S
souldiver
Guest
Could the snake be just a common snake that is now cursed?
- Status
T
TimothyH
Guest
The Hebrew word is closer to serpent. The first Hebrew word of the 3rd chapter of Genesis is…
-Tim-
-Tim-
meltzerboy
New member
As usual, Judaism has several interpretations. One common interpretation is that the snake (or serpent) represents not Satan but our own “evil inclination” of desire and emotion, which, if and only if abused, can result in bad behavior. Another is that the snake is indeed Satan. However, in Judaism, HaSatan is not the devil, but rather the tempter and the accuser, who is sent to Earth by G-d to test our free will and obedience to G-d, and who later, as the angel of death, forces us to defend our earthly lives by accusing us in the heavenly court. Still another interpretation is that the snake was once a noble creature who actually talked and walked upright but has been downgraded because of his evil deed. This literal view does not believe the snake is Satan. On the other hand, Maimonides writes that the figure of the snake fits into an allegorical tale, that the snake did not really talk, but rather Eve interpreted the behavior of the snake as “telling her” to disobey G-d. Interestingly, Maimonides may not have himself believed this was an allegory, since his writings sometimes contradict themselves depending on whom he is addressing. Therefore he may be using the label of allegory regarding a talking snake so as not to dissuade people from their belief in the Hebrew Bible.
S
ScriptStudent
Guest
From a canonical approach to exegesis, one would have to take Rev 12:9 into perspective while interpreting the text.
Just looking at Genesis, you would have to ask how a literal serpent could possess an intellect and will (signs of a spiritual soul). Also, if the Devil simply possessed a literal snake, then why does the innocently possessed creature partake in the curse God bestows?
Seems like the most likely explanation is that the serpent is more than a literal or common snake.
T
Todd977
Guest
The book of Wisdom seems to identify the serpent in Genesis with the devil:
for God created man for incorruption,
and made him in the image of his own eternity,
but through the devil’s envy death entered the world,
and those who belong to his party experience it. (Wisdom 2:23-24)
The book of Revelation also seems to identify the serpent in Genesis with the devil:
And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Revelation 12:9)
However, neither of these passages exclude the possibility that the serpent was an ordinary serpent that the devil somehow possessed in order to speak to and tempt Eve.
for God created man for incorruption,
and made him in the image of his own eternity,
but through the devil’s envy death entered the world,
and those who belong to his party experience it. (Wisdom 2:23-24)
The book of Revelation also seems to identify the serpent in Genesis with the devil:
And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Revelation 12:9)
However, neither of these passages exclude the possibility that the serpent was an ordinary serpent that the devil somehow possessed in order to speak to and tempt Eve.
M
mikekle
Guest
I dont think it was a snake, in the way we think of a snake, that was with adam and eve in the garden that day…Im almost positive in that time, in the garden, there were probably some species that we have no clue about, I think it was a bi-pedal serpent, who could literally talk, walk, etc.maybe even closer to what we think of as a small man sized dinosaur, and Satan took over this serpents body for a short time, but the real question if that is true, is HOW in the world did Satan manage to get inside Eden…makes me think God sent him intentionally and allowed him in.
We have to remember the animals in Eden were probably nothing like the animals we have today.
I believe it was after their sin, when God condemned the snake to crawl on its belly anyway.
E
edwest2
Guest
It’s Satan.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
S
souldiver
Guest
Genesis 3:1
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
This verse make me think that it’s just a crafty wild animal. And later, he is cursed to crawl in his belly. What serpent crawls on his belly? It’s a snake.
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
This verse make me think that it’s just a crafty wild animal. And later, he is cursed to crawl in his belly. What serpent crawls on his belly? It’s a snake.
G
GarretKadeDupre
Guest
S
ScriptStudent
Guest
Why would God curse a possessed snake?
1
1newcatholic
Guest
In part, this account falls into the category of those stories, folktales, and myths that explain how something unusual came to be, like “How the Zebra Got His Stripes,” or, “How the Donkey Got His Whiskers.” The curse leveled at the snake seems to be something along the lines of “How the Serpent Lost His Legs,” imagining the “original” serpent to have legs, like a lizard.
S
ScriptStudent
Guest
What you are describing is an etiology. There are several scholars who hold this view, yet several other scholars recognize this creates some problems. For example, if the Genesis narrative were an etiology, one would expect the other characteristics of the serpent to reflect reality, such as the dirt diet and enmity towards humanity. Furthermore, one would expect to find an answer as to why snakes are no longer able to talk.
Points to consider on both sides, but I find the etiological approach to be fairly unconvincing. Simply accounting for the locomotion of snakes seems random in this narrative. There could have been countless etiological claims made here. Why would the author choose this one?
G
GarretKadeDupre
Guest
I think it’s to serve as a reminder of the Genesis story. I don’t think the curse actually hurt the snake; else, you wouldn’t expect it to outlive Behemoth and Leviathan, right?
They weren’t even cursed (to my knowledge) yet they died off while snakes flourish worldwide.
S
ScriptStudent
Guest
Thanks for the response. I just want to make sure I understand your point correctly.I think it’s to serve as a reminder of the Genesis story. I don’t think the curse actually hurt the snake; else, you wouldn’t expect it to outlive Behemoth and Leviathan, right?
You believe the curse was merely a physical reminder of the event, such as the rainbow for God’s covenant with Noah and creation, rather than a punishment on the snake? If so, that doesn’t seem to match the narrative. Adam and Eve both receive a punishment for their actions, so one would expect the serpent’s sentence to also be negative rather than a mere, indifferent consequence.
In fact, the narrative provides an interesting outline of interrogation:
God Questions Adam
God Questions Eve
God Curses EveGod Curses Adam
This would strongly imply that the curse should all be seen the same way, that is, negative.
1
1newcatholic
Guest
Q: Why would the author choose to focus on the history of the snake?
A: Because several other aspects of the story are also etiological, offering both general and specific explanations for why things are the way they are–why men have to farm, and women must suffer through childbirth. The focus is not all on the snake, but the snake is definitely a primary narrative character, so he receives some but not all of the attention in the dreaded Curse.
In fact the entire “Fall” account in Genesis is very much an etiology, i.e., “How Death Entered the World.” The “How the Serpent Lost His Legs” angle is just another fragment woven in to the larger etiological account. Another part of the curse detailed in Genesis is that snakes and human beings would always be at war with each other–again, an etiological aspect of the story for why the way things are.
The fact that these are in many ways typologically fulfilled in and revealed through Christ is a cornerstone of Christian and Catholic theology, but (as I understand it) we do not need to dismiss the mythical or allegorical nature of the text in order for Genesis to qualify as “true” Revelation.
G
GarretKadeDupre
Guest
You raise a very good point. I guess the original, legged serpent was more fit than today’s serpents.
EDIT: On second thought, maybe the curses were from least to greatest, starting with the serpent? Just a thought.
S
ScriptStudent
Guest
Although I am hesitant to agree with your statement about the “mythical nature” without first hearing your definition (many people and scholars use that term to mean different things), you are correct. However, I am not claiming one needs to dismiss such understandings of the text. I’m not sure how this comment applies.
The problem I see with an etiological approach to the serpent is that it does not add up. Did the author really believe snakes ate dirt? Since when are humanity and snakes at war with each other? If this were an etiology, it should describe reality. I may personally not like snakes, but we are not at war. Even if all of humanity didn’t like snakes, an etiological approach would have to say that snakes are mutually hostile to humans. This falls way short of being a successful etiology. And, again, one would expect (though not require) the narrative to address why snakes are not able to talk anymore.
In regards to Adam and Eve, yes, the story explains the consequences of sin and how it impacted God’s original design. For example, God gave the command to be fruitful and multiply while allowing the couple to freely eat of any tree. They disobeyed, so being fruitful now has a curse (pain in labor) and the ground will no longer provide free food (farming). I would not consider this story to be focused on an etiological end, though. There seems to be more meaning behind why the author chose a serpent as the antagonist than saying he simply wanted a way to explain why snakes crawl (which seems random in a highly theological narrative about humanity, God and sin). This imagery elsewhere is used throughout the Bible to describe defeat of a fallen enemy.
S
ScriptStudent
Guest
Interesting thought, but as a guy I am thankful I only have to work in a field rather than give birth!
I don’t know about specific ranks for Adam and Eve, but I definitely think the serpent gets the worst. This seems to be indicated not only by the language of absolute defeat in its curse, but also in the fact that the serpent does not get the chance to defend itself like Adam and Eve. God goes straight to punishment without questioning.
1
1newcatholic
Guest
Maybe. Quite possibly, yes. But is that the only way to interpret God’s punishment? Or can we attribute ironic metaphor to the divine voice? Maybe God meant something similar to what WE mean when we tell our enemies to eat dirt. Maybe we should permit both readings.
“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” sounds a lot like mutual hostility to me.
Other ancient cultures used the snake as a symbol of shrewdness or craftiness, as well. In the Gilgamesh epic, it is a snake that steals away with the food of eternal life. A practical reason for choosing the snake to represent a fundamentally hostile opponent is that, in the ancient mediterranean world in which the story was crafted, snakes were actually still a problem for a population that relied on things like farming and livestock.
S
ScriptStudent
Guest
I would highly question the notion that the ancient author believed snakes literally ate dirt. I agree with you that this is symbolic for defeat, such as in Psalm 72:9. Furthermore, being on one’s belly and on the ground is also an image for defeat (2 Sam 22; Ps 110). Given the rich symbolism of the Genesis narrative, it seems the author is not depicting a literal snake or etiology. Rather, he is using the image of a snake to describe a complete defeat.
Yes, I am very familiar with Genesis 3:15. I agree this describes complete, mutual hostility. However, as I argued before, this does not accurately reflect the actual relationship between humanity and snakes. Therefore, this actually supports the position that it is not an etiology. An etiology should describe the way things are. Are snakes at war with humanity? No. There may be a natural aggression between species, but no more than with other species and certainly not war-like enmity.
Yes, the Bible itself uses such imagery for snakes being shrewd. Snakes in the Ancient Near East were seen primarily in terms of fertility worship, though. This is especially true for the Canaanites. Given the overall concern the Pentateuch has with neighboring idolatry, especially the comparisons of Genesis 1-11 with ANE myths, the use of a snake would seem to counter temptations to fall into idolatry.
- Status