• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Genesis 3 "serpent" Not An Actual Snake

P

Paleouss

Active Member
Site Supporter
Peace and Love to all my brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ.

After learning that the biblical text never reveals the names of any fallen angel, ever. One quickly realizes that figurative language will be the rule when referring to the fallen angels within the Bible’s historical narrative. Therefore, the author of Genesis 3, for example, would never write the proper name of that “serpent of old”, i.e., Satan (Rev 12:9), but would use descriptive titles, roles or imagery to communicate who was in the garden with Adam and Eve.
  1. The Holy Scripture refuses to give the personal proper name of any fallen angel, e.g., haś-śā-ṭān (“the-adversary”) is not a personal proper name but acts as a descriptive role in the Old Testament biblical text. It is used to describe not only one particular fallen angel, it also is used for human opponents as adversaries (1King 11:14, 23; 1Sam 29:4; 2Sam 19:22) as well as heavenly messengers in favor of God and sent from the Lord to obstruct (Num 22:22, 32).
  2. In Genesis 3, the “serpent” has been revealed to us to be none other than that one angel (Eze 28, Matt 4:10) we have come to call “Satan” (Rev 12:9).
  3. THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS that one would not expect when reading Genesis 3 that the Holy Scripture would name the third character that deceived Eve by personal proper name.
  4. THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS that one would expect the Holy Scripture to use descriptive titles, roles or imagery to represent the third character that deceived Eve, for that is its method in the entire rest of the Bible.
  5. If it is the expectation that the third character is not to be referenced by personal proper name and an imagery device is expected. THEN IT FOLLOWS that the reader should expect that the third character is not actually a literal snake, for an imagery device is expected as reference for fallen angels.
  6. Snakes don’t talk.
  7. THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS that (a) since snakes don’t talk; and (b) the Holy Scripture never gives the personal proper name of the fallen angels but gives only imagery, titles or roles as representation; and (c) Revelation 12:9 tells us the “Old Serpent” is that one fallen angel (Eze 28) we have come to call “Satan” (Matt 4:10); and (d) Ezekiel 28 tells us that Satan was in the garden of Eden (28:13) and cast out as profane from "the mountain of God" (Eze 28:16), which the garden of Eden is on; THEN the serpent in Genesis 3 is not an actual snake, not a possessed snake, but the actual fallen angel we have come to call “Satan”.
Coupled with the fact that the Hebrew word for serpent (nāḥāš), which is used in Genesis 3, was used in the ancient Hebrew culture as imagery that pointed to cosmic rebellion, entry of death, and ultimate moral ruin. It becomes more obvious that text like Genesis 3 uses nāḥāš as imagery representation and never intended the reader to think that Satan was, or transformed into, or possessed a literal snake.

Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure (Prov 2:1-6)
 
Deacon

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
A Baptist theologian has written a short book on the topic of the serpent in the series: Short Studies in Biblical Theology.

The Serpent and the Serpent Slayer.
Andrew David Naselli.
2020. Wheaton, IL., Crossway Publishers. 158 pp.

"The serpent theme spans the entire Bible--from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation. Let's start with what the Bible teaches about the serpent at the story's beginning. Genesis 3 teaches at least twelve notable truths about the snake." p. 33.

Rob
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Paleouss said:
Peace and Love to all my brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ.

After learning that the biblical text never reveals the names of any fallen angel, ever. One quickly realizes that figurative language will be the rule when referring to the fallen angels within the Bible’s historical narrative. Therefore, the author of Genesis 3, for example, would never write the proper name of that “serpent of old”, i.e., Satan (Rev 12:9), but would use descriptive titles, roles or imagery to communicate who was in the garden with Adam and Eve.
  1. The Holy Scripture refuses to give the personal proper name of any fallen angel, e.g., haś-śā-ṭān (“the-adversary”) is not a personal proper name but acts as a descriptive role in the Old Testament biblical text. It is used to describe not only one particular fallen angel, it also is used for human opponents as adversaries (1King 11:14, 23; 1Sam 29:4; 2Sam 19:22) as well as heavenly messengers in favor of God and sent from the Lord to obstruct (Num 22:22, 32).
  2. In Genesis 3, the “serpent” has been revealed to us to be none other than that one angel (Eze 28, Matt 4:10) we have come to call “Satan” (Rev 12:9).
  3. THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS that one would not expect when reading Genesis 3 that the Holy Scripture would name the third character that deceived Eve by personal proper name.
  4. THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS that one would expect the Holy Scripture to use descriptive titles, roles or imagery to represent the third character that deceived Eve, for that is its method in the entire rest of the Bible.
  5. If it is the expectation that the third character is not to be referenced by personal proper name and an imagery device is expected. THEN IT FOLLOWS that the reader should expect that the third character is not actually a literal snake, for an imagery device is expected as reference for fallen angels.
  6. Snakes don’t talk.
  7. THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS that (a) since snakes don’t talk; and (b) the Holy Scripture never gives the personal proper name of the fallen angels but gives only imagery, titles or roles as representation; and (c) Revelation 12:9 tells us the “Old Serpent” is that one fallen angel (Eze 28) we have come to call “Satan” (Matt 4:10); and (d) Ezekiel 28 tells us that Satan was in the garden of Eden (28:13) and cast out as profane from "the mountain of God" (Eze 28:16), which the garden of Eden is on; THEN the serpent in Genesis 3 is not an actual snake, not a possessed snake, but the actual fallen angel we have come to call “Satan”.
Coupled with the fact that the Hebrew word for serpent (nāḥāš), which is used in Genesis 3, was used in the ancient Hebrew culture as imagery that pointed to cosmic rebellion, entry of death, and ultimate moral ruin. It becomes more obvious that text like Genesis 3 uses nāḥāš as imagery representation and never intended the reader to think that Satan was, or transformed into, or possessed a literal snake.

Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure (Prov 2:1-6)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the thoughtful topic.

The NT certainly identifies the serpent of old as Satan, the devil. Now these may be titles, rather than a proper name, but "Satan" (Adversary) is close enough for me.

In the New Testament we find "serpent," "snake," and "viper." A brood of vipers or the offspring of vipers certainly points to humans whose minds have been deceived, poisoned if you will by the lies originating from Satan.

So on one side we have the "father of lies" and on our side we have "the Truth." Christ taught us to strive to stick to the Truth, and avoid the deception of lies.

The poisons of the serpent, injected into our minds, are falsehoods. The serpent asks, "Did God really say this?" And the deceived answer might be "maybe not." But the truth is of course YES!!
 
David Lamb

David Lamb

Well-Known Member
-I would say that "Satan" is certainly used as a name. For example:

NKJV Luk 4:8 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND HIM ONLY YOU SHALL SERVE.' "

Yes, "Satan" has a meaning, "adversary", but so do all names in the Bible.
 
P

Paleouss

Active Member
Site Supporter
Peace to you Van. Grace and hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Van said:
The NT certainly identifies the serpent of old as Satan, the devil. Now these may be titles, rather than a proper name, but "Satan" (Adversary) is close enough for me.
Click to expand...
I agree. The NT started using these titles, roles, and imagery as names...as we do today.
Van said:
In the New Testament we find "serpent," "snake," and "viper." A brood of vipers or the offspring of vipers certainly points to humans whose minds have been deceived, poisoned if you will by the lies originating from Satan.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Van said:
So on one side we have the "father of lies" and on our side we have "the Truth." Christ taught us to strive to stick to the Truth, and avoid the deception of lies.

The poisons of the serpent, injected into our minds, are falsehoods. The serpent asks, "Did God really say this?" And the deceived answer might be "maybe not." But the truth is of course YES!!
Click to expand...
Thank you for your wisdom.

Peace to you brother
 
P

Paleouss

Active Member
Site Supporter
Grettings
David Lamb said:
-I would say that "Satan" is certainly used as a name. For example:

NKJV Luk 4:8 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND HIM ONLY YOU SHALL SERVE.' "

Yes, "Satan" has a meaning, "adversary", but so do all names in the Bible.
Click to expand...
You are correct on your point about the NT, but it doesn't counter my OP point.

To make sure you don't have my point wrong and the development of name backwards. The Hebrew word śā-ṭān didn't start as a personal proper name with a root that means "adversary"... it started as a word that meant "adversary" (OT) that then started being used as a name to identify a particular being (NT).

Just so we are both on the same page. I am pointing out the fact that the NT started using what were Hebrew words of title, role, and imagery (they were not personal proper names in Hebrew).

Evidence of the fact that the Hebrew word śā-ṭān is not an original name in Hebrew of that one fallen angel, the word is used for human opponents as adversaries (1King 11:14, 23; 1Sam 29:4; 2Sam 19:22) as well as heavenly messengers in favor of God and sent from the Lord to obstruct (Num 22:22, 32). All these verses are NOT a name for that one fallen angel.

I think if one would do any research at all, one finds that the Hebrew word śā-ṭān is not a personal proper name in the OT and by the NT, written in Greek, the trend of using the Hebrew word śā-ṭān within the Greek text as a name for one particular fallen angel was started.

So back to the OP, when approaching Genesis 3, if there is a fallen angel in the story then the expectation is that the personal proper name will not be given and only general words of roles, titles, or imagery is to be expected. In the case of Genesis 3, its imagery.

Peace to you brother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top