Was the Serpent Right? Genesis, Women’s Status, and the Cost of Teaching Belief | Episode 145
What if the serpent actually tells the truth in the Garden of Eden story, and what if the more important question is what we are taught to do with that story?
Hello, friends. Daniel Adar here. In episode 145 of Beliefs & Consequences, “Parashat Bereshit, Part 2,” we continue reading familiar stories without exempting them from questions. In Part 1, we examined the two creation accounts and their differences. This time, we move from the world the authors imagined to the relationships they constructed within it: between God and humanity, between men and women, and between adults telling stories and children accepting their words as truth.
This discussion does not remain in the distant past. When an ancient story explains nature, justifies domination, or restricts access to knowledge, it has consequences today. We therefore ask what the text says and what people do with it. That is the purpose of this channel.
Earth Before a Universe: Reading the Firmament Without Inventing a Telescope
In the world picture I present in the episode, the earth occupies the center of a small, bounded space. Above it stands the firmament, above the firmament are waters, and beneath it are the heavenly lights. “Cosmology” means a conception of the structure of the world or universe. This cosmology differs from the picture provided by modern astronomy. Stars are not little decorations overhead, and the earth is not the stage around which everything else was constructed.
The “firmament,” in this reading, is the partition separating upper and lower waters. The “windows of heaven” are openings within that picture through which water can descend. The “great deep” is the primordial reservoir of water below. The “foundations of the earth” support the earth, while “Sheol” is the realm of the dead beneath it, as depicted in biblical descriptions.
These expressions belong to the ancient imaginative world in which they were used.
What about the claim that a creation day actually means an age? That interpretation seeks to reconcile the story with later knowledge. In the episode, I identify a straightforward problem: changing the unit of time does not correct the sequence of events. If vegetation appears before the sun, turning a day into a billion years does not solve the problem. It merely leaves the vegetation without sunlight for much longer. We have repaired the clock, but not the story.
The Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life: Two Trees, Two Questions
Before arguing about the serpent, we must distinguish between the two trees. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil concerns prohibition and the acquisition of knowledge. The Tree of Life concerns the possibility of living forever. Confusing them allows us to tell a different story from the one before us.
God warns the human against eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. The serpent tells the woman that eating will not cause their deaths, but will open their eyes and give them knowledge of good and evil. What happens next? They eat, their eyes open, and God acknowledges that the human has acquired knowledge of good and evil. Adam does not die that day. Later, Genesis attributes 930 years of life to him.
That produces the provocative argument I present in the episode: on this literal reading, the serpent was right on these points. This argument compares the warning, the serpent’s statements, and the outcome of the narrative. Other interpretations of the death warning exist, but their existence does not relieve us of examining this reading seriously.
Then comes the expulsion. According to the explanation given in the story, the human must be prevented from also taking from the Tree of Life and living forever. This distinction matters: the text connects the possibility of immortality to eating from that particular tree. It does not simply describe a human who already possessed immortality and lost it. Read the reason given for the expulsion, rather than relying exclusively on what you remember being told about it.
“He Shall Rule Over You”: How Does Power Become a Sacred Order?
The punishments explain conditions familiar to the storytellers: snakes crawl, childbirth involves pain, and farming is hard. Alongside these difficulties, however, comes a statement about power between human beings: “He shall rule over you.”
“Patriarchy” is a social order in which men hold the principal authority and power. “Hierarchy” means a ranking of power and status. In the episode, I distinguish between punishment presented as hardship in nature and punishment placing the woman under the man’s authority. The man must work hard. The woman suffers and is subordinated.
Here we encounter the power of an “etiological myth,” a story explaining the origin of a phenomenon or custom. When male rule is presented as the result of a divine decision at humanity’s beginning, it can appear to be an arrangement that must never change. A social institution receives the stamp of eternity.
The episode also discusses Rabbeinu Bahya’s interpretation connecting woman, temptation, and the evil inclination. This is a later interpretive layer, and that distinction matters. But when it is taught, we must ask what a girl hears about herself. Is she learning about an ancient culture and its views, or being asked to accept a degrading image as the truth about her nature? Those are very different educational acts.
The Sons of God and the God Who Regrets
Genesis 6 introduces the sons of God, human women, and the Nephilim. In the episode, I present a mythological reading of this passage: an encounter between divine beings and human women, within a narrative world whose boundary between gods and humanity differs from that of later theology. “Theology” means systematic thinking about God, divine attributes, and God’s relationship with the world.
Immediately afterward comes a description that should stop every reader: God regrets making humanity and is grieved at heart. “Vayyinahem,” in this context, is read in the episode as expressing regret or a change of position. How does that description fit belief in a God who knows everything that will happen?
I compare it with Numbers 23, which presents God as unlike a human who changes his mind. The tension between these portrayals invites investigation. It can illuminate the Bible’s multiple voices and conceptions. “Anthropomorphism” means attributing human emotions, characteristics, or actions to a nonhuman being. Regret, grief, and disappointment belong to the distinctly human portrayal of God in this narrative.
From a Bedtime Story to a Lesson About What May Be Known
In the episode’s final section, I read from “Five Minutes of Parashah Before Bed.” My criticism concerns the passages presented and how they are communicated to children: biblical verses, midrash, and explanations of the world are combined without clarifying their respective origins and status.
“Midrash” is interpretive literature that expands a text, explores its meanings, or fills gaps in its narrative. It can be fascinating evidence of culture and intellectual history. But a midrashic story does not become a scientific finding because an adult tells it confidently.
The passages read in the episode describe light granting extraordinary powers of vision, animals appearing instantaneously, a serpent with legs, and people transformed into monkeys. The problem I identify is presenting such stories as binding factual explanations, particularly when they replace an introduction to biology, astronomy, and history.
“Indoctrination” means instilling beliefs in ways that restrict the ability to question them and examine alternatives. Teaching tradition is not automatically indoctrination. The question is whether children may ask questions, investigate, and encounter evidence that conflicts with answers supplied in advance.
The First Fire and a Past That Does Not Begin with a Story
One example concerns the story of Adam and the discovery of fire. Against that account, I mention Gesher Benot Ya’aqov and Israel’s prehistoric sites. Research at Gesher Benot Ya’aqov described burned wood, seeds, and flint as evidence supporting human control of fire approximately 790,000 years ago. That is an entirely different timescale from the chronology of several thousand years presented in the children’s book. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
“Prehistory” means the period preceding the written evidence relevant to the society being studied. “Evolution” means inherited change in populations across generations, and the scientific framework explaining the development and common ancestry of life’s diversity. A “scientific theory” is an explanatory framework tested against evidence, rather than a passing guess.
A child can encounter a story about discovering fire and also learn how researchers investigate evidence of its ancient use. Cultural curiosity and scientific curiosity can coexist. We must stop presenting one as a substitute for the other.
That is the question I want to leave with you: who has the right to shrink children’s world before they have had the opportunity to discover it? We can read Genesis, ask difficult questions, and expand our knowledge. We can give children a cultural past without denying them their scientific present.
Watch episode 145, “Parashat Bereshit, Part 2.” Tell us what surprised you in the comments, and identify the passage or argument you want to examine. Subscribe to the channel, share with friends, and return to episode 144, “Parashat Bereshit, Part 1.” Because the question concerns both what we believe and what those beliefs do to our lives and the lives of others.
Links and References Discussed in the Episode
Genesis 1: The creation sequence and the firmament.
Genesis 2 and Genesis 3: The two trees, the serpent, punishments, and expulsion.
Genesis 4 and Genesis 5: Cain, human genealogies, and Enoch.
Genesis 6: The sons of God, the Nephilim, and divine regret.
Numbers 23:19: The contrasting portrayal discussed in connection with regret.
Rabbeinu Bahya on Genesis 3:1: The interpretation examined in the episode.
Five Minutes of Parashah Before Bed: Passages discussed extensively in the video’s final section, beginning around 44:03.
The Beliefs & Consequences website: Further episodes and related content.
Supplementary research concerning the site mentioned in the episode: Evidence of Hominin Control of Fire at Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel, Naama Goren-Inbar and colleagues, Science, 2004.