[SIZE=+2]For anyone still interested:
This is an explanation that I find highly logical and would explain the (at least for me always ridiculous) thought that Adam and Eve could have placed any weight in the words of an animal, over the words of God.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2] THE SERPENT OF GENESIS
[/SIZE] In Genesis 3 we have neither allegory, myth, legend, nor fable, but literal historical facts set forth, and emphasized by the use of certain Figures of speech (see Ap. 6).
All the confusion of thought and conflicting exegesis have arisen from taking literally what is expressed by Figures, or from taking figuratively what is literal. A Figure of speech is never used except for the purpose of calling attention to, emphasizing, and intensifying,
the reality of the literal sense, and the truth of the historical facts; so that, while the words employed may not be so strictly true to the letter, they are all the more
true to the truth conveyed by them, and to the historical events connected with them.
But for the figurative language of verses 14 and 15 no one would have thought of referring the third chapter of Genesis to a snake : no more than he does when reading the third chapter from the end of Revelation (ch. 20:2). Indeed, the explanation added there, that the "
old serpent" is the Devil and Satan, would immediately lead one to connect the word "old" with the
earlier and former mention of the serpent in Gen. 3 : and the fact that it was Satan himself who tempted "the second man", "the last Adam", would force conclusion that no other than the personal Satan could have been the tempter of "the first man, Adam".
The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Gen. 3:1 is
Nachash (from the root
Nachash, to
shine), and means
a shining one. Hence, in Chaldee it means
brass or
copper, because of its
shining. Hence also, the word
Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4.
In the same way
Saraph, in Isa. 6:2, 6, means
a burning one, and, because the serpents mentioned in Num. 21 were burning, in the poison of their bite, they were called
Saraphim, or
Saraphs.
But with the LORD said unto Moses, "Make thee a fiery serpent" (Num. 21:8), He said, "Make thee a
Saraph", and , in obeying this command, we read in
v. 9, "Moses made a
Nachash of brass".
Nachash is thus used as being interchangeable with
Saraph.
Now, if
Saraph is used of a serpent because its bite was
burning, and is also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a burning one), why should not
Nachash be used of a serpent because its appearance was
shining, and be also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a shining one)?
Indeed, a reference to the structure of Gen. 3 (on p. 7) will show that the
Cherubim (which are similar celestial or spirit-beings) of the last verse (Gen. 3:24) require a similar spirit-being to correspond with them in the first verse (for the structure of the whole chapter is a great Introversion). The
Nachash, or serpent, who beguiled Eve (2Cor. 11:3) is not spoken of as "an angel of light" in
v. 14. Have we not, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently as angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a being of a superior (not of an inferior) order? Moreover, in the description of Satan as "the king of Tyre" (*1) it is distinctly implied that the latter being was of a supernatural order when he is called "a cherub" (Ezek. 28:14, 16, read from
vv. 11-19). His presence "in Eden, the garden of
'Elohim" (
v. 13), is also clearly stated, as well as his being "perfect in beauty" (
v. 12), his being "perfect in his ways from the day he was created till iniquity was found in him" (
v. 15), and as being "lifted up because of his beauty" (
v. 17).
These all compel the belief that Satan was
the shining one (
Nachash) in Gen. 3, and especially because the following words could be addressed to him :-- "Thing heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness : I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee" (
v. 17).
Even supposing that these things were spoken to, and of, an exalted human being in later days (in Ezek. 28), still "the king of Tyre" is not compared to a being who was non-existent; and facts and circumstances which never happened are not introduced into the comparison.
There is more about "the king of Tyre" in Ezek. 28:11-19 than was literally true of "the prince of Tyre" (
vv. 1-10). The words can be understood only of the mightiest and most exalted supernatural being that God ever created; and this for the purpose of showing how great would be his fall. The
history must be true to make the
prophecy of any weight.
Again, the word rendered "subtle" in Gen. 3:1 (see note) means
wise, in a good sense as well as in a bad sense. In Ezek. 28:12 we have the good sense, "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom"; and the bad sense in
v. 17, "thou hast corrupted thy wisdom" (referring, of course, to his fall). So the word rendered "subtle" is rendered "prudent" in Prov. 1:4; 8:12; 12:23; 14:8; and in a bad sense in Job 15:5. 1Sam. 23:22. Ps. 83:3.
The word "beast" also, in Gen. 3:1,
chay, denotes
a living being, and it is as wrong to translate
zoa "beasts" in Rev. 4, as it is to translate
chay "beast" in Gen. 3. Both mean
living creature. Satan is thus spoken of as being "more wise than any other
living creature which Jehovah Elohim had made". Even if the word "beast" be retained, it does not say that either a serpent or Satan
was a "beast", but only that he was "more wise" than any other living being.
We cannot conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake, but we can understand her being fascinated (*2) by one, apparently "an angel of light" (i.e. a glorious angel), possessing superior and supernatural knowledge.
When Satan is spoken of as a "serpent", it is the figure
Hypocatastasis (see Ap. 6) or
Implication; it no more means snake than it does when Dan is so called in Gen. 49:17; or an animal when Nero is called a "lion" (2Tim. 4:17), or when Herod is called a "fox" (Luke 13:32); or when Judah is called "a lion's whelp". It is the same figure when "doctrine" is called "leaven" (Matt. 16:6). It shows that something much more real and truer to truth is impressively; and is intended to be a figure of something much
more real than the letter of the word.
Other Figures of speech are used in
vv. 14, 15, but only for the same purpose of emphasizing the truth and the reality of what is said.
When it is said in
v. 15, "thou shalt bruise His heel", it cannot mean His literal heal of flesh and blood, but suffering, more temporary in character. When it is said (
v. 15), "He shall crush thy head", it means something more than a skull of bone, and brain, and hair. It means that all Satan's plans and plots, policy and purposes, will one day be finally crushed and ended, never more to mar or to hinder the purposes of God. This will be effected when Satan shall be bruised under our feet (Rom. 16:20). This again, will not be our literal feet, but something much more real.
The bruising of Christ's heel is the most eloquent and impressive way of foretelling the most solemn events; and to point out that the effort made by Satan to evade his doom, then threatened, would become the very means of insuring its accomplishment; for it was through the death of Christ that he who had the power of death would be destroyed; and all Satan's power and policy brought to an end, and all his works destroyed (Heb. 2:14. 1John 3:8. Rev. 20:1-3, 10). What literal words could portray these literal facts so wonderfully as these expressive Figures of speech?
It is the same with the other Figures used in
v. 14, "On thy belly shalt thou go". This Figure means infinitely more than the literal belly of flesh and blood; just as the words "heel" and "head" do in
v. 15. It paints for the eyes of our mind the picture of Satan's ultimate
humiliation; for prostration was ever the most eloquent sign of subjection. When it is said "our belly cleaveth unto the ground" (Ps. 44:25), it denotes such a prolonged prostration and such a depth of submission as could never be conveyed or expressed in literal words.
So with the other prophecy, "Dust shalt thou eat". This is not true to the letter, or to fact, but it is all the more
true to truth. It tells of constant, continuous disappointment, failure, and mortification; as when deceitful ways are spoken of as feeding on deceitful food, which is "sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth shall be filled with gravel" (Prov. 20:17). This does not mean literal "gravel", but something far more disagreeable. It means
disappointment so great that it would gladly be exchanged for the literal "gravel". So when Christians are rebuked for "biting and devouring one another" (Gal. 3:14, 15), something more heart-breaking is meant than the literal words used in the Figure.
When "His enemies shall lick the dust" (Ps. 72:9) they will not do it on their knees with their literal tongues; but they will be so prostrated and so utterly defeated, that no words could literally depict their overthrow and subjugation.
If a serpent was afterward called a
nachash, it was because it was more
shining than any other creature; and if it became known as "wise", it was not because of its own innate positive knowledge, but of its wisdom in hiding away from all observation; and because of its association with one of the names of Satan (that old serpent) who "beguiled Eve" (2Cor. 11:3, 14).
It is wonderful how a snake could ever be supposed to speak without the organs of speech, or that Satan should be supposed able to accomplish so great a miracle (*3).
It only shows the power of tradition, which has, from the infancy of each one of us, put before our eyes and written on our minds the picture of a "snake" and an "apple" : the former being based on a wrong interpretation, and the latter being a pure invention, about which there is not one word said in Holy Scripture.
Never was Satan's wisdom so craftily used as when he secured universal acceptance of this traditional belief : for it has succeeded in fixing the attention of mankind on the
letter and the
means, and thus blinding the eyes to the solemn fact that the Fall of man had to do solely with the Word of God, and is centered in the sin of believing Satan's lie instead of Jehovah's truth.
The temptation of "the first man Adam" began with the question "Hath God said?" The temptation of "the second man, the Lord from heaven" began with the similar question "If thou be the Son of God", when the voice of the Father had scarcely died away, which said "This IS My beloved Son".
All turned on the truth of what Jehovah had said.
The Word of God being questioned, led Eve, in her reply, (1) to
omit the word "freely" (3:2, cp. 2:16); then (2) to
add the words "neither shalt thou touch it" (3:3, cp. 2:17); and finally (3) to
alter a certainty into a contingency by changing "thou SHALT SURELY die" (2:17) into "LEST ye die" (3:3).
It is not without significance that the first Ministerial words of "the second Man" were "It is written", three times repeated; and that His last Ministerial words contained a similar threefold reference to the written Word of God (John 17:8, 14, 17).
The former temptation succeeded because the Word of God was three times misrepresented; the latter temptation was successfully defeated because the same Word was faithfully repeated.
The history of Gen. 3 is intended to teach us the fact that Satan's sphere of activities is in the
religious sphere, and not the spheres of crime and immorality; that his battlefield is not the sins arising from human depravity, but the
unbelief of the human heart. We are not to look for Satan's activities to-day in the newspaper press, or the police courts; but in the pulpit, and in professors' chairs. Whenever the Word of God is called in question, there we see the trail of "that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan". This is why anything against the true interests of the Word of God (as being such) finds a ready admission into the newspapers of the world, and is treated as "general literature". This is why anything in favor of its inspiration and Divine origin and its spiritual truth is rigidly excluded as being "controversial".
This is why Satan is quite content that the
letter of Scripture should be accepted in Gen. 3, as he himself accepted the letter of Ps. 91:11. He himself could say "It is written" (Matt. 4:6) so long as the
letter of what is "written" could be put instead of the truth that is conveyed by it; and so long as it is misquoted or misapplied.
This is his object in perpetuating the traditions of the "snake" and the "apple", because it ministers to the acceptance of his lie, the hiding of God's truth, the support of tradition, the jeers of the infidel, the opposition of the critics, and the stumbling of the weak in faith.
