# The Identity of "the Serpent": Snake or Seraph?



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Traditionally, Bible scholars have taken the serpent as a real snake that becomes the instrument or organ through which Satan entices man to sin.  There is, however, another way of viewing the serpent of Genesis 3. When NT writers associate the serpent with Satan or the devil, they do not explicitly represent that association as a semi-divine “dark power” manipulating an animal as a mere organ of temptation. Instead, “the serpent” seems to function as a descriptive title, at the same level as “the dragon,” “the devil,” or “Satan” (2 Cor 11:2, 14; Rev 12:9, 14, 15; 20:2).  Since later revelation identifies Satan as a fallen angelic creature (Job 1:6–9, 12; 2:1–4, 6–7; 1 Chr 21:1; Zech 3:1–2; Matt 4:1–11; Luke 4:1–13; 10:18; 2 Cor 11:14; Eph 2:2, 6:11, 12; Rev 12:9), then perhaps what Adam and Even saw and heard in the Garden was no mere snake but a serpent-like creature belonging to a higher order than the ordinary “beasts of the field.” 

What do you think? And why?


----------



## Pergamum

Gen 3:



> 14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:



By this curse, can we assume that perhaps the serpent did not always go just on his belly, but that he also had legs and/or wings or some other appendage, which would make him resemble a "dragon" or a Leviathan?


----------



## MarieP

I thought it was supposed to be a monkey!


----------



## Andres

cool. I want a picture.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Pergamum said:


> Gen 3:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
> 
> 
> 
> By this curse, can we assume that perhaps the serpent did not always go just on his belly, but that he also had legs and/or wings or some other appendage, which would make him resemble a "dragon" or a Leviathan?
Click to expand...


One may read what some commentators interpret as an etiological allusion to the ordinary snake’s legless locomotion (Gen 3:14) as a metaphorical description of disgrace and defeat (Lev 11:43; Ps 72:9; Mic 7:17).

-----Added 11/28/2009 at 08:57:37 EST-----



Andres said:


> cool. I want a picture.



Not sure how to attach pictures using a URL.


----------



## Grillsy

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gen 3:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
> 
> 
> 
> By this curse, can we assume that perhaps the serpent did not always go just on his belly, but that he also had legs and/or wings or some other appendage, which would make him resemble a "dragon" or a Leviathan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One may read what some commentators interpret as an etiological allusion to the ordinary snake’s legless locomotion (Gen 3:14) as a metaphorical description of disgrace and defeat (Lev 11:43; Ps 72:9; Mic 7:17).
Click to expand...


But it speaks of the serpent as being in the category of animal...so I would conclude that it is a real snake. I don't see any warrant for it being anything but literal in that regard.


----------



## MarieP

"You shall strike His heel, but He shall crush your head" sound pretty serpentish to me. Plus the curse of crawling on his belly. Snakes used to have legs.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Grillsy said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gen 3:
> 
> By this curse, can we assume that perhaps the serpent did not always go just on his belly, but that he also had legs and/or wings or some other appendage, which would make him resemble a "dragon" or a Leviathan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One may read what some commentators interpret as an etiological allusion to the ordinary snake’s legless locomotion (Gen 3:14) as a metaphorical description of disgrace and defeat (Lev 11:43; Ps 72:9; Mic 7:17).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it speaks of the serpent as being in the category of animal...so I would conclude that it is a real snake. I don't see any warrant for it being anything but literal in that regard.
Click to expand...


The serpent obviously bears qualities that are superior to the animal life, namely, intellectual, communicative, and moral capacities. The use of the Hebrew min comparative to describe the serpent as wiser than the ordinary animals may indicate a contrast ( _comparison of exclusion_. IBHS § 14.4e; GKC § 119w) and need not imply that the serpent in fact belonged to the same class of beings with which he was being compared. 

For example, when Solomon pledges to build Yahweh a great temple, “for our God is greater than all gods” (2 Chr 2:5), he does not intend to place God in the same class as the false deities of the pagan nations. When the Psalmist declares, “I have more understanding than all my teachers,” he views himself as a pupil, not as a teacher (119:99). Similarly, “the serpent” of Genesis 3:1 may appear to belong to the class of animals with which he is compared but in fact does not. 

Hence, the narrator’s syntax seems to place the serpent into a class of his own. Roland *Ward agrees that “the words may be read as placing the serpent outside the category of ‘the wild creature of the field,’ in which case another cunning creature, but not an ordinary snake, is meant. The creature is Satan himself, a fallen angel.” _Foundations in Genesis_, 100. See also Harold Stigers, _A Commentary on Genesis_, 73–74.

-----Added 11/28/2009 at 09:19:54 EST-----



MarieP said:


> "You shall strike His heel, but He shall crush your head" sound pretty serpentish to me. Plus the curse of crawling on his belly. Snakes used to have legs.



One might object to viewing the serpent as an angelic being rather than a snake on the basis of Genesis 3:15, which seems to portray a human stepping on the head of a snake. Scripture, however, elsewhere speaks of the placing of one’s foot over one’s enemy as a symbol of victory (Josh 10:24–25; 2 Sam 22:29; 1 Kgs 5:3; Ps 18:38 [Heb 39]; 47:3 [Heb 4]; 110:1; Mal 4:3; Matt 22:44; Mark 12:36; Rom 16:20; 1 Cor 15:25, 27; Heb 2:8). The reference, therefore, need only imply a victory for the woman’s seed at the cost of a serious wound from a vanquished enemy.

-----Added 11/28/2009 at 09:23:56 EST-----



MarieP said:


> Snakes used to have legs.



The etiological interpretation of this passage seems quite trivial and out-of-step with the serious theological intentions of the inspired author. For one thing, snakes, as the Israelite reader well knew, did not really “eat dust.” 

And is it not better to view the snake’s legless movement as a wonder of God’s creative activity—a part of the original “very good” (1:31)? Moreover, human-reptile antipathy is by no means universal; some people are very fond of snakes, and there are other animals (like certain insects) that produce a far greater aversion in humans than do snakes. 

Consequently, it seems more natural to interpret God’s curse on the serpent as addressing an intelligent, supernatural being who would “father” a race of spiritual rebels that would oppose the race of the godly, physically born of Eve but spiritually born of God (see Gen 4:2–8; John 8:44; 1 John 3:8–12; Jude 1:11).


----------



## MarieP

Interesting...

But then why the use of a snake on a pole, if not to demonstrate that Christ took the curse upon Himself and to remind the Israelites of their sin?

How would you interpret the use of the snake imagery? Or are we instead to think of it as a serpent of the higher order on a pole?


----------



## MarieP

Would these be parallelisms?

Genesis 49:17- "Dan shall be a serpent by the way, a viper by the path, that bites the horse’s heels so that its rider shall fall backward."

Deut. 32:33- "Their wine is the poison of serpents, and the cruel venom of cobras."

Psalm 58:4- "Their poison is like the poison of a serpent; They are like the deaf cobra that stops its ear"

Psalm 91:13- "You shall tread upon the lion and the cobra, the young lion and the serpent you shall trample underfoot."

Psalm 140:3- "They sharpen their tongues like a serpent; The poison of asps is under their lips."

Proverbs 23:31-32- "Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls around smoothly; At the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper."

Jeremiah 8:17- “'For behold, I will send serpents among you, vipers which cannot be charmed, and they shall bite you, says the LORD."

Micah 7:17- "They shall lick the dust like a serpent; They shall crawl from their holes like snakes of the earth. They shall be afraid of the LORD our God, And shall fear because of You."

Matthew 23:33- "Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?"


Would the original hearers have thought of snake-charming?

Jeremiah 8:17- “'For behold, I will send serpents among you, vipers which cannot be charmed, and they shall bite you, says the LORD."

Ecclesiastes 10:11- "A serpent may bite when it is not charmed; The babbler is no different."


This mentions flying serpent here. Perhaps a different creature than they would have thought of by the word "serpent?"

Isaiah 14:29- "Do not rejoice, all you of Philistia, because the rod that struck you is broken; For out of the serpent’s roots will come forth a viper, and its offspring will be a fiery flying serpent."

Isaiah 30:6- "The burden against the beasts of the South. through a land of trouble and anguish, from which came the lioness and lion, the viper and fiery flying serpent"


It seems like a snake here too, since it can lay on a wall and be picked up (laying aside the debate over the authenticity of the longer Markian ending for the moment) and trampled upon like scorpions can be trampled on?

Amos 5:19- "It will be as though a man fled from a lion, and a bear met him! Or as though he went into the house, leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him!"

Mark 16:18- "they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Luke 10:19- "Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you."

Wouldn't this serpent meant here be about the same size as a fish, not some angelic being?

Luke 11:11- "If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish?"

Or are you saying all these are indeed snakes, but the serpent of Genesis is not? You have an interesting point that it does not NEED be a snake (ie the point about the use of "gods")

I'm still trying to figure out if Lot's wife turned into a true pillar of salt or if it was a way of saying she was scared stiff and died from the brimstone and decomposed, LOL! I'll leave that for another thread!


----------



## Hebrew Student

Hey Everyone!

Here are my thoughts.

First of all, there is no doubt that, in the ancient near east, the serpent was the symbol of evil. Now, with regards to the story in Genesis, I think one has to ask which came first the chicken or the egg. I would have no problems with Satan using such an animal, and then, precisely because he used such an animal, it became the symbol for evil in the ancient near east. God would have then ordained it as such in order to be able to more directly communicate with the ancient near east in the late bronze age. In fact, this symbolism even shows up in the New Testament.

Also this imagry even shows up in the Ugaritic Baal epic where the Baal conquers the lwytn, and it appears that God is taking that imagry, and applying it to himself, as the one who will ultimately conquer and destroy evil. However, I cannot remember where precisely this is found in the Baal epic.

As to whether it is a snake or a serpent-like creature, I think it could go either way. It is important that this imagry is used in the ANE for evil, and what is being painted here is a picture of a crafty, evil person who brings down the human race.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## MarieP

Same with Lot's wife. The point is...don't be like her!!!

Luke 17
28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.
31 “In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back. 32 Remember Lot’s wife. 33 Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left. 35 Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left. 36 Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left.”

And please, I don't want to start an eschatology thread


----------



## Edward

Why strain to try to make the plain words of the scripture mean something other than they say? Some parts of the Scriptures are clearer than others, but why would someone struggle to try to change plain meanings when there is no apparent compelling reason to do so. 

I am straining to not be too uncharitable on this point.


----------



## kevin.carroll

Hebrew Student said:


> Also this imagry even shows up in the Ugaritic Baal epic where the Baal conquers the lwytn, and it appears that God is taking that imagry, and applying it to himself, as the one who will ultimately conquer and destroy evil. However, I cannot remember where precisely this is found in the Baal epic.
> 
> As to whether it is a snake or a serpent-like creature, I think it could go either way. It is important that this imagry is used in the ANE for evil, and what is being painted here is a picture of a crafty, evil person who brings down the human race



So why does God have to be taking the imagery of ANE and be applying it to himself? Why cannot this actually be what happened? Why cannot ANE be including the imagery out of a warped memory of the actual events?


----------



## Hebrew Student

Kevin,

I wasn't talking about in Genesis when I talked about God applying imagry to himself. I was thinking more about in poetic passages like this passage from Isaiah:

Isaiah 27:1-2 In that day the LORD will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, With His fierce and great and mighty sword, Even Leviathan the twisted serpent; And He will kill the dragon who lives in the sea. 2 In that day, "A vineyard of wine, sing of it!

This is what is called "broken mythology." It is using the language of Canaanite mythology to paint a picture of the wickedness that God is going to punish. This is where God is taking the imagry of the distruction of the lwytn, and applying it to himself. I mentioned it precisely because of its relevance to the issue of evil as the image of a serpent in the ANE.

My point with regards to Genesis was [and maybe this was sloppiness on my part] that, in terms of the characterization of the serpent, he is being painted as an evil, crafty person who brings down the human race precisely because he is a serpent. That, in and of itself, would have made a huge impact on the readers of the Hebrew Bible in the ANE.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

MarieP said:


> Interesting...
> 
> But then why the use of a snake on a pole, if not to demonstrate that Christ took the curse upon Himself and to remind the Israelites of their sin?
> 
> How would you interpret the use of the snake imagery? Or are we instead to think of it as a serpent of the higher order on a pole?



Marie,

Good question. I'm preparing for Sabbath ministries so I don't know if I'll have a change to give an answer (it's a little complicated). I think Adam's on the right track. Hopefully, I'll share some more of my thoughts later today or tomorrow. 

Bob G.

-----Added 11/29/2009 at 05:54:25 EST-----



MarieP said:


> Would these be parallelisms?
> 
> Genesis 49:17- "Dan shall be a serpent by the way, a viper by the path, that bites the horse’s heels so that its rider shall fall backward."
> 
> Deut. 32:33- "Their wine is the poison of serpents, and the cruel venom of cobras."
> 
> Psalm 58:4- "Their poison is like the poison of a serpent; They are like the deaf cobra that stops its ear"
> 
> Psalm 91:13- "You shall tread upon the lion and the cobra, the young lion and the serpent you shall trample underfoot."
> 
> Psalm 140:3- "They sharpen their tongues like a serpent; The poison of asps is under their lips."
> 
> Proverbs 23:31-32- "Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls around smoothly; At the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper."
> 
> Jeremiah 8:17- “'For behold, I will send serpents among you, vipers which cannot be charmed, and they shall bite you, says the LORD."
> 
> Micah 7:17- "They shall lick the dust like a serpent; They shall crawl from their holes like snakes of the earth. They shall be afraid of the LORD our God, And shall fear because of You."
> 
> Matthew 23:33- "Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?"
> 
> 
> Would the original hearers have thought of snake-charming?
> 
> Jeremiah 8:17- “'For behold, I will send serpents among you, vipers which cannot be charmed, and they shall bite you, says the LORD."
> 
> Ecclesiastes 10:11- "A serpent may bite when it is not charmed; The babbler is no different."
> 
> 
> This mentions flying serpent here. Perhaps a different creature than they would have thought of by the word "serpent?"
> 
> Isaiah 14:29- "Do not rejoice, all you of Philistia, because the rod that struck you is broken; For out of the serpent’s roots will come forth a viper, and its offspring will be a fiery flying serpent."
> 
> Isaiah 30:6- "The burden against the beasts of the South. through a land of trouble and anguish, from which came the lioness and lion, the viper and fiery flying serpent"
> 
> 
> It seems like a snake here too, since it can lay on a wall and be picked up (laying aside the debate over the authenticity of the longer Markian ending for the moment) and trampled upon like scorpions can be trampled on?
> 
> Amos 5:19- "It will be as though a man fled from a lion, and a bear met him! Or as though he went into the house, leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him!"
> 
> Mark 16:18- "they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
> 
> Luke 10:19- "Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you."
> 
> Wouldn't this serpent meant here be about the same size as a fish, not some angelic being?
> 
> Luke 11:11- "If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish?"
> 
> Or are you saying all these are indeed snakes, but the serpent of Genesis is not? You have an interesting point that it does not NEED be a snake (ie the point about the use of "gods")
> 
> I'm still trying to figure out if Lot's wife turned into a true pillar of salt or if it was a way of saying she was scared stiff and died from the brimstone and decomposed, LOL! I'll leave that for another thread!



Wow! You've really got the Berean spirit. That's great.


----------



## Peairtach

It was very different to an ordinary snake. 

(a)It could speak. 

(b)It wasn't on it's belly 

(c)It was more cunning than any of the other animals

These are three features that are different to snakes today.

(a) raises the Q of whether Eve expected to be able to speak to animals/serpents. 

Would we not be more than a little susprised today if a snake spoke to us? 

Would the such a serpent-like creature say to us, "Hath God said, that the Devil used a serpent-like creature to bring us to ruin?"


----------



## TimV

It was Satan. He had his legs taken away, which is symbolic of being restricted to going about here and there on the earth, 



> Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
> Job 1:7 The LORD said to Satan, "From where have you come?" Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it."



instead of his previous ability (which probably has a double meaning with the king of Tyre but doesn't take away from the point)



> Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!



That's why Satan can still be described as a dragon



> Rev 12:4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it.



And Satan's head will be crushed by the Christ, who is called Michael in this passage



> Rev 12:7 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back,
> Rev 12:8 but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.
> Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world--he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
> Rev 12:10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.


----------



## Peairtach

I'd never heard of Dr Bob's notion in my life before, so pardon me if it still sounds like a dangerous novelty.

I'd always assumed that Satan used an animal related to our modern day post-fall serpents/snakes. I'd have to think this one through a bit.

But in this connection, it is of course interesting that the cherubim (living ones?), apparently an order of angels are described in animal terms e.g. in Ezekiel.

Fairbairn says - If I remember correctly - that this is to indicate their superior qualities. I'll have to check Patrick Fairbairn to see what he says in his "Typology" and also "Ezekiel":-

Lion - majesty, nobility, bravery and fierceness.

Ox- strength and service.

Man - the intelligence, knowledge, holiness and wisdom of unfallen Man.

Eagle - swiftness to do God's service. Keenness of (spiritual?) sight.


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from Marie P*


> I'm still trying to figure out if Lot's wife turned into a true pillar of salt or if it was a way of saying she was scared stiff and died from the brimstone and decomposed, LOL! I'll leave that for another thread!



Some miracles in the Bible e.g. the talking snake, Balaam's ass talking, Jonah and the Whale, Lot's wife, may seem more extraordinary or strange or ridiculous, to our sinful and unbelieving minds than others.

But God has put them in His Word for a purpose(s) - one being that these things happened, another being that true faith is being tested. Further study may bring certain things about these extraordinary occurences to light, but we shouldn't expect a satisfactory or biblically sound academic reworking of every miracle which we find more difficult to swallow by faith than others.

That leads down the road of Liberalism and unbelief. E.g. the Manna was the fruit of a certain plant in the desert, the 5,000 were persuaded to share the little food they had by the actions of a young boy, etc, etc.

Everything miraculous has to have an explanation, until there are no real miracles/supernaturalism left.

I'm not saying that that is what Dr. Bob is doing here.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The text does NOT say that _snakes once had legs_. [aaaaargh!]
Cursed are you above all the livestock 
and all the wild animals! 
You will crawl on your belly 
and you will eat dust 
all the days of your life.​In the Bible, in fact all over the Bible, God takes regular, ordinary things that we encounter and _infuses them_ with New Spiritual Meaning.

Male circumcision is a perfect example of this. I have no certain knowledge that ancient desert nomads practiced some such operation on men (if necessary due to infections or as a prophylactic measure) before Abraham's day, although I suspect that Abraham knew WHAT circumcision was before God told him to circumcise his house. The point, however, is that circumcision was ASSIGNED a spiritual meaning by God.

People treat the rainbow the same way. They take a certain understanding of Gen 2:5 (wrong, in my opinion) and claim that there never was ANY RAIN prior to the flood, and from there they further reason that no one ever saw a rainbow-prism either.

Even if there never was any rain (?!?), wouldn't people have seen a "rainbow" in a waterfall?

But NOW, after God assigns a promisory meaning to the rainbow, whenever FAITHFUL men see a rainbow, they hope in God who has promised that the world will never "end" before *his *END. So much for all the hyperventilation of the global-warmers, the asteriod-mongers, and the rest of TEOTWAWKI loons predicting the imminent demise of the human race.


Snakes have always crawled on their bellies. But now, when we see one crawling and are either repulsed or fascinated, and we contemplate that creature with its flicking tongue "licking the dust", we RECALL that it is cursed of God, that this manner of life is degrading not merly in the appearance, but by the Word of God. And we remember that Satan himself is cursed IN the serpent, and his head will be/was crushed by Christ, the woman's Seed.


----------



## Peairtach

Contra_Mundum said:


> The text does NOT say that _snakes once had legs_. [aaaaargh!]
> Cursed are you above all the livestock
> and all the wild animals!
> You will crawl on your belly
> and you will eat dust
> all the days of your life.​In the Bible, in fact all over the Bible, God takes regular, ordinary things that we encounter and _infuses them_ with New Spiritual Meaning.
> 
> Male circumcision is a perfect example of this. I have no certain knowledge that ancient desert nomads practiced some such operation on men (if necessary due to infections or as a prophylactic measure) before Abraham's day, although I suspect that Abraham knew WHAT circumcision was before God told him to circumcise his house. The point, however, is that circumcision was ASSIGNED a spiritual meaning by God.
> 
> People treat the rainbow the same way. They take a certain understanding of Gen 2:5 (wrong, in my opinion) and claim that there never was ANY RAIN prior to the flood, and from there they further reason that no one ever saw a rainbow-prism either.
> 
> Even if there never was any rain (?!?), wouldn't people have seen a "rainbow" in a waterfall?
> 
> But NOW, after God assigns a promisory meaning to the rainbow, whenever FAITHFUL men see a rainbow, they hope in God who has promised that the world will never "end" before *his *END. So much for all the hyperventilation of the global-warmers, the asteriod-mongers, and the rest of TEOTWAWKI loons predicting the imminent demise of the human race.
> 
> 
> Snakes have always crawled on their bellies. But now, when we see one crawling and are either repulsed or fascinated, and we contemplate that creature with its flicking tongue "licking the dust", we RECALL that it is cursed of God, that this manner of life is degrading not merly in the appearance, but by the Word of God. And we remember that Satan himself is cursed IN the serpent, and his head will be/was crushed by Christ, the woman's Seed.



Interesting, Bruce. I'd probably agree on the rainbow and circumcision predating their institution as signs.

But you haven't shared your views on Dr Bob's more substantive point that the Devil wasn't using a serpent but that this is a way of referring to a fallen angelic being, probably Satan himself.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I'm not sure we are meant to disentangle all the functional ambiguities in the text. The nature of pre-fall reality is only accessible to us in the written Word, and we are in some sense obligated to submit to it as is, and to relate to it according to the language of our present reality. God gave it to us in this form, and under these conditions, and expects us to get the meat out of it nonetheless.

So, I am satisfied that both Satan and a serpent are present. How? Not my problem.


----------



## CharlieJ

*Curse on earth?*

So, this is a question of whether there was one or two beings involved. Either Satan through a created animal or Satan speaking in a visible form best described as serpent-like.

My off-the-top inclination is to say that "the serpent" is Satan acting alone, not through an earthly animal. It makes more sense to me to say that Satan gained his measure of authority over the earth as a result of the Fall. Without that authority, how could he have possessed an animal to bind it to his will? I suppose you could say that God allowed it, but that answer seems to complicate the situation and violate the sanctity of the unfallen creation, as well as man's dominion. Man had to "give up" the earth to Satan, so to speak, before Satan could work that way.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Hey, folks. I'm back. Lot's of interesting discussion. I think there are some valid arguments for the more traditional view that interprets the serpent as an ordinary snake through which Satan speaks (somewhat like God spoke through a donkey). Nevertheless, here are some arguments in favor of viewing "the Serpent" in the passage as a supernatural being, in some ways creature-like in his appearance but belonging to a different class. He may be what Isaiah saw in his vision--one of Yahweh's throne-flanking Seraphs. Here are some reasons:

First, the serpent obviously bears qualities that are superior to the animal life, namely, intellectual, communicative, and moral capacities. The use of the Hebrew _min_ comparative to describe the serpent as wiser than the ordinary animals indicates a contrast and need not imply that the serpent in fact belonged to the same class of beings with which he was being compared (this is called the "_min_ of exclusion"). Hence, Moses’s syntax seems to place the serpent into a class of his own. Moreover, one may read what some commentators interpret as an etiological allusion to the ordinary snake’s legless locomotion (Gen 3:14) as, instead, a metaphorical description of disgrace and defeat (Lev 11:43; Ps 72:9; Mic 7:17).

Second, the superiority of the serpent over the humans also suggests an angelic creature. In Genesis 2, Adam is portrayed as wiser than the animals in that he is appointed to rule over them (1:26, 28) and has the capacity to name them (2:19–20). Indeed, among all the livestock, birds, and beasts, there was found no equal to Adam. In 2:20 we read, "But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.” The Hebrew term translated “fit” refers to that which corresponds in stature or capacity. The point is not merely that Adam needed a suitable biological partner with which to procreate but that the animals lacked the intellectual, spiritual, and moral qualities necessary to serve alongside Adam as vice-regents to fulfill God’s creation-mandate. But in chapter 3, “the serpent” assumes the role of humankind’s teacher and superior. As many commentators point out, the description of the serpent as “crafty” (_'arum_; 3:1) is probably a word-play on the previous description of Adam and Eve as “naked” (_'arumim_; 2:25). Although Adam and Eve are portrayed as wiser than the animals, they are also depicted as lacking a higher kind of wisdom, symbolized by the Tree of Knowledge (2:9, 16–17; 3:5–6). Accordingly, the reader should interpret their "nakedness" as a reference to ethical innocence and immaturity. They do not yet possess that Elohim-like quality and prerogative that characterizes angelic beings (2 Sam 14:17) and some earthly monarchs who function as judges (2 Sam 14:17; 1 Kgs 3:9). The serpent, however, does possess that quality. Although the Hebrew _'arum_ may sometimes convey negative connotations (Job 5:12; 15:5), it predominantly denotes one who possesses wisdom (Prov 14:8) and is contrasted with ethical folly (Prov 12:6, 23; 13:16; 14:18) and naivete (Prov 14:15; 22:3; 27:12). So the Moses portrays the serpent as wiser than the humans. Interpreters and theologians debate at what point the serpent’s _'arum_ became corrupted into anti-God or “worldly” wisdom. Most locate Satan’s fall sometime prior to the Genesis 3 narrative so that his cunning in verse 1 is interpreted negatively. Others argue that Satan’s fall occurred in connection or close proximity with man’s fall. Arguments in favor of Satan’s “fall” occurring about the time of man’s fall include (1) the fact that at the end of the sixth day God assessed the creation as “very good” (Gen 1:31), which would seem to preclude the presence of evil in the universe at that point, and (2) the fact that God pronounces a penal curse on Satan at the same time that he pronounces a curse on fallen humanity (Gen 3:14–19). 

Third, the use of the definite article with the noun “serpent” suggests an entity already well-known to the original Israelite audience. Of course, this may imply nothing more than that the Israelites already knew the Genesis 3 story about a talking serpent that tempted the first humans. On the other hand, biblical evidence indicates that Moses’s original audience may have been aware of a class of angelic creatures called “seraphim” to which the serpent of Genesis 3:1 may have belonged. Though the term is sometimes applied to ordinary snakes, it is also used in Isaiah’s vision for the dragon-like angelic beings with wings and limbs that flanked Yahweh’s throne (Isa 6:2, 6). Such semi-divine creatures find counterparts in the legends and mythology of the ancient Near East. In her study of serpent symbolism in the OT and its relation to ancient Near Eastern serpent symbolism, Karen Joines notes the striking resemblance of form and function between the seraphim of Isaiah 6 and the winged serpents that stand erect, wear crowns, and flank the throne of the fourteenth-century B.C. Egyptian Pharaoh Tutankhamen. She also refers to the many Egyptian scarabs that feature winged serpents, most of which date to the eighth and ninth centuries B.C. (_Serpent Symbolism_, [FONT=&quot]49–51[/FONT] ). Moreover, she discusses recent archaeological evidence of divine or semi-divine serpent creatures in ancient Near Eastern mythology and legend dating in some cases to the third-millennium B.C. (Ibid., 17–31, 62–73, 109–21). These mythical concepts of semi-divine dragon-like creatures may reflect the nations’ faint memory of that primeval serpent creature in Eden. While the Israelite reader would have rejected the mythological distortions of his pagan neighbors, he would have no serious obstacle in viewing the serpent of Genesis 3 as a supernatural being of angelic status that had rebelled against Yahweh and had become the supreme Antagonist to the divine will. The fact that the angelic guardian-creatures called “cherubim” were also present in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:24; Ezek 28:12–15; cf. 1 Enoch 20:7; 71:7; 61:10) lends further support to the view that the “primeval serpent” (Rev 20:2, NJB) was not an ordinary snake but an angelic being who was about to lead the vice-regents of Yahweh-Elohim into cosmic mutiny.


----------



## Pergamum

What practical differences would it make if we held to this newer view versus the traditional view? How would it affect the rest of our theological grid?


----------



## Hebrew Student

Hey Everyone!

I found the reference in the Baal epic that I could not find before. It is from the fifth tablet [KTU 1.5], column I, lines 27-31:



> ktmĥs/[ltn.btn.br]h
> When you [Baal] slaughtered the Leviathan, the fleeing serpent
> 
> tkly/[btn.‘qltn.]
> [when] you finished off the twisted serpent,
> 
> šlyt/[d.šb‘t.rašm]
> The powerful one of seven heads



Now, compare that to Isaiah 27:



> *Isaiah 27:1* In that day the LORD will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, With His fierce and great and mighty sword, Even Leviathan the twisted serpent; And He will kill the dragon who lives in the sea.



Even some of the key Ugaritic and Hebrew words are related. Now, we must first of all say that, while Ugaritic has no written vowel system [except for three different forms of the Aleph], and hence, we can only represent consonants, in Semitic Philology words are related by their consonantal roots, and hence, simply by representing the Ugaritic consonants, one can easily see the similarities in these key words. For example, the Hebrew term for "fleeing" in Isaiah 27:1 is bārīah, and the Ugaritic term for "fleeing" in the above passage is brh. The Hebrew term for "twisted" in Isaiah 27:1 is ‘ªqallātôn, while the Ugaritic term for "twisted in the above passage is ‘qltn. 

In fact, in the Baal epic, Leviathan is a representation of the Ugaritic God Yamm, spelled ym in Ugaritic, and the Hebrew word for "sea" in Isaiah 27:1 is yām. Also, in the Baal epic in tablet 2, Column IV, lines 4-5, Yamm is spoken of as being destroyed by the sword, and the Ugaritic word used there is hrb, while the Hebrew word for sword in Isaiah 27:1 is hereb.

That is what I meant when I said that God is taking upon himself the imagery of Baal's destruction of the Leviathan, and applying it to himself. Because of this imagery of the serpent as evil in the Ancient Near East, to speak of God destroying the serpent is to speak of God as ultimately destroying evil. The best understanding of this is that God mentions the destruction of evil by taking up the imagery of Baal defeating the Leviathan in order to warn the Israelites to stop trusting in Baal, and to start trusting in him, since he is the one who will ultimately destroy evil.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## kevin.carroll

So, Adam, was there a serpent in the Garden or not?


----------



## Hebrew Student

Kevin,



> So, Adam, was there a serpent in the Garden or not?



Yes.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Peairtach

Yes. All very interesting, Dr Bob.

So the words seraph and seraphim (burning one(s)) are sometimes used for serpent/snake (Isaiah 14:29; 30:6; Numbers 21:6) as well as for the angels in Isaiah 6.

As a matter of interest, what is/are the Hebrew word(s) for serpent/snake in Genesis 3 and their root meaning(s).

You were also going to expatiate on the incident of the bronze serpent in the wilderness.

Do many sound commentators on Genesis follow the view that the Devil acted alone, without using a snake? Who are they?


----------



## Bookworm

I've always taken the serpent in Genesis 3 to be an ordinary animal that Satan "commandeered" in order to deceive Eve. However, what do PBers think about this paper by Doug Kennard which questions the traditional identification of the serpent with Satan? You can also find some reflections on the paper on Todd Wood's blog.


----------



## Peairtach

Bookworm said:


> I've always taken the serpent in Genesis 3 to be an ordinary animal that Satan "commandeered" in order to deceive Eve. However, what do PBers think about this paper by Doug Kennard which questions the traditional identification of the serpent with Satan? You can also find some reflections on the paper on Todd Wood's blog.



I always held to the view you express, and am in no hurry to change. Doug Kennard denies that the Serpent was even "commandeered" by Satan?! I'll get round to reading this paper.


----------



## Peairtach

Douglas Kennard's unusual view - unusual in literary style and grammar, as well as exegesis - certainly makes one prefer Dr Bob's view.

Kennard's view should be rebutted point by point by someone, as it would rob the church, and Adam and Eve, of the protoevangelium, among other things.

It's certainly a foil to Dr Bob's view.


----------



## Bookworm

I agree that it would be great if someone could write a scholarly counterpoint to Doug Kennard's article. I'm confident that the Creation Biology Study Group would welcome such a contribution to its annual conference or its series of Occasional Papers.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Richard Tallach said:


> Yes. All very interesting, Dr Bob.
> 
> So the words seraph and seraphim (burning one(s)) are sometimes used for serpent/snake (Isaiah 14:29; 30:6; Numbers 21:6) as well as for the angels in Isaiah 6.
> 
> As a matter of interest, what is/are the Hebrew word(s) for serpent/snake in Genesis 3 and their root meaning(s).
> 
> You were also going to expatiate on the incident of the bronze serpent in the wilderness.
> 
> Do many sound commentators on Genesis follow the view that the Devil acted alone, without using a snake? Who are they?



Richard and others,

Thanks so much for the helpful input, interaction, and questions. I apologize I haven't yet responded. Unfortunately, I've got a bit too many irons in the fire right now. But I think I'll have some time this week to return to this thread and address some of the good questions raised. 

Thanks for your interest and patience.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Richard Tallach said:


> Yes. All very interesting, Dr Bob.So the words seraph and seraphim (burning one(s)) are sometimes used for serpent/snake (Isaiah 14:29; 30:6; Numbers 21:6) as well as for the angels in Isaiah 6.



Yes. The noun _seraphim_ is related to the verb שרף that means “to burn.” Lexicographers attempt to guess at the relationship. Does it refer to _the effect_ (i.e., burning) of the serpent’s venom? Or, if we’re talking about a dragon-like creature, could it refer to _what the creature exhales_? Interestingly, Leviathan is described as a creature with the ability to exhale “light,” “fire,” and “smoke” (Job 41:18-20) though some interpret this description as metaphorical. Another possibility is that “burning” or “fiery” may allude to the creature’s _appearance_, which leads to your question below. 



Richard Tallach said:


> As a matter of interest, what is/are the Hebrew word(s) for serpent/snake in Genesis 3 and their root meaning(s).



The term for “serpent” in Genesis 3:1 is נחש. Some scholars see a relationship between this term and the noun for bronze, נחשת. Thus, Victor Hamilton suggests, “This connection with bronze suggests a shiny and luminous appearance, which would arrest Eve’s attention” (_The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17_, 187). 

I’m not prepared to argue (with any dogmatism) that there’s a definite conceptual relationship between the appearance of bronze and the appearance of the creature in Genesis 3:1 (or other “serpents” for that matter) though such a connection is possible. And it is interesting that that _nahash-seraph_ that Moses lifted on a pole was made of bronze. 

What’s more important in my mind are the following observations:

(1) As I pointed out above, the noun “serpent” in Genesis 3:1 is articular, i.e., “the Serpent.” This suggests an entity already well known to Moses’s audience. The usage is not anaphoric since there is no previous mention of the serpent in the context; nor is the usage generic since it is not a class or species of animals in view but a single entity. Instead, according to Waltke and O’Connor, the articular noun designates “_a well-known thing or person_; the combination is close to constituting a name (cf. 13.6)” IBHS § 13.5.1.c (emphasis theirs). 

(2) We should keep in mind that the Hebrew term נחש, used in Genesis 3:1, is semantically broader than our English term “snake.” While it could be used to refer to what were probably “snakes” (Exod. 7:15; Num. 21:6, 7, 9; Deut. 8:15; Pss. 58:5; 140:4; Prov. 30:19; Eccl. 10:8, 11; Jer. 8:17; Amos 5:19), it could also be used to refer to a much larger reptilian-like creature. For example, the fearsome creature Leviathan is also designated a נחש (Isa. 27:1) though he's obviously more than a mere snake (Job 41). Similarly, the Hebrew תנִין can refer to a large snake (Exod. 7:9-10) or it can refer to a huge (probably reptilian) creature that inhabits the sea (Gen. 1:21; Ps. 148:7). Interesting. the great Leviathan is predicated by the terms נחש (translated "serpent") and תנִין (translated "dragon") in Isaiah 27:1. In conclusion, נחש can refer to a relatively small or a relatively large reptilian-like creature. 

(3) The semantic breadth of the Hebrew נחש as opposed to the English “snake” resembles the older usage of the English term “worm,” which could refer not merely to the little slimy creatures we put on fish hooks but to “dragons.” You may recall that the dragons in Tolkien's adventures were oft referred to as "worms." 

(4) This leads to the undeniable fact that the Bible identifies “the primeval Serpent” of Genesis 3:1 as “the dragon” and “Satan” (Rev. 20:2). While some see Scripture writers like Isaiah and John drawing conceptual parallels between the serpent, Satan, and imaginary mythical creatures called dragons, I suspect that what we call myth would be better called legend. While a myth is largely imaginary, a legend is usually embellished history. In other words, there really was a primordial dragon in the Garden. (Here's where I might slightly differ from Adam who sees a real primordial snake as the etiological origin of ANE mythology.) 

This dragon-like creature lived on in the memories of men and became the subject of much folklore. He may have resembled other reptilian creatures just as the _cherubim_ resemble ordinary creatures (see Ezek. 1:10, 14; Rev. 4:7), as Richard points out above. But unlike ordinary reptilian creatures, the Serpent of Genesis 3:1 possessed wisdom and the capacity to communicate. And as noted above, the Hebrew _min_ (מן) preposition in Genesis 3:1 may not be including the Serpent _in the same class_ as the beasts of the field but may be interpreted as a _min of exclusion_, i.e., “the Serpent was wiser _in contrast from_ or _in distinction from_ the creatures of the field.” No wonder Eve wasn’t surprised when he addressed her with intelligible speech!



Richard Tallach said:


> You were also going to expatiate on the incident of the bronze serpent in the wilderness.



If I’m not mistaken, Moses made a bronze serpent that was impaled on a pole. It was as if God ordered Moses to destroy what was the curse for the Israelites. Similarly, Christ became a curse for us and was, as it were, impaled on a pole. As the Israelites had to look to the impaled curse if they were to be saved, so we must look to the crucified one who had become a curse for us if we are to be saved. That’s what I read from comparing the account in Numbers to Jesus’s words in John 3:14-15. 

If the serpents of Numbers 21 were ordinary snakes, must we not interpret the serpent of Genesis 3 as an ordinary snake? I don’t think so. As noted above, there was probably a shared resemblance just as we would say snakes resemble dragons or dinosaurs physiologically in certain respects. But “the Serpent” of Genesis 3:1, clearly possessed intelligence that far surpassed any ordinary creature. Moreover, the divine curse that followed as well as the portending of Serpent offspring, which later revelation identifies as evil humans (John 8:44; 1 John 3:12), makes it more likely that the Serpent of Genesis 3 was a supernatural creature—perhaps, as I suggested above, one of the winged Seraph’s who flanked Yahweh’s throne (Isa. 6). 



Richard Tallach said:


> Do many sound commentators on Genesis follow the view that the Devil acted alone, without using a snake? Who are they?



A few theologians and commentators suggest this view but don’t really develop it. See, for example, Oliver Buswell, _A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion_, 1:264; Harold Stigers, _Commentary on Genesis_, 73-74; Victor Hamilton, _The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17_, 187-88; Rowland Ward, _Foundations in Genesis_, 100. John Ronning more fully develops the idea of “the Serpent” as a proper name or title for Satan in his dissertation “The Curse on the Serpent (Genesis 3:15) in Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics,” 130-42, 380-81. 

I hope this helps. I presently lean towards the view presented above though I also think there are arguments in favor of the traditional understanding of Satan employing and speaking through an ordinary snake. I certainly don't agree with Kennard's view, which seems to preclude any reference to Satan in Genesis 3. For example, he entreats the reader,Notice the direct address is to the serpent ... and the singular second person address as suffix pronouns "you" ... and the singular address verbs "cursed are you" ... and "you shall eat" ... all refer back to the nearest referent, the serpent being addressed. There is no allusion to another beyond or behind the serpent with the singular "you" statements referring to the serpent. ​*But I think God’s curse in 3:14–15 could be viewed as addressing the real culprit (i.e., Satan) through the instrument (i.e., the serpent) comparable to Jesus’s rebuke of Peter, “Get behind me, Satan” (Matt 16:23). So I don't find this or other parts of Kennard's reasoning convincing.

Your servant,


----------



## Peairtach

Apart from anything else Kinnard gives it away by arbitrarily saying that revelation a millennium after previous revelation can't be used to interpret the previous revelation. Where does he get that from? What about e.g. Melchisedec in Psalm 110 and in Hebrews.

I'll study your latest post and get back to you, Bob.

I was thinking that the serpent was a symbol of the Pharaohs and Egypt. Was that true at the time of Moses? We see double serpents on some of the crowns of the Pharaohs.

Of course the Pharaoh of the Exodus is often taken as a type of Satan and Egypt of Satan's kingdom in this world and of slavery to sin.

So Moses' defeat, under God, of Pharaoh could be seen as a precursor of the fulfillment of the _Protoeuangelion_. 

How do you see all this fitting together, Bob? Any comments?


----------



## Peairtach

It seems slightly anomalous, and I'm slightly uncomfortable with, the idea that the holy seraphim in Isaiah 6 that flank God's throne and cry "Holy, Holy, Holy" have a serpent-like appearance or an association with serpents in their character. That isn't helped by the serpent-like creatures that sometimes flanked the Egyptian throne. Are the latter seraphim the anti-seraphim or fallen seraphim?

In the Hebrew mind would the word seraph/seraphim in Isaiah 6 have had any conotation of snake/serpent or is it just that the same word is used in a completely different way?. In Isaiah 6 seraph/seraphim, "burning ones" refers to the holiness and purity of such creatures? Interestingly, in relation to the curse on Satan/the Serpent, the feet and wings of the seraphim are mentioned in Isaiah 6.

On the other hand the "seraphim" snakes/serpents may be so called either because of their appearance or because of the burning poison they impart to their victims(?)

In this respect it could be said that Lucifer has fallen from being a seraph - angel of buningly pure holiness to being a seraph-serpent, who's only aim is to impart his poison of sin, rebellion and lies to the human race.

We are reminded of the text: _And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (II Cor 11:14, ESV)_ in connection with his temptation of Eve, haven fallen from being a burningly holy seraph, Lucifer, to being a sinfully poisonous, loathsome and deceitful seraph, the Serpent. 

Jesus explicitly and directly calls demonic forces/demons, "serpents" and "scorpions" in Luke 10:19.

_"Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you". (Luke 10:19, ESV)._


----------



## Peairtach

I'm still looking at this somewhat.

The fact that the Serpent ("the well-known Serpent"?) is said to be "more crafty than any beast of the field God had made" is a pointer to Satan working alone rather than with a snake, because removal of such craftiness is not said to be part of the curse on the serpent, so we would expect snakes to be the craftiest animals alive today, which they are not.

I'm a bit dubious about introducing metaphor into the story of the Fall, when there are so many who wish to turn the whole account into metaphor and myth, but whether the view is taken that Satan was working alone, and was known as the Serpent, or whether you take the view that Satan was making use of a serpent, metaphor is present anyway.

Maybe Bob's approach fits better, and is just as orthodox.

If Satan/Lucifer wasn't using a serpent, how would Satan have got his association with the Serpent/ serpents? 

In the same way that the cherubim got their association with the ox, lion, man (presumably unfallen Man) and eagle, as the term "the Serpent" and "serpents" was suitable from the characteristics of serpents to _characterise_ the fallen Lucifer, fallen seraphs and other fallen angelic beings (?)

Some (most?) of the orthodox are clearly against the idea of Satan working here against Eve without a serpent/snake. Check out what Louis Berkhof has to say in his Systematic Theology. But Berkhof doesn't interact with any of the arguments here.

In some ways the account of things displayed in this thread may be a more _coherent _approach to the data, and not be after all just an attempt to get rid of a highly intelligent, communicative/talking, possibly legged or winged, snake with moral qualities, such that it can be addressed by and cursed by God.

It would be theoretically possible for Satan to make a snake talk. The intelligence seems to be posited of the creature , Satan or snake as inherent. If a snake was involved, the curse seems to posit a snake with wings or legs and a snake that is moral, unless the curse is seguing between snakes and Satan.

If it were an attempt merely to get rid of a talking snake, rather than come to a more coherent account of the different data, it would be wrong, as we must go where the Scriptures lead.


----------



## Wayne

I was just reading Matthew Henry's Exposition on Genesis 3 last evening. Here is what he had to say:



> 2. It was the devil in the likeness of a serpent. Whether it was only the visible shape and appearance of a serpent (as some think those were of which we read, Exod. vii. 12), or whether it was a real living serpent, actuated and possessed by the devil, is not certain: by God's permission it might be either. The devil chose to act his part in a serpent, (1.) Because it is a specious creature, has a spotted dappled skin, and then went erect. Perhaps it was a flying serpent, which seemed to come from on high as a messenger from the upper world, one of the seraphim; for the fiery serpents were flying, Isa. xiv. 29. Many a dangerous temptation comes to us in gay fine colours that are but skin-deep, and seems to come from above; for Satan can seem an angel of light. And, (2.) Because it is a subtle creature; this is here taken notice of. Many instances are given of the subtlety of the serpent, both to do mischief and to secure himself in it when it is done. We are directed to be wise as serpents. But this serpent, as actuated by the devil, was no doubt more subtle than any other; for the devil, though he has lost the sanctity, retains the sagacity of an angel, and is wise to do evil. He knew of more advantage by making use of the serpent than we are aware of. Observe, There is not any thing by which the devil serves himself and his own interest more than by unsanctified subtlety. What Eve thought of this serpent speaking to her we are not likely to tell, when I believe she herself did not know what to think of it. At first, perhaps, she supposed it might be a good angel, and yet, afterwards, she might suspect something amiss. It is remarkable that the Gentile idolaters did many of them worship the devil in the shape and form of a serpent, thereby avowing their adherence to that apostate spirit, and wearing his colours.


----------



## Peairtach

Wayne said:


> I was just reading Matthew Henry's Exposition on Genesis 3 last evening. Here is what he had to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. It was the devil in the likeness of a serpent. Whether it was only the visible shape and appearance of a serpent (as some think those were of which we read, Exod. vii. 12), or whether it was a real living serpent, actuated and possessed by the devil, is not certain: by God's permission it might be either. The devil chose to act his part in a serpent, (1.) Because it is a specious creature, has a spotted dappled skin, and then went erect. Perhaps it was a flying serpent, which seemed to come from on high as a messenger from the upper world, one of the seraphim; for the fiery serpents were flying, Isa. xiv. 29. Many a dangerous temptation comes to us in gay fine colours that are but skin-deep, and seems to come from above; for Satan can seem an angel of light. And, (2.) Because it is a subtle creature; this is here taken notice of. Many instances are given of the subtlety of the serpent, both to do mischief and to secure himself in it when it is done. We are directed to be wise as serpents. But this serpent, as actuated by the devil, was no doubt more subtle than any other; for the devil, though he has lost the sanctity, retains the sagacity of an angel, and is wise to do evil. He knew of more advantage by making use of the serpent than we are aware of. Observe, There is not any thing by which the devil serves himself and his own interest more than by unsanctified subtlety. What Eve thought of this serpent speaking to her we are not likely to tell, when I believe she herself did not know what to think of it. At first, perhaps, she supposed it might be a good angel, and yet, afterwards, she might suspect something amiss. It is remarkable that the Gentile idolaters did many of them worship the devil in the shape and form of a serpent, thereby avowing their adherence to that apostate spirit, and wearing his colours.
Click to expand...


So believing that Satan worked with a real snake isn't necessarily the only orthodox position on this question after all.

It is also an alternative orthodox position that he may have worked without a snake. Quite interesting.


----------



## Zenas

MarieP said:


> "You shall strike His heel, but He shall crush your head" sound pretty serpentish to me. Plus the curse of crawling on his belly. Snakes used to have legs.


 
But all of the serpant language could supposedly be interpreted to be used in a defamatory fashion with regard to Satan. "Snake" is his title and he is cursed to a low and disgraceful state. All of it might be an insulting metaphor for the historical curse that Satan came under.*

My wife has repeatedly raised a good point: why didn't a talking snake take Eve by surprise? Her conclusion is all animals must have talked. I disagree, but I don't find it worth arguing. 


*The theory expressed in this post does not necessarily reflect the views of the author, but merely the hypothetical response of one holding said position.**

**Disclaimers are fun.


----------



## Zenas

It's simply strange that there's no indication that Even found it strange that a snake talked. That's all.


----------



## Zenas

Make your own thread then hi-jack it.


----------



## Peairtach

Patrick Fairbairn in his "Typology of Scripture" has a lot to say about why the cherubim ("living ones" i.e. a type of angel) are given animal and human representation in Ezekiel and the Book of Revelation - namely lion, man (presumably unfallen Man), eagle and ox. See "Typology of Scripture", which is online, from page 224. His basic import is that they teach us about the godly, high, noble and excellent qualities of the cherubim.

May not the description of the fallen Lucifer as "the Serpent" - if that is what it is - not also simply teach us about the base qualities of demonic life by use of the well-known animal, the snake:-

(a)Cunning and deceptive, from the _proverbial_ cunning of snakes and their camouflage abilities.

(b) Morally loathsome from the loathsomeness of snakes to humans.

(c) Morally poisonous from the physical venom of snakes.

(d) From the Pit i.e. Hell. Snakes live in holes in the ground and crawl along the ground.

May this be the way in which Satan got his association with this creature, the snake, merely because it was an appropriate way in which to describe him?

It would explain why "the Serpent" is described as more crafty than all the beasts of the field, which Satan is, but snakes are not. Craftiness wasn't removed by the curse on the snake and yet modern snakes aren't particularly clever/crafty/without naivetie.

Satan was crafty in three ways (a) highly intelligent, (b) willing and able to deceive, (c) he had already sinned anf knew good and evil, and so wasn't "naive" like Ahdam and Chavah.

It would explain why Eve wasn't surprised or put on guard by a talking snake. A talking angel, coming as an angel of light (seraph, burning one), wouldn't be surprising.

It would explain why there was a curse put on the creature, whereas a morally neutral snake that didn't understand language, manipulated by a powerful fallen angel, wouldn't merit a curse from God.

Those of us who have always held to the belief that Satan used a real snake, instinctively change the addressee of God's curse on the snake from, snakes to Satan, halfway through, to give us the protevangelium:-



> The Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. (Gen 3:14, ESV)



The above section of the curse - for those of us who have always believed that Satan used a real snake - is instinctively referred by us to the animal phyla/species(?) of snake.



> "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." (Gen 3:15, ESV)



This section of the curse - for those of us who have always believed that Satan used a real snake - is instinctively referred by us to Satan, or there is here a disclosing of the metaphor to point to Satan, because a reference here merely to the relations between Man and snakes would be too prosaic, and we know what other parts of Scripture say about Satan being "that old Serpent", etc.


----------



## Peairtach

Now if the Serpent is Lucifer rather than Lucifer using a snake, which would mean that the curse falls on the Devil rather than on the Devil _and_ the phyla of snakes, and on the Devil _through_ the phyla of snakes, the curse is possibly more comprehensible.

The curse on the Woman is comprehensible because it is a great distress to her that at the moment of her great joy in giving birth she is afflicted with discomfort and pain. The curse on the Man is comprehensible for he is afflicted with toil, pain, discomfort and boredom in his necessary and what should be enjoyable labour. Both of these acts in which God is glorified, Woman giving birth and Man carrying out the Creation Mandate are marred in their enjoyment by the curse.

It is less obvious that snakes are unhappy to be crawling about and apparently licking the dust with their tongues or are quite content to be in their snake-like nature. 

If God was only talking to Lucifer in his metaphorical nature as "the Serpent", maybe things fall into place much better.


----------

