Was the Serpent in Genesis 3 a Literal Snake?

[Calminian]

I agree that there were likely many animals changed after the Fall. That article was a good read. Thanks.

But would you also agree, the changes they endured were not moral punishments brought on by their own sin? In fact, it's likely they were an act of mercy, to help them survive in a cursed world.

The same with the snake's changes. He's a successful predator, most so than most other animals. The changes he endured served to symbolically speak of what Satan would endure, as the next verse, the Protevangelium, further explains. Do you think Gen. 3:15 is about an animal? Or about the devil?

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

To me as I have read the story Satan entered the snake. the reason the Snake was cursed is because the snake was a willing participant. Being possessed is by willingness or passiveness or not caring about it one way or the other. The reason is my opinion and, is not as far as I know scriptural.
MB

I agree about the snake's being a willing participant. Concerning being possessed, I do not think that the Scripture provides enough data for us to say that being passive or not caring also have resulted in or can result in possession.

 

[Calminian]

I agree about the snake's being a willing participant. Concerning being possessed, I do not think that the Scripture provides enough data for us to say that being passive or not caring also have resulted in or can result in possession.

It doesn't' have to be possession. Inciting is the correct term, as the case of the Prince of Tyre, David and Peter.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

But would you also agree, the changes they endured were not moral punishments brought on by their own sin? In fact, it's likely they were an act of mercy, to help them survive in a cursed world.

The same with the snake's changes. He's a successful predator, most so than most other animals. The changes he endured served to symbolically speak of what Satan would endure, as the next verse, the Protevangelium, further explains. Do you think Gen. 3:15 is about an animal? Or about the devil?

Genesis 3:15 is about the devil.

In the case of the serpent, its being cursed is explicitly stated to be because of what it did. We do not have any such statements about the other animals so I cannot speak to what God's purposes may have been for doing that to them.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

It doesn't' have to be possession. Inciting is the correct term, as the case of the Prince of Tyre, David and Peter.

You are correct that it does not have to be possession. We are not given enough information to know exactly what took place and how the devil did what he did to and through the snake.

 

[Calminian]

You are correct that it does not have to be possession. We are not given enough information to know exactly what took place and how the devil did what he did to and through the snake.

But we have enough pieces of the puzzle to make a good inference.

We know the hebrew word for snake is used, and appears elsewhere in the OT.

We know the description of the postlapsarian snake fits the description God gave of him at the time of the Curse.

We also know Satan is identified as the Serpent of old.

We know God sometimes refers to individuals who are not Satan as Satan when Satan incites them.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

In the Millennium, God will remove some of the effects of the Curse, but the serpent will remain cursed as before:

Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

This further shows that the punishment on the serpent was different from the effects of the curse on the other animals.

What's more, it's plain that this passage alludes to Genesis 3:14 yet the serpent is spoken of in close connection to other physical animals who will be changed. Understanding serpent in this passage to refer to Satan's ongoing punishment is untenable to me.

 

[Calminian]

In the Millennium, God will remove some of the effects of the Curse, but the serpent will remain cursed as before:

Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

This further shows that the punishment on the serpent was different from the effects of the curse on the other animals.

Actually, the curse of death will not be yet lifted in the MK. All the structural changes of all animals will be in place. What will cease is war and predation among animals. Death will only come via old age, for both men and animals. Even the enmity between snakes and men will cease.

You can argue the snakes alterations were more significant than the rest of the animals, which is directly stated by Gen. 3:14. But snakes will have peace in the MK just like other animals. They'll be lead by a child (Is. 11).

This is further evidence that the Curse of the snake in Gen. 3:15 was against the snake inciter, not the species itself.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Actually, the curse of death will not be yet lifted in the MK. All the structural changes of all animals will be in place. What will cease is war and predation among animals. Death will only come via old age, for both men and animals. Even the enmity between snakes and men will cease.

You can argue the snakes alterations were more significant than the rest of the animals, which is directly stated by Gen. 3:14. But snakes will have peace in the MK just like other animals. They'll be lead by a child (Is. 11).

This is further evidence that the Curse of the snake in Gen. 3:15 was against the snake inciter, not the species itself.

I did not say anything about the curse of death being removed in the MK. Isaiah 65:25 says that serpent will still eat dust, which shows that aspect of its punishment continues.

It's debatable that "all structural changes of all animals will be in place." What evidence do you have for saying that?

 

[Calminian]

I did not say anything about the curse of death being removed in the MK. Isaiah 65:25 says that serpent will still eat dust, which shows that aspect of its punishment continues.

To the devil, the punishments endure. To the snake, it is merely a new design that enables it to thrive in its predation. Do you know anywhere where snakes don't thrive?

It's debatable that "all structural changes of all animals will be in place." What evidence do you have for saying that?

Debatable based on what? You're arguing based on a starting premise. There are many changes in the MK stated in Isaiah. There is nothing about animals losing the DAS (defense/attack structures). There is nothing about thorns ceasing, and it wouldn't make sense, especially given the at the end of the MK, the world will fall into rebellion again for a short time.

Again, do you believe Gen. 3:15 is about snakes or the devil?

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

To the devil, the punishments endure. To the snake, it is merely a new design that enables it to thrive in its predation. Do you know anywhere where snakes don't thrive?



Debatable based on what? You're arguing based on a starting premise. There are many changes in the MK stated in Isaiah. There is nothing about animals losing the DAS (defense/attack structures). There is nothing about thorns ceasing, and it wouldn't make sense, especially given the at the end of the MK, the world will fall into rebellion again for a short time.

Again, do you believe Gen. 3:15 is about snakes or the devil?

No, for the snake it is not merely a new design. Genesis 3:14 says that God's curse on the serpent included that it would eat dust. Isaiah 65:25 shows that the snake will still eat dust in the MK, which proves that Gen. 3:14 is not about punishment on the devil and Isaiah 65:25 is not about the devil.

You made the claim that there will not be any changes in the animals. Children will die at 100 years in the MK (Is. 65:20). That requires an immense change in the universe. To argue from silence is hardly a definitive way to establish that there will not also be immense changes in the animals in the MK.

 

[Calminian]

No, for the snake it is not merely a new design. Genesis 3:14 says that God's curse on the serpent included that it would eat dust.

Yes, an expression meaning his mouth would be low to the ground. You can also argue they eat dust literally, with their food, but so do all animals. The symbolism here is directed at Satan.

Isaiah 65:25 shows that the snake will still eat dust in the MK, which proves that Gen. 3:14 is not about punishment on the devil and Isaiah 65:25 is not about the devil.

Interesting. So you actually deny the devil was in mind at all in Gen. 3:14-15. I don't think I've ever met someone with that position. I doubt your seminary taught that. It's truly an island position.

Genesis 3:15 is the first Gospel prophecy. It is a foretelling of Christ (offspring of a woman) who would conquer the devil and his offspring. We are not talking about a war on snakes.

The curse on the snake animal serves as symbolism of the Curse of the devil. The curse remained on the devil so it's natural the snake was not restored with its legs.

The real harm here is taking the devil out of the equation completely. You're denying the first gospel prophecy.

You made the claim that there will not be any changes in the animals. Children will die at 100 years in the MK (Is. 65:20). That requires an immense change in the universe.

Indeed. Christ ruling is an immense change. Would never deny this.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Yes, an expression meaning his mouth would be low to the ground. You can also argue they eat dust literally, with their food, but so do all animals. The symbolism here is directed at Satan.



Interesting. So you actually deny the devil was in mind at all in Gen. 3:14-15. I don't think I've ever met someone with that position. I doubt your seminary taught that. It's truly an island position.

Genesis 3:15 is the first Gospel prophecy. It is a foretelling of Christ (offspring of a woman) who would conquer the devil and his offspring. We are not talking about a war on snakes.

The curse on the snake animal serves as symbolism of the Curse of the devil. The curse remained on the devil so it's natural the snake was not restored with its legs.

The real harm here is taking the devil out of the equation completely. You're denying the first gospel prophecy.



Indeed. Christ ruling is an immense change. Would never deny this.

This is ridiculous. You have misstated my position. I deny that Genesis 3:14 is exclusively about the devil. Genesis 3:14 speaks of physical punishment on a physical animal for its role in the Fall.

I have never said that Genesis 3:15 is not about the devil. It certainly is.

Isaiah 65:25 is not some new statement about the serpent. It is a continuation of the punishment of the physical serpent that was imposed in Genesis 3:14.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

I think that we have reached the point where further discussion will not be profitable.

 

[Calminian]

I think that we have reached the point where further discussion will not be profitable.

I agree. I will just add, you can't separate verses 14 and 15. Both are dealing with the snake and the devil, one literally, one symbolically.

 

[Reformed1689]

The angles have the power to assume the likeness of men. Satan was a powerful angle. What better way to be the master at deception.Demons are fallen angels and they are recorded to enter men and pigs. This is why I said that Satan entered the snake. He possessed the snake.
MB

Do we know they have the power to do this on their own?

 

[Calminian]

I agree. I will just add, you can't separate verses 14 and 15. Both are dealing with the snake and the devil, one literally, one symbolically.

To say this better, both 14 and 15 have a literal aspect addressing the Serpent, and a symbolic aspect addressing the devil.

God literally bringing the serpent low in ver 14, symbolizes the Fall of the devil. The devil was brought low at that point. Likewise, literally bruising a snake's head and while injuring its heel, symbolizes Christ defeating the devil on the Cross.

 

[MB]

Do we know they have the power to do this on their own?

How else could Satan be the snake and still be his old self?
MB

 

[kyredneck]

The NT book of Revelation borrows heavily from Genesis (and many other OT texts).

'Borrow'? Seems an odd term for the Author of the entire BOOK.

There may be an illusion to the story (of Genesis 3) in Rev. 12.17,

So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.
John appears to be allegorizing the story.

An 'allusion'? Really? That's it?

It's the Holy Spirit providing the key to interpreting this scripture.

“In the Old Testament the New is concealed, in the New the Old is revealed.” Augustine.

"..."And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen. 3:15).....Here we have the beginning and germ of all prophecy." A.W. Pink

Here's the seed of the serpent:

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. Jn 8

51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye.
52 Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? and they killed them that showed before of the coming of the Righteous One; of whom ye have now become betrayers and murderers; Acts 7

32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell?
34 Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city:
35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth [Revelation 18:24], from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. Mt 23

 

[George Antonios]

If a physical serpent was cursed by having physical changes imposed upon it, God was holding that physical serpent responsible for its evildoing.

Interesting observation.