The Genesis 3 "serpent" Not An Actual Snake

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”.

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

searchingtruths said:

He goes by many names

Click to expand...

Paleouss said:

Greetings @searchingtruths. Peace to you in our Lord Jesus Christ. Thank you for your wisdom.

For the most part I agree with what you have said. Thank you for your contribution.

I wanted to nitpick on the quote above a little bit though, since it has to do with the topic of the OP.

I want to make a distinction, for the purpose of shining light on the point of the OP...

Two different statements that could lead to two different conclusions
1. Satan goes by many names, i.e, he uses many aliases.
2. The Bible NEVER gives the personal proper name of any fallen angel, ever. It only describes and refers to them by roles, titles, imagery, etc. The names it does use in the NT are simply general Hebrews words used in the OT of roles and titles.

Click to expand...

Paleouss said:

the Bible never gives proper names of any of the fallen Angel but when reading you know it's speaking of one certain angel.

Click to expand...

Paleouss said:

Although as a general statement, #1 might be true. In regard to the Bible and how it refers to that one fallen angel, it doesn't seem to be very accurate. Number 1 might suggest that the Bible simply gives the names that "Satan" wants to go by. The second, #2, informs the reader that God does not allow the personal proper names of the fallen to be glorified by allowing them to be written in the Holy Scripture of God.

Click to expand...

Paleouss said:

In my estimation, #2 is more accurate and has two very important implications.

A. When going into Genesis 3, I should expec there to be imagery, roles, or titles given to represent the third charcacter in the story since Revelation 12:9 tells us that the "serpent of old" is a fallen angel. Since I should expect roles, titles, or imagery, then when I get imagery of a "serpent" then I should treat it as imagery and not think it is a literal snake (which it seems you agree).

Click to expand...

Paleouss said:

B. The second important implication has nothing to do with the OP, but I'll write it anyway. If God refuses to give any personal proper names in His Holy Scripture of any fallen angel. It seems to follow that since the Book of Enoch records the personal proper names of fallen angels then the is one reason of many to question the Book of Enoch and it not being of God.

Click to expand...

Paleouss said:

Peace to you

Click to expand...

searchingtruths said:

Correct the Bible never gives proper names of any of the fallen Angel but when reading you know it's speaking of one certain angel.

Clearly the proper name Lucifer is not the king of Tyre. The king of Tyree was not a cherubim / an angel that covers The Mercy / seat the throne of God. Clearly the king of Tyre did not walk in the garden of God - did not walk the mountains of God. And clearly from from verse 12 on it is speaking of a specific fallen angel and his ruin of kingdoms and the punishment coming. Yet a proper name was given.

From what a Jewish person told me and I did a brief study on 10 or 15 years ago, that the name Satan was actually Satanael and was the leader of the group of Watchers ...... Satanael was not an adversary but actually working for God testing man.
Jews for Judaism | The Jewish View of Satan The Jewish View of Satan


AI Overview

The Jewish concept of Ha-Satan is a loyal heavenly prosecutor and messenger working under God’s direct authority, whereas the Christian concept of Satan is a fallen, rebellious angel and independent force of cosmic evil.
...…........................
The name Satan doesn't seem to be of "his own choosing" but a literal proper name used by the Hebrew Israelites which originally was Satanael - cut short by the Roman / English translators.
........................................
AI Overview

Satanail (also spelled Satanael or Sataniel) is a name for Satan or a fallen archangel found in apocryphal, Gnostic, and dualistic religious traditions.

What Does the Bible Say About Satanael? What Does the Bible Say About Satanael?

The Origin of Satan - World History Encyclopedia The Origin of Satan


Most do form images of snakes since a serpent is considered a snake. That is where the idea of an actual talking snake comes from.

Yes indeed The Book of Enoch gives quite a few proper names of fallen angels - I have the book.

The Book of Enoch is included in the Dead Sea scrolls which is a part of the Hebrew Israelites texts was rejected by the church...... And there are a few other books rejected by the first Catholic Church translators that are a part of the Dead Sea scrolls not written by Enoch. It really boils down to it being their choice of what to keep and what to reject.

Likewise

Click to expand...