Concerning the serpent

[Markus6]

I just thought I'd ask the opinions of those who interpret Genesis 3 literally concerning the serpent. The normal belief is that the serpent was actually the devil and there seems to be evidence to suggest this elsewhere in the bible. However, the passage does not explicitly say this. The poll gives a few options but I wanted to highlight my problems with some of the options first:

1. The serpent was possessed by the devil.
2. The serpent refers to the devil who has taken the form of a serpent.
​

I expect these two options to be the most popular among literalists. However, if this is the case then this verse troubles me:

14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
"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. 15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."

If either of the options above are true then I don't think the serpent should be held accountable for the actions of the devil. God punishing all snakes seems unjust.

3. The serpent was just a 'wild animal'.
​

This seems like a more viable literal interpretation of the passage. However, it still raises issues. The serpent would have required more intelligence and the ability to speak, neither of which they appear to have nowadays. The removal of these traits was not listed in the snakes punishment so what happened to them?

4. The first serpent WAS the devil.
​

i.e. the first serpent that God created became what we now call the devil. Whilst I think this works as a literal interpretation of the passage it conflicts with other accounts that state that the devil was a fallen angel.

5. The word for 'serpent' should be translated as 'devil'.
​

Although I can't see any literalists holding this postion I have seen someone argue it so I thought I'd include it for completeness.

6. The serpent is a metaphor for the devil.
​

This is the position I hold and I think is the most rational reading of the passage.

Obviously I don't fully understand the literalist position on this passage, so any input on why you think this passage should be interpreted literally would be much appreciated.

 

[Deamiter]

It's not really a metaphor, the serpent is symbolic of the devil. However, I know what you meant so I voted 6.

 

[Assyrian]

I'm with Deamiter here. It is a metaphor in the sense that the whole of the account is an extended metaphor. But Jesus used a metaphor when he described Herod as a fox: 'go tell that fox...' But really the gospel account never suggests Herod is anything other than a nasty human being.

Genesis is different. The story does not involve Satan who is described metaphorically as a snake. In the story the snake is just a wild animal, from start to finish. There is no hint that it is anything other than a very clever talking reptile. It is the story itself that is the allegory describing Satan's temptation and deception of mankind. The serpent is symbolic or allegorical. But I have put down no. 6 as pretty close.

 

[Markus6]

Yeah, alright. It's been 6 years since I studied English. It might not strictly be a metaphor (though it's a pretty good description so I think you're just nitpicking to try and look intelligent ) so can everyone read option 6 as:

6. The 'serpent' symbolises the devil. The actual event being described in the account did not involve an actual serpent.​

Is that OK?

 

[gluadys]

Yeah, alright. It's been 6 years since I studied English. It might not strictly be a metaphor (though it's a pretty good description so I think you're just nitpicking to try and look intelligent ) so can everyone read option 6 as:

6. The 'serpent' symbolises the devil. The actual event being described in the account did not involve an actual serpent.​

Is that OK?

I am with Deamiter and Assyrian. We need to get some creationist responses.

 

[HypnoToad]

If either [1 or 2] are true then I don't think the serpent should be held accountable for the actions of the devil. God punishing all snakes seems unjust.

I went with #2, and the text does not necessarily state that all snakes got punished.

We know that there is some degree of metaphor in the words of the curse (3:14-19). For example, "bruise his heel/crush his head" is metaphorical.

Also, assume that serpents already crawled on the ground.

Think of God's curse on the devil as reading like, "ok, you want to act like a snake, then I'll treat you like one." The crawling and eating dust would be symbolic of Satan's being humiliated, being seen as despicable and hated above all creation - which is pretty much exactly as we see him.

 

[Markus6]

I went with #2, and the text does not necessarily state that all snakes got punished.

We know that there is some degree of metaphor in the words of the curse (3:14-19). For example, "bruise his heel/crush his head" is metaphorical.

Also, assume that serpents already crawled on the ground.

Think of God's curse on the devil as reading like, "ok, you want to act like a snake, then I'll treat you like one." The crawling and eating dust would be symbolic of Satan's being humiliated, being seen as despicable and hated above all creation - which is pretty much exactly as we see him.

Thanks for your response.

"You will crawl on your belly" seems to be quite clearly saying that the serpent previously didn't. If we assume serpents did crawl on the ground can we assume that child birth was painful and producing crops took toil already as well?

I agree with all your non-literal interpretations of this passage, I just think it makes more sense to go the whole way.

 

[HypnoToad]

"You will crawl on your belly" seems to be quite clearly saying that the serpent previously didn't.

Again, there's nothing forcing it into that view. As already shown, the "bruise heel/crush head" is metaphorical, why would the entire portion against the devil not then be metaphorical?

If we assume serpents did crawl on the ground can we assume that child birth was painful and producing crops took toil already as well?

Apples and oranges. We're no longer talking about the devil. Different situation.

I agree with all your non-literal interpretations of this passage, I just think it makes more sense to go the whole way.

There's no reason to. The devil is a spiritual being, there's not much to do to physically punish him, so seeing his punishment in the more spiritual and metaphorical side is quite a natural and reasonable interpretation.

 

[crawfish]

I voted "other". The serpent represents the worldly forces that tempt us to reject God's way.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I had to go with 6. To me the whole story seems more allegorical than not. There may be some real history in it too, but I have no way of judging how much.

(I am a TE person, and obviously not a literalist, though I'm conservative on all that's contained in the Nicene Creed.)

 

[Markus6]

Bump! I'm really no nearer to understanding the literal interpretation of this passage. Thanks to XianJedi for being the only person from that side of the camp to respond. Unfortunately that means I have to pick on your posts again.

Again, there's nothing forcing it into that view. As already shown, the "bruise heel/crush head" is metaphorical, why would the entire portion against the devil not then be metaphorical?

We know that there is some degree of metaphor in the words of the curse (3:14-19). For example, "bruise his heel/crush his head" is metaphorical.

There's nothing forcing you into that view. Snakes bite humans' heels (the offspring of the woman) and humans stand on snakes' heads. The verse could be purely literal.

Apples and oranges. We're no longer talking about the devil. Different situation.

It's the same author and the same story. There is nothing in the text to indicate that the bits talking about the serpent are metaphorical but the similarily structured punishment for the humans is purely literal.

There's no reason to. The devil is a spiritual being, there's not much to do to physically punish him, so seeing his punishment in the more spiritual and metaphorical side is quite a natural and reasonable interpretation.

With your interpretation there seems to be three things going on that aren't in the text:

1. The serpent is actually the devil.
2. God's punishment is to make the devil metaphorically snake like.
3. The author (who we assume knew the serpent's identity) refers to the devil purely as a serpent, presumably as a literary technique.

The three are unrelated and could have occured on their own. For example, the author could quite easily have said "and then the devil, in the form of a serpent, came to the woman". Yet somehow these three combine to leave the story with a feasible literal interpretation:
Snakes used to have legs. A snake tempted Eve and was punished by the removal of it's legs.

My point isn't that your interpretation is wrong. More that:

• A purely literal interpretation of the text does not get you to the traditional christian understanding, so some imagery in the passage is necessary to hold that understanding.
• There is no clear line of what is imagery and what isn't within the text.
• Therefore, the claim that evolutionists arbitrarily decide what is and isn't imagery and creationists always stick to a completely literal translation is wrong.

But if I don't get any more replies from the 'Genesis is 100% literal' camp then I may have to start claiming that I have single handedly defeated literalism .

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

But if I don't get any more replies from the 'Genesis is 100% literal' camp then I may have to start claiming that I have single handedly defeated literalism .

I do believe you have... this time at least.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Symbolic/allegorical.

 

[lamblion]

I will also go with #2, but not in the sense that the judgment of the serpent was metaphorical but by the fact that God's judgment was a actual judgment unto the serpent. I agree that the serpent, before the curse, was not as it is now; it had to be a quite significant creature created by God seeing that satan himself chose such a creature.

You must remember that these are only animals created by God; how can His judgments unto His own creatures be not just; not fair or not righteous. You must look at the whole picture. Did not God punish all humanity for one mans sin? was this righteous? Of course!

One of the greatest angels was given the right to use one of God's created beings to do his evil deeds, and in the results of this the serpent was given the curse. Not because of the serpent, but because of satan.

 

[lamblion]

Symbolic/allegorical.

symbolic to what? If genesis is allegorical then the entire Bible is allegorical, for the genesis is the beginning of all that is. How can we have Christ if the beginning was but a tale.

 

[HypnoToad]

There's nothing forcing you into that view. Snakes bite humans' heels (the offspring of the woman) and humans stand on snakes' heads. The verse could be purely literal.

Are you serious??

You really don't see it about Satan "bruising Christ's heel" (the crucifixion), and Jesus "crushing his head" (the resurrection, or also the 2nd comming)? You actually never made that connection?

With your interpretation there seems to be three things going on that aren't in the text:

1. The serpent is actually the devil.

Not in the text? Ever read Revelation?

2. God's punishment is to make the devil metaphorically snake like.

That's a really poor phrasing of it. Basically, God said, "you want to act like that, then you'll be treated like that." Have you never heard a parent say that to their kid when rebuking them?

The author (who we assume knew the serpent's identity) refers to the devil purely as a serpent, presumably as a literary technique.

No, I never said it was a "literary technique". I specifically said it was the devil in the form of a serpent. That is not a "literary technique".

A purely literal interpretation of the text does not get you to the traditional christian understanding, so some imagery in the passage is necessary to hold that understanding.

You perhaps misunderstand what "taking the Bible literally" means. It does not mean we ignore metaphors and figures of speech. The vast, vast majority of Bible literalists, for example, do not read the Psalms as "literal". We know they are poetry and treat them as such.

Therefore, the claim that evolutionists arbitrarily decide what is and isn't imagery and creationists always stick to a completely literal translation is wrong.

Who is claiming that?? I certainly have not claimed any such thing.

But if I don't get any more replies from the 'Genesis is 100% literal' camp then I may have to start claiming that I have single handedly defeated literalism .

So far, I don't think you've got any replies from the "100% literal" camp.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

symbolic to what? If genesis is allegorical then the entire Bible is allegorical, for the genesis is the beginning of all that is. How can we have Christ if the beginning was but a tale.

I don't see how that logically follows. Symbolism, allegory and parables are used throughout the Bible. Jesus was especially fond of using parables as a teaching tool. I think the Creation story in Genesis was true, but in same way the explanation of a scientific phenomenon you give to a young child is true... it's as true as you can make it, but still a deliberate oversimplification so the child can understand it at all. How much of the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is literally true I have no idea... but it feels very much to me like an elaborate parable. And if it is a parable? We can have Christ the same way as we always had Him: He is the Word, and was involved in the Creation, which did happen, whether the tale of it is literal or symbolic.

 

[Assyrian]

You must remember that these are only animals created by God; how can His judgments unto His own creatures be not just; not fair or not righteous. You must look at the whole picture. Did not God punish all humanity for one mans sin? was this righteous? Of course!

According to Paul death spread to all men because all sinned. We are punished for our own sin.

One of the greatest angels was given the right to use one of God's created beings to do his evil deeds, and in the results of this the serpent was given the curse. Not because of the serpent, but because of satan.

It doesn't say that. Genesis say it was a serpent who tempted Eve and it was punished for its own sin "because you have done this...".

symbolic to what? If genesis is allegorical then the entire Bible is allegorical, for the genesis is the beginning of all that is. How can we have Christ if the beginning was but a tale.

You could make the same argument about Revelation. If Revelation is allegorical then the whole bible is allegorical because Revelation is how it all ends up. How can we have Christ is the end is a just a tale?

Very easily. God loves to use stories to communicate his truth to us.

 

[Markus6]

I will also go with #2, but not in the sense that the judgment of the serpent was metaphorical but by the fact that God's judgment was a actual judgment unto the serpent. I agree that the serpent, before the curse, was not as it is now; it had to be a quite significant creature created by God seeing that satan himself chose such a creature.

You must remember that these are only animals created by God; how can His judgments unto His own creatures be not just; not fair or not righteous. You must look at the whole picture. Did not God punish all humanity for one mans sin? was this righteous? Of course!

One of the greatest angels was given the right to use one of God's created beings to do his evil deeds, and in the results of this the serpent was given the curse. Not because of the serpent, but because of satan.

I don't think it's enough just to say "God created everything so his punishments must be OK". We believe God is also good and just so we should be able to look at his decisions and say "yes, God is just". As David says:

4Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you are proved right when you speak
and justified when you judge.

God at least punished man for man's actions. Though the issue of why God punished all man for one man's transgression is still a problem for some. A literal reading (coupled with the assumption that the serpent is the devil) would have God punishing all snakes for the devils actions. That is not just.

God also sent his only son to break man's curse. I don't see God coming down in snake form so that whosoever believes in him can have his legs back.

symbolic to what? If genesis is allegorical then the entire Bible is allegorical, for the genesis is the beginning of all that is. How can we have Christ if the beginning was but a tale.

If this story is allegorical (the term 'true myth' covers it better I think) then that doesn't necessarily mean the rest of Genesis is allegorical (even if you think the whole thing was written by the same author). Even if the whole of Genesis is allegorical (which I don't think it is) that doesn't necessarily mean the rest of the bible is. I'm suggesting we look at each bit of the bible individually to decide whether a literal reading is the correct one. In this case I don't think it is. A literal reading does not suggest that the serpent is the devil.

Nobody here thinks the story is "but a tale". The events happened and are vitally important to our salvation. However, they were written using symbolism and are not a 'literal' account.

Are you serious??

You really don't see it about Satan "bruising Christ's heel" (the crucifixion), and Jesus "crushing his head" (the resurrection, or also the 2nd comming)? You actually never made that connection?

I didn't make the connection myself but yes, I have been taught it. I don't think it's obvious, Jesus' feet were pierced and satan will be cast into the lake of fire. Reading the passage as allegorical and with knowledge of the rest of the story then you may make the connection. A plain reading of the text does not suggest it is metaphorical. It can quite simply refer to snakes.

Not in the text? Ever read Revelation?

Why yes, I have. By 'text' I was refering to this story, or Genesis. Genesis was written much before Revelation. Revelation should not be required for an understanding of Genesis or else many generations of Jews would have completely misunderstood it.

That's a really poor phrasing of it. Basically, God said, "you want to act like that, then you'll be treated like that." Have you never heard a parent say that to their kid when rebuking them?

Yes, but that's not what God said.

No, I never said it was a "literary technique". I specifically said it was the devil in the form of a serpent. That is not a "literary technique".

The author didn't specifically say that though. If the author knew that the serpent was the devil then there was a reason why he didn't mention it. I suggested it might be a literary technique do you think it was something else?

You perhaps misunderstand what "taking the Bible literally" means. It does not mean we ignore metaphors and figures of speech. The vast, vast majority of Bible literalists, for example, do not read the Psalms as "literal". We know they are poetry and treat them as such.

Yes I have misunderstood then. That's not what the word 'literally' means to me. By that reasoning I am a bible literalist. I assess what form the writing is in and treat it as such.

Who is claiming that?? I certainly have not claimed any such thing.

I'm not saying you have, and I'm glad you haven't. Many people have said similar things though, for example "you're picking and choosing what to believe" or "you don't take scripture very seriously".

 

[HypnoToad]

Reading the passage as allegorical and with knowledge of the rest of the story then you may make the connection. A plain reading of the text does not suggest it is metaphorical. It can quite simply refer to snakes.

This (and some other comments) seem to show your problem. Whether it's intentional or not, I don't know - you go from the whole story being allegorical, to every word being hyper-literal. Why just one extreme or the other?

Why yes, I have. By 'text' I was refering to this story, or Genesis. Genesis was written much before Revelation. Revelation should not be required for an understanding of Genesis or else many generations of Jews would have completely misunderstood it.

No one is saying it's "required", but why ignore it? Why wouldn't one part of God's word be able to shed light on another? The whole thing is inspired by the Holy Spirit, so why not use the whole thing together? Even if it would have been "misunderstood" by the Jews, it doesn't matter, as this portion isn't required to be fully understood in order for salvation.

Yes, but that's not what God said.

Neither did God say, "I am triune". But we can take what is in Scripture and use reason to piece together the picture.

The author didn't specifically say that though. If the author knew that the serpent was the devil then there was a reason why he didn't mention it. I suggested it might be a literary technique do you think it was something else?

The "author" is the Holy Spirit, who did, in fact, later specify that it was the devil.