The Talking Snake

[Scrawly]

I have some questions about the serpent of Genesis 3:

1) Was this a literal snake or not? Some have stated that this is not to be taken literally and they point to examples such as Jesus lambasting the Pharisees and referring to them as snakes and vipers. However, I believe that this interpretation is untenable once when we factor in the context, namely, that the Lord likens the serpent to the "beasts of the field". Or am I missing something here?

2) Another view as I see it is that Satan took the form of one of God's good creatures - a serpent - and literally appeared as a snake and spoke in that form. However, if this is true then why did the Lord state in 3:14 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..." If Satan merely took the form of a literal serpent why would God curse the literal snake(s)?

(3) Is the narrative interspersed with symbolism and metaphor? After all, snakes don't literally eat dust and it appears that 3:19 equates dust with death; therefore, dust maybe symbolizes death? But then the narrative seems to become sort of convoluted…

[RBerman]

1) This depends on what level of historicity you're willing to ascribe to (a) The Bible, (b) The first several chapters of Genesis in particular, and (c) especially the first 2-3 chapters. I ascribe a high level of historicity to all three, and I think Adam was really talking to a snake.

2) It may well be that it was Satan in the form of a snake, or somesuch. Genesis doesn't specifically say it was Satan, but Revelation appears to refer to Satan as being that snake.

3) "Eat the dust" describes the fact that snakes live with their mouths on the ground, which is also a symbol of having been humbled, like a conquered enemy being forced to put his face in the dirt before his overlord. I don't think the dust symbolizes death in this case.

[seanD]

I have some questions about the serpent of Genesis 3:

1) Was this a literal snake or not? Some have stated that this is not to be taken literally and they point to examples such as Jesus lambasting the Pharisees and referring to them as snakes and vipers. However, I believe that this interpretation is untenable once when we factor in the context, namely, that the Lord likens the serpent to the "beasts of the field". Or am I missing something here?

2) Another view as I see it is that Satan took the form of one of God's good creatures - a serpent - and literally appeared as a snake and spoke in that form. However, if this is true then why did the Lord state in 3:14 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..." If Satan merely took the form of a literal serpent why would God curse the literal snake(s)?

(3) Is the narrative interspersed with symbolism and metaphor? After all, snakes don't literally eat dust and it appears that 3:19 equates dust with death; therefore, dust maybe symbolizes death? But then the narrative seems to become sort of convoluted…

The Hebrew word is chay. A better translation for "beast of the field" is "living being." He's described as a serpentine creature throughout scripture, so this is most likely symbolic, or he actually looks like a serpentine creature.

[Scrawly]

(1) This depends on what level of historicity you're willing to ascribe to (a) The Bible, (b) The first several chapters of Genesis in particular, and (c) especially the first 2-3 chapters. I ascribe a high level of historicity to all three, and I think Adam was really talking to a snake.

2) It may well be that it was Satan in the form of a snake, or somesuch. Genesis doesn't specifically say it was Satan, but Revelation appears to refer to Satan as being that snake.

3) "Eat the dust" describes the fact that snakes live with their mouths on the ground, which is also a symbol of having been humbled, like a conquered enemy being forced to put his face in the dirt before his overlord. I don't think the dust symbolizes death in this case.

So you believe Adam was talking to a literal snake that Satan possessed? How do you believe the snake communicated? Did its mouth open and close as it spoke or did it communicate telepathically somehow? How do you picture that scene? Since God cursed the snake to go on its belly, do you believe that snakes had legs before the fall? Did the literal creature (snake) sustain a curse because of Satan? Do you read Genesis 3:15 symbolically as a reference to Christ?

[Scrawly]

The Hebrew word is chay. A better translation for "beast of the field" is "living being." He's described as a serpentine creature throughout scripture, so this is most likely symbolic, or he actually looks like a serpentine creature.

The literal rendering of "beasts of the field" in Hebrew is "living being"? What about where God says to the serpent in 3:14: "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go..." Also, is the curse for the serpent to go on its belly also symbolic? Would that symbolize shame?

[RBerman]

So you believe Adam was talking to a literal snake that Satan possessed? How do you believe the snake communicated? Did its mouth open and close as it spoke or did it communicate telepathically somehow? How do you picture that scene? Since God cursed the snake to go on its belly, do you believe that snakes had legs before the fall? Did the literal creature (snake) sustain a curse because of Satan? Do you read Genesis 3:15 symbolically as a reference to Christ?

I don't know how the snake communicated. But yes, it seems to be a living snake which is also Satan. That could mean that Satan assumed the form of a snake, or that Satan possessed a regular snake and made it talk, just as God made a donkey talk to Balaam. I don't know whether snakes had legs. The Bible doesn't describe what the snake was like before. Maybe it had legs. Maybe it spent more time coiled and upright than snakes do today. Maybe it lived in trees. Maybe it had a little hovercraft like Rigel on Farscape. OK, that last one was facetious. But in all seriousness, there are lots of details omitted from the story, and I trust that if they were important, God would have provided them.

And yes, I do understand Genesis 3:15 to the protoevangelium, ultimately fulfilled by Christ. I wouldn't describe it as "symbolism" though. It's prophetic utterance, given to the sort of figurative language common in prophetic utterances.

[seanD]

The literal rendering of "beasts of the field" in Hebrew is "living being"? What about where God says to the serpent in 3:14: "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go..." Also, is the curse for the serpent to go on its belly also symbolic? Would that symbolize shame?

Could have been either literal or symbolic. Being that the curses to Adam and Eve were literal, I tend to go with the former. But even ignorant ancient Hebrews knew snakes didn't eat dirt so it's unlikely this was a reference to snakes, where they came from and why they crawl on their belly. I sort of doubt Satan came to Eve as a snake. I tend to think the name was used to castigate him and his character in the annals of history. I think he came in a more attractive form -- i.e. the way Paul describes he can come. This wouldn't have been mentioned in the Genesis tradition because it would have given the Hebrew nemesis undue attention and glory.

[Scrawly]

And yes, I do understand Genesis 3:15 to the protoevangelium, ultimately fulfilled by Christ. I wouldn't describe it as "symbolism" though. It's prophetic utterance, given to the sort of figurative language common in prophetic utterances.

OK, thanks but you forogt to answer if the literal creature (snake) sustained a curse because of Satan?

Also, just to be clear, since God said to the serpent in 3:15 "...he (Christ) shall bruise your (the serpent's) head..." how do you see the serpent at that point? Is God talking to the serpant or Satan within the serpent?

[Scrawly]

Could have been either literal or symbolic. Being that the curses to Adam and Eve were literal, I tend to go with the former. But even ignorant ancient Hebrews knew snakes didn't eat dirt so it's unlikely this was a reference to snakes, where they came from and why they crawl on their belly. I sort of doubt Satan came to Eve as a snake. I tend to think the name was used to castigate him and his character in the annals of history. I think he came in a more attractive form -- i.e. the way Paul describes he can come. This wouldn't have been mentioned in the Genesis tradition because it would have given the Hebrew nemesis undue attention and glory.

1) Snakes don't eat dirt but they do lick it, so technically it can be said that they eat dirt: http://creation.com/snakes-do-eat-dust

2) I still don't see how you can get past a literal snake when it likens the serpent to livestock.

[RBerman]

OK, thanks but you forogt to answer if the literal creature (snake) sustained a curse because of Satan?

I see two possibilities:
1) God was cursing all snakes.
2) God was cursing Satan in particular, who happened to be in the form of a snake at the moment.

Also, just to be clear, since God said to the serpent in 3:15 "...he (Christ) shall bruise your (the serpent's) head..." how do you see the serpent at that point? Is God talking to the serpant or Satan within the serpent?

That sounds like a comment directed at Satan within the serpent, although it's also true that as part of the suffering resulting from Adam's fall, there would also be men stepping on snakes, inflicting mutual damage. There are a lot of both/and answers for things like this.

[Scrawly]

I see two possibilities:
1) God was cursing all snakes.
2) God was cursing Satan in particular, who happened to be in the form of a snake at the moment.

I have trouble seeing why God would curse all snakes for an act that really had nothing to do with them as creatures.

That sounds like a comment directed at Satan within the serpent,

At Satan within the serpent? Have you ever thought about how exactly that would happen? Do you see a spirit-being literally possessing a physical snake and somehow controlling and speaking through a literal snake whilst being situated within the "blood and guts" of a physical snake? Honestly, how does that work exactly?

although it's also true that as part of the suffering resulting from Adam's fall, there would also be men stepping on snakes, inflicting mutual damage. There are a lot of both/and answers for things like this.

Yeah I can see that, thanks.

[RBerman]

I have trouble seeing why God would curse all snakes for an act that really had nothing to do with them as creatures.

I have trouble seeing why God does lots of things that God does. But that doesn't surprise me; I'm not God, and I don't see the big picture, and I'm operating on extremely limited information of what happened in the past.

At Satan within the serpent? Have you ever thought about how exactly that would happen? Do you see a spirit-being literally possessing a physical snake and somehow controlling and speaking through a literal snake whilst being situated within the "blood and guts" of a physical snake? Honestly, how does that work exactly?

Dunno. How does resurrection work? How does turning one kid's lunch into a meal for thousands of people work? Or standing unharmed in a fire? Or a talking donkey? Etc. It seems to me that asking "How do miracles work?" misses the point. If we could anticipate the workings, they probably aren't really miracles. You seem to have latched on to the snake bit as if it's something unusual within the scope of the Bible, but I don't see why.

[The Remonstrant]

So you believe Adam was talking to a literal snake that Satan possessed? How do you believe the snake communicated? Did its mouth open and close as it spoke or did it communicate telepathically somehow? How do you picture that scene? Since God cursed the snake to go on its belly, do you believe that snakes had legs before the fall? Did the literal creature (snake) sustain a curse because of Satan? Do you read Genesis 3:15 symbolically as a reference to Christ?

Some Thoughts Pertaining to Genesis 3

These are all interesting questions, but I take it you are getting caught up in minutiae when you pose such questions as, "So you believe Adam was talking to a literal snake that Satan possessed?" and "Did its mouth open and close as it spoke or did it communicate telepathically somehow?" This is problematic when germane matters are essentially ignored and tangential issues become thought and time consuming.

Genesis 3 reveals the cunning and subtlety of the serpent* in deceiving the first woman (Eve) to doubt God's word, wisdom and goodness. She subsequently disobeys (by eating of the fruit) and brings the serpent's mission to a successful conclusion in leading the first man (the first human being, Adam) to disobedience. Now both man and woman, the image of God (as it were) who were to reflect God's goodness and character in communion are no longer in their original state of innocence with each other or their Creator. Once in fellowship with the Lord, they hide from him, realizing their "nakedness" (i.e. state of shame) and seek to cover it through their own futile attempts. Experientially, Adam and Eve are now acquainted (or "knowledgeable") with evil. When confronted by God, neither fully accepts responsibility for their transgression; the woman passes her disobedience off on the serpent and Adam blames the woman God had given her as his helpmate. Their relationship with God, each other and creation is now tainted. Whereas before their communion was unruptured, genuine harmony has dissolved in their relationship with their Lord and creation. Eating of the fruit of the forbidden tree was a renunciation of the lordship of their Creator, their new "lord" being their own lusts (re: self). The first man and woman are expelled from the paradisaical garden. God will not allow the first couple to attain to immortality in their fallen state of dysfunction; they will by no means have access to the tree of life. The process of death has commenced. The mysterious serpent has succeeded in bringing God's image-bearers to rebellion and ruin.

Does anyone see himself (or herself) in this picture?


Note:

* As noted above in message #02 by RBerman, the serpent spoken of in Genesis 3 is identified much later in the biblical canon as Satan, the adversary of God and his people in Revelation 12:9.

[mikewhitney]

Regarding the OP...

I tend to see the referent serpent as a unique creature distinct from the actual snakes that we know about through nature. I am sort of stating the obvious here. We can use two terms (snake and serpent) for discussion purpose even though the terms are sometimes (always?) the same in scripture.

The qualities of the serpent are different from the snake. (I would then suggest that the association with the typical snake is analogical.) The serpent was still a creature comparative with the beasts of the field yet was craftier than the other beasts. We then have a creature with apparently greater knowledge and human-type capabilities (i.e. ability to form arguments and vocalize them). He also appears to have some longevity of life (or existence) but may not be a typical air-breathing creature.

The curse of Gen 3:14 can be seen as an analogy to the snake. There were to be new restrictions on the influence and ability of this serpent. The analogy was then between the serpent's ability to influence and the snake's mobility. So if the serpent could influence people as being like another person ... a person (maybe not a man person, but just a generalized 'person') who could walk and talk, now the serpent would have narrowed influence (or narrowed modes of influence).

Then the analogy of the snake continues regarding the influence of the serpent in future time...

Gen 3:15 "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. "

It is not the common snake that is restricted here, it is the analogical snake known as the serpent. Gen 3:15 is talking about a specific and distinct entity of the garden. As we see the prophetic elements fulfilled in Christ, we see Christ as "born of the seed of woman" encountering Satan (the serpent) and ultimately restraining Satan's ability (first, in accord with Gen 3:15 about possibly just bruising the ability of Satan and then, in Rev 20, ultimately removing Satan's influence.

Thus, within this interpretation the common snake has not been cursed as a result of the events of the garden nor is the common snake shown to ever have spoken. Also we see that a discussion on the nature of the serpent (and snake) is made relevant by the prophetic relevance of Gen 3:15.

[Scrawly]

Some Thoughts Pertaining to Genesis 3

These are all interesting questions, but I take it you are getting caught up in minutiae when you pose such questions as, "So you believe Adam was talking to a literal snake that Satan possessed?" and "Did its mouth open and close as it spoke or did it communicate telepathically somehow?" This is problematic when germane matters are essentially ignored and tangential issues become thought and time consuming.

Genesis 3 reveals the cunning and subtlety of the serpent* in deceiving the first woman (Eve) to doubt God's word, wisdom and goodness. She subsequently disobeys (by eating of the fruit) and brings the serpent's mission to a successful conclusion in leading the first man (the first human being, Adam) to disobedience. Now both man and woman, the image of God (as it were) who were to reflect God's goodness and character in communion are no longer in their original state of innocence with each other or their Creator. Once in fellowship with the Lord, they hide from him, realizing their "nakedness" (i.e. state of shame) and seek to cover it through their own futile attempts. Experientially, Adam and Eve are now acquainted (or "knowledgeable") with evil. When confronted by God, neither fully accepts responsibility for their transgression; the woman passes her disobedience off on the serpent and Adam blames the woman God had given her as his helpmate. Their relationship with God, each other and creation is now tainted. Whereas before their communion was unruptured, genuine harmony has dissolved in their relationship with their Lord and creation. Eating of the fruit of the forbidden tree was a renunciation of the lordship of their Creator, their new "lord" being their own lusts (re: self). The first man and woman are expelled from the paradisaical garden. God will not allow the first couple to attain to immortality in their fallen state of dysfunction; they will by no means have access to the tree of life. The process of death has commenced. The mysterious serpent has succeeded in bringing God's image-bearers to rebellion and ruin.

Does anyone see himself (or herself) in this picture?


Note:

* As noted above in message #02 by RBerman, the serpent spoken of in Genesis 3 is identified much later in the biblical canon as Satan, the adversary of God and his people in Revelation 12:9.

Great insight...thank-you!