Some of you may have noticed that there has been recent discussion on this thread on the PaleoBabble site. Apparently someone who desperately wants to say the serpent and Eve had sex to (not sure) defend Zecharia Sitchin or some sort of sexual activity between reptilian aliens and Eve has been trying to defend this idea (not well — see the comments). I think my position is clear on this (!) so I’m not going to keep answering comments. I thought this might be more useful.
As I see it, this fellow’s view is based on:
1) ignoring what I presented in the original thread — that Gen 4:1 provides no evidence that Eve and the serpent had sex, producing a reptilian / serpent seed.
2) insisting that the verb “beguile” used in Eve’s self defense (“the serpent beguiled me”) means “to have sex with.” We are supposed to accept this and then, Eve’s discovery that she was naked AFTER she sinned (read the narrative in Genesis 3 — wouldn’t she have had to be naked for her tryst with the serpent – how did she miss that?) meant that she was pregnant (I know, nakedness doesn’t mean pregnant, but play along with this guy here).
In attempt to inject some sanity into this, I offer this PDF. It is a list of all the other occurrences in the Hebrew Bible of the verb translated “to beguile” (it is Hebrew, nasa’ — for those who know Hebrew, this is not the common nasa’ that means “to lift or carry” – it is a homonym). Anyway, you can read the results. Just substitute “have sex with” or “impregnate” for all the green highlighted English terms (I do these searches in a reverse interlinear, which allows a Hebrew word search with results displayed in English for those who don’t read Hebrew). You’ll have fun with the exercise, trust me. Some real howlers here.
3) Insisting that the phrase about Eve’s eyes being opened also indicates something about having sex or pregnancy. Hmmm. Genesis 3:7 says “the eyes of both of them [i.e., Adam and Eve] were opened, and they knew that they were naked.” I wonder if the serpent also had sex with Adam. Or maybe eyes aren’t really eyes…but some sort of esoteric code word for “womb” or “vagina.” Bummer neither works with Adam.
And they pay me for this. No . . . wait . . . they don’t. But it’s still fun.
I’m not sure if the serpent had sex, but Adam and Eve had it. And my comments on the subject have sent a lot of people into a white-hot rage. The folks over at “Christianity Today” are terrified of me and refuse to allow me to post comments on that magazine’s blog. The blog owner of “RELIGIOUS FORUMS” has banned me for life from posting comments on his blog. A certain Lutheran theologian has actually threatened me. Why all the rage and terror and nervous giggling? Because Adam and Eve had anal sex (IN THE STORY), which is the original sin mystery Saint Augustine came so close to solving. (He came to the conclusion their sin was penile/vaginal sex.) I just happen to be the unfortunate messenger caught in the mess. If something is wrong with this very upsetting exegesis, then who is intelligent enough to find the error? I challenge you regardless of your religious beliefs: find the error! Google “Robert Hagedorn’s Blogs” and click on “WikiAnswers”
There’s no textual proof for this. It also has nothing to do with original sin (Eve isn’t even mentioned when Paul discusses this in Romans 5). Unless you provide textual support I don’t plan on wasting any time on your blogs (can hardly wait for this mystery to unfold — another one with elite knowledge that everyone has missed).
I’d also like to see the citation from Augustine where he ignored Romans 5 and said original sin was sex.
The Greek word “expatio” is used in the great book of Corinthians to describe Eve being beguiled. The word means “Wholly seduced”(See Strong’s Concordance #1818).
This simply means that Paul believed and was taught that SATAN (not a literal snake) had sex with Eve. Throughout The Bible Satan is known by MANY different names (“The serpent” being just ONE) throughout the Bible. See Rev 12:9 for proof. Cain (the first murderer; “Your father was a MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING” John 8:44) was the result of that union. (See Gen ch 5, you wont find Cain’s name listed there in Adams geneology) Jesus was talking to Cain’s offspring. This is the Key Of David. “Those who CALL themselves Jews but are of the synagogue of Satan” sound familiar?
A literal snake couldnt have had sex with Eve any more than it could have TALKED to her.
I read your background about being such an expert in Hebrew, Greek, etc
For being such an “Expert”, I thought sure you would’ve known the meaning of the Greek word for “Beguiled” used in Corinthians. I guess it just shows that having a bunch of letters after your name doesnt neccesarily mean a whole heck of a lot.
no, it doesn’t mean that. Oh, I love emails like this.
First, the Greek word isn’t “expatio” – it is eksapatao. If you can’t read or spell Greek you hardly know it. Second, one can be beguiled (wholly duped – you left off the part of the verse that says Satan beguiled her with his “subtlety” – look that one up in Strong’s and see that it doesn’t refer to any sort of physical charm) without any sexual involvement at all. You are reading into this what you want to see.
Want proof? Easy. Here are the verses in the New Testament where this Greek word appears: Romans 7:11 (where the commandment “beguiles” Paul – uh, where’s the sex?); Romans 16:18 (where the “heart” of people are “deceived” through flattery and smooth talking; pardon this, but one doesn’t have sex with a person’s heart – other body parts are involved); 2 Thess 2:3 (where Paul warns readers not to let anyone “deceive” them about the end time and Antichrist – where’s the sex?); 1 Tim 2:14, where the referent is Eve again, like your verse, 1 Cor 3:18. We are told that Eve was “deceived” and so became a transgressor. There was only one command given to Adam and Eve, and it wasn’t “don’t have sex with Satan” – it was “don’t eat the forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” – doing THAT is what made one a transgressor (you can;t transgress a law unless it exists). And lastly, my favorite: 1 Cor 3:18 – where Paul says “don’t ‘deceive’ yourself. If you think that is sexual, well, think about what you’d have the command saying.
Absolute, unmitigated nonsense.
True, but at least it’s entertaining nonsense.
Good blog. Keep it up.
Christ spoke about the eye, in singular, which illuminates the whole body. What’s your understanding considering literal eyes don’t make the body glow? Please, I am just asking a question, don’t get furious.
The text insinuates Eve taught something to Adam. Paul says he was afraid Satan could cheat THE SENSES or THOUGHTS just like it did with Eve. Was it Adam and Eve “eye’? The same one Christ said it could lit the whole body if it’s healthy?
Interesting, when you spoke about eyes in Ezekiel’s description, eyes in the bodies of the cherubim and wings, you changed the interpretation or exegeses just because David Flynn convinced you they could be ‘stars’ rather than literal eyes. It’s a case of choosing what to choose according to pre-conceived ideas, isn’t it? Christ spoke abouit a single “eye’. Well, it’s possible to conclude Eve’s “eye” plus Adam’s “eye” equal “eyes” if the exegesis says “eyes”. Unless of course you have Hebrew explanation rejecting that point of view.
Thanks for your kind objective respons and for explaining about Sammael..
I am curious about the words “knew” and “knowledge” regarding the garden incident rather than the word “beguile”.
We all realize that when Adam “knew” his wife, it means they had intercourse. For those who promote a sex act between the serpent (perhaps the angel Azazel under Satan’s possession/control)and Eve; can the “tree” of “knowledge” be associated in any way with the verb “to know”, as in having sexual relations?
Do these two words relate at all in the text? I don’t have the ability to search out the words as easy as those who have access to logos software, so I pose it as another opportunity to close the case.
The lemma for “to know” is yadaʿ (ידע); it occurs three times in Gen 3 (vv. 5, 7, 22). The lemma for “to beguile” (I presume you’re thinking of v. 13, but I don’t know what translation you’re using) is nsʾ (נשׂא), which has a more common homonym. There’s no semantic relationship between ydʿ and nsʾ. The former points to understanding; the latter to deception. Here’s the HALOT entry:
II נשׁא: ? by-form of שׁוא: Arb. našiya to be intoxicated.
nif: pf. נִשְּׁאוּ: to entertain false hopes Is 1913 (parallel with יאל nif.), cj. Da 1114 (יִנָּֽשְׁאוּ). †
hif: pf. הִשִּׁיא, הִשֵּׁאתָ, הִשִּׁיאַ֫נִי, הִשִּׁיאֲךָ, הִשִּׁיאוּךָ; impf. יַשִּׁ(י)א, יַשִּׁיאוּ, יַשִּׁיאֲךָ; inf. הַשֵּׁא: to cheat, deceive with acc. Gn 313 (cf. R. Meyer Gr. §91:2a and 92:4b), 2K 1910/Is 3710 Jr 4916 (rd. הִשִּׁיאַתְךָ), Ob 3.7, cj. Ezk 392 (rd. וְהִשֵּׁאתִיךָ); הִשִּׁיא נַפְשׁוֹ to deceive oneself Jr 379, cj. Lam 119 (rd. וַיַּשִּׁיאוּ Rudolph 208); with לְ 2K 1829 Is 3614 Jr 410 298; —Nu 2130 prop. וַנָּשֶׂם אֵשׁ; Ps 8923 rd. יִשָּׂא no enemy will rise against him (Dahood Psalms 2:317f; Fisher Parallels 1: p. 69 no. 56), cf. נשׂא nif; Ps 5516 Q see Commentaries. †
Trees were (at times) markers of divine encounters and, therefore, experience of / acquisition of divine knowledge. Sexual intercourse is not a “divine act” – it’s a normal act for embodied humans (and many animals of course).
Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1999), 728.
The serpent was a “beast of the field”. Also, in light of the Genesis 6 account of “divine beings” (sons of God) having intercourse with the daughters of men, how do we definitively dismiss the possibility of the same type of situation happening in the garden?
Trees are also used as a metaphor for men; couldn’t the same be used of embodied angels?
Lastly, are the Hebrew words for “knowledge” and “to know” related when “to know” is used to connote sexual contact?
Short answer: “because the text doesn’t say it.”
The Hebrew word yada’ (“to know”) doesn’t *mean” “have sexual intercourse. It is used as a euphemism for the act, though. This is just like words in English. The verb “to screw” doesn’t *mean* have intercourse, but it can be used as a euphemistic substitute.
So, there’s no 1:1 correspondence between “knowing” and intercourse.
Where are trees used as a metaphor for men (for sure)? The only thing that comes to mind just now is a passage in Ezekiel. Shoot me a couple more. (I don’t have time to search just now).
What you’d need is a clear contextual indicator for angel=tree. Just because a writer does something with language in one passage doesn’t mean (a) he does it in every passage — and so it’s wrong to read that into a given passage), or that (b) other writers do it.