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:
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.
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:2. The serpent refers to the devil who has taken the form of a serpent.
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.Genesis 3 said: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."
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.