of all living,” inheres special Legal-Historical awareness. We posit her motherhood in the special niche demanded for seed line progeny who would suffer the quality lost in Adam’s weakness, promised restitution in Abraham progeny, and restored by Messiah; but such restoration was not promised for all men, only to those descended through the elite progeny nominated to receive the transition in righteousness. And now, such translative difficulty demands special analysis for the Serpent character, for Serpent aptitude, and for Serpent viability. For, only in man’s recidivistic nature can we find distinguishing features operable in the Serpent-Satan character.
In Genesis 3:1, Job 1:7, Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 (plus Rev. 13 and 17) is established the conditional nature in the Beast, Dragon, Devil, Serpent, Satan, and finally, conditional in the self-determining nature of man (often exposited in the Bible as common to major characters). No elenchus can dispute parallels in the foregoing reference. It remains only to determine the function or operative mechanics as they relate to human propensity. Paul in an Epistle Chapter salutatory to a One God faithful marriage (warning against susceptibility to idols and/or false doctrine), says, in II Corinthians 11:3, “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” Obviously, such subtle ‘beguilement’ originated at Genesis 3:13; thus, in the II Corinthians example, Serpent, or the adversative, takes a mental aberration form, an adversarial attitude toward established order.
The anomaly was given beguiler authority in Job 2:1-:7. In verse :6, the sons of God came before Him, reflecting Satan subtlety. Here, by and by, suggestion was given to poor Job, and he developed a devil obvious even to his four friends. After a lengthy exchange, Elihu spoke (Job 36:22-:23), “Behold, God exalteth by his power: who teacheth like him?” (:23) “Who hath enjoined him his way? or who can say, Thou hast wrought iniquity?” From the foregoing, it was Job who wrought the iniquity, not a god-like Satan! And, following Job 40:15, we find God had created Behemoth (iniquitous horde), “Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass (herbs, bw) as an ox.” God goes on to berate Job for his inability to influence leviathan; for this creation, when God directed, was one who could cause the Jordan to flow, but he, the beast, could not be influenced by Job; for, it was pointed out: behemoth could do nothing without God’s help; and in the end, Job was object of the subject created in his own problematic conscience. Thus we discover multifaceted and subtle links to Satan habitation and motivation.
In Revelation 20:2 Messiah bound the dragon, “the old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan. (Rev. 12:3, 12:9), “. . . which deceiveth the whole world: . . .” This anomaly was that ‘which deceiveth the whole world.’ (seed line world) Thus the perception was confined to a certain circumambience, time frame, and ethnicity. Confined to particular seed line ethnicity, embraced within Heaven and Earth perimeters, and restricted to a Ten Ages time frame, Satan was the serpent intellection that beguiled Chosen People on their march to parousia and to required terminus for the dual definition--for all time. Peter had first hand experience with this conditional infestation at Matthew 16:23, when, Jesus said to him, “Get thee behind me, Satan . . . for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” We come to realize, Peter exhibited the same seed line self-determination (mental independence) manifested in Eve, in Moses, in Abraham, in Peter, and in Parousia principals.
The King James Version College of Translators, and later other translator interpreters manifested the same attitude as did Peter. Therefore, in 1611, when describing future interactions between progeny and serpent, the select College group invented ‘propositional truth’; that is, they interpreted text out of context, and assigned what to them was logical interplay between the serpent and ‘mother of mankind.’ For, when the King James translator college, and subsequent translator mimics, encountered the relative nature in serpent, ‘cattle, and every beast of the field’ existence, it was natural to conform relative phraseology to literal concept. And the snake, to any observation, does appear to be subtle, crafty, all knowing, and secretive. In the Genesis Serpent and Eve interchange, we must expect a figurative and symbolic presence due to our established snake, serpent, Dragon, Behemoth, Leviathan, Beast, linguistic accommodation. They are the same. The parallel is not debatable in scholarly exegesis. The several nominates serve inseparable function and infest the same literal host but in a figurative sense. Double talk? Of course! The Bible is full of it! But here, we speak of figurative essence in a literal host able to serve the metaphoric function. Here, we depart from partial-traditional renderings and seek greater understanding in an unorthodox but plausible rendering to account for scripture incongruity in the Eve-Serpent actions.
Our subject is Eve and her experience with the Serpent, eastward, in Edenic Paradise. In Genesis 3:13, “And the Lord God said unto the woman, what is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.” And to serpent duplicity, God said, “. . . upon thy belly shall thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: . . .” We know the serpent does not gain nourishment from eating dust; therefore, we must use a little reason to extract reason. We might suspect such condemnation to denigrate the snake’s primary interest—eating; certainly, the reference is not to dust as a primary diet. In verse :17, mankind is promised to eat of the cursed ground also—through intending produce—might not also the dust intend produce also? But let us quote the entire Genesis 3:15 account as we insert parenthetical substitutes, alternates approved by Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon: “And I will put enmity (hostility) between thee (serpent, satanic adversarialness) and the woman (seed line), and between thy seed (bad characteristic) and her seed (good characteristic); it (adversarialness) shall bruise (overwhelm) thy head (beginning), and it (adversarialness) shall bruise (overwhelm) his (serpent/Israel self-determination) heel (last, end).” (something had to furnish the heel)
Common ordinary snake/serpents are not hostile to mankind. Some poisonous varieties will stand their ground and strike intruders, but it is not their nature to be hostile to humans; therefore, in view of the serpent’s reclusive habit and aptness to defend himself when cornered: How many Fer de Lance or King Cobra heads have been bruised by or have bruised Homo sapiens heels? How many women would dare bruise their heel on a snakes head? Let’s be realistic! None!
Admittedly, the following interpretation is a stretch from conventional interpretation, but let us rewrite the Genesis 3:15 account: ‘And I will cause hostility between the beast and Woman-Adam seed line, and between beast characteristic and Israel characteristic; adversarialness willl overwhelm seed line beginning and adversarialness will overwhelm Israel’s end. Here, we have a perfect conflation of symbolic Beast and Israel long-standing opposition to God order, from envious beginning in the First Age to tragic end in the Tenth Age, the Last Age. In THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified, we can find complete definition for the Ten Ages, for Serpent-Beast synonyms, and how the Ten Ages smooth Bible interpretation into harmonious fulfillment.
We Homo sapiens have inherent propensity to seek the unknown, the mysterious, the strange, the intangible, the unexplainable, and the metaphysical. To escape our propensity, and to gain God favor, man invents friendly circumstance and imagined precedence to qualify the immortality urgency—much as convention has qualified serpent-Satan misapplication. But overwhelmed by belief sanctions and bereft syllogistic practice, mankind slights his religiosity without Ten Ages guide lines. All scripture must agree with its counterparts or be found wanting. Eve’s indiscretion is no exception; she was mentally tempted, and we must remove the metaphoric construction from superstitious incongruity to purposeful symbolic prediction—foregoing the easy interpretation—meeting the adversary head-on. Only in congruent renderings can we make sense of a language obfuscated through inadvertent misinterpretation.