The Serpent of Genesis 3.

This Is Appendix 19 From The Companion Bible.

In Genesis 3 we have neither allegory, myth, legend, nor fable,

but literal historical facts set forth, and emphasised by the use of

certain Figures of speech (see Appendix 6).

All the confusion of thought and conflicting exegesis have arisen

from taking literally what is expressed by Figures, or from taking

figuratively what is literal. A Figure of speech is never used except

for the purpose of calling attention to, emphasising, and

intensifying, the reality of the literal sense, and truth of the

historical facts; so that, while the words employed may not be so

strictly true to the letter, they are all the more true to the truth

conveyed by them, and to the historical events connected with them.

But for the figurative language of verses 14 and 15 no one would

have thought of referring the third chapter of Genesis to a snake; no

more than he does when reading the third chapter from the end of

Revelation (chapter 20:2). Indeed, the explanation added there, that

the "old serpent" is the Devil and Satan, would immediately lead

one to connect the word "old" with the earlier and former mention

of the serpent in Genesis 3: and the fact that it was Satan himself

who tempted "the second man", "the last Adam", would force the

conclusion that no other than the personal Satan could have been the

tempter of "the first man, Adam".

The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Genesis 3:1 is Nachash

(from the root Nachash, to shine, and means a shinning one.

Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining.

Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4.

In the same way Saraph, in Isaiah 6:2,6, means a burning one,

and, because the serpents mentioned in Numbers 21 were burning,

in the poison of their bite, they were called Saraphim, or Seraphs.

But when the LORD said unto Moses, "Make thee a fiery

serpent" (Numbers 21:8), He said, "Make thee a Saraph", and, in

obeying this command, we read in verse 9, "Moses made a

Nachash of brass". Nachash is thus used as being interchangeable

with Saraph.

Now, if Saraph is used of a serpent because its bite was burning,

and is also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a burning one), why

should not Nachas be used of a serpent because its appearance was

shining, and be also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a shining

one)?

Indeed, a reference to the structure of Genesis 3 (on page 7) will

show that the Cherubim (which are similar celestial or spiritbeings)

of the last verse (Genesis 3:24) require a similar spirit-being

to correspond with them in the first verse (for structure of the whole

chapter is a great Introversion). The Nachash, or serpent, who

beguiled Eve (2Corinthians 11:3) is spoken of as "an angel of light"

in verse 14. Have we not, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a

snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently an angel, to whom

Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who

seemed to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a

being of a serperior (not of an inferior) order? Moreover, in the

description of Satan as "the king of Tyre" 1 it is distinctly implied

that the latter being was of a super-natural order when he is called

"a cherub" (Ezekiel 28:14,16, read from verses 11-19). His presence

"in Eden, the garden of 'Elohim" (verse 13, is also clearly stated, as

well as his being "perfect in beauty" (verse 12) his being "perfect"

in his ways from the day he was created till iniquity was found in

him" (verse 15), and as being "lifted up because of his

beauty" (verse 17).

These all compel the belief that Satan was the shining one

(Nachash) in Genesis 3, and especially because the following words

could be addressed to him :- "Thine heart was lifted up because of

thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy

brihgtness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before

kings, that they may behold thee" (verse 17).

Even supposing that these things were spoken to, and of, an

exalted human being in later days (Ezekiel 28), still "the king of

Tyre" is not compared to a being who was non-existent; and facts

and circumstances which never happened are not introduced into the

comparison.

There is more about "the king of Tyre" in Ezekiel 28:11-19 than

was literally true of "the prince of Tyre" (verses 1-10). The words

can be understood only of the mightiest and most exalted

supernatural being that God ever created; and this for the purpose of

showing how great would be his fall. The history must be true to

make the prophecy of any weight.

Again, the word rendered "subtle" in Genesis 3:1 (see note)

means wise, in a good sense as well as in a bad sense. In Ezekiel

28:12 we have the good sense, "Thou sealest up the sum, full of

wisdom"; and the bad sense in verse 17, "thou hast corrupted thy

wisdom" (referring of course, to his fall). So the word rendered

"subtle" is rendered "prudent" in Proverbs 1:4; 8:12; 12:23; 14:8;

and in a bad sense in Job 15:5. 1Samuel 23:22. Psalm 83:3.

The word "beast" also, in Genesis 3:1, chay, denotes a living

being, and it is as wrong to translate zoa "beasts" in Revelation 4,

as it is to translate chay "beast" in Genesis 3. Both mean living

creature. Satan is thus spoken of as being "more wise than any

other living creature which Jehovah Elohim had made". Even if the

word "beast be retained, it does not say that either a serpent or

Satan was a "beast", but only that he was "more wise" than any

other living being.

We cannot conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake, but

we can understand her being fascinated 2 by one, apparently "an

angel of light" (i.e. a glorious angel), possessing superior and

supernatural knowledge.

When Satan is spoken of as a "serpent", it is the figure

Hypocatastasis (see Appendix 6) or Implication; it no more means

a snake than it does when Dan is so called in Genesis 49:17; or an

animal when Nero is called a "lion" (2Timothy 4:17), or when

Herod is called a "fox" (Luke 13:32); or when Judah is called "a

lion's whelp". It is the same figure when "doctrine" is called

"leaven" (Matthew 16:6). It shows that something much more real

and truer to truth is intented. If a Figure of speech is thus employed,

it is for the purpose of expressing the truth more impressively ; and

is intended to be a figure of something much more real than the

letter of the word.

Other Figures of speech are used in verses 14,15, but only for the

same purpose of emphasising the truth and the reality of what is

said.

When it is said in verse 15, "thou shalt bruise His heel", it cannot

mean His literal heel of flesh and blood, but suffering, more

temporary in character. When it is said (verse 15), "He shall crush

the head", it means something more than a skull of bone, and brain,

and hair. It means that all Satan's plans and plots, policy and

purposes, will one day be finally crushed and ended, never more to

mar or to hinder the purposes of God. This will be effected when

Satan shall be bruised under our feet (Romans 16:20). This, again,

will not be our literal feet, but something much more real.

The bruising of Christ's heel is the most eloquent and impressive

way of foretelling the most solemn events; and to point out that the

effort made by Satan to evade his doom, then threatened, would

become the very means of insuring its accomplishment; for it was

through the death of Christ that he who had the power of death

would be destroyed; and all Satan's power and policy brought to an

end, and all his works destroyed (Hebrews 2:14. 1John 3:8.

Revelation 20:1-3,10). What literal words could portray these literal

facts so wonderfully as these expressive Figures of speech ?

It is the same with the other Figures used in verse 14, "On thy

belly shalt thou go". This Figure means infinitely more than the

literal belly of the flesh and blood; just as the words "heel" and

"head" do in verse 15. It paints for the eyes of our mind the picture

of Satan's ultimate humiliation; for prostration was ever the most

eloquent sign of subjection. When it is said "our belly cleaveth unto

the ground" (Psalm 44:25), it denotes such a prolonged prostration

and such a depth of submission as could never be conveyed or

expressed in literal words.

So with the other prophecy, "Dust shalt thou eat". This is not true

to the letter, or to fact, but it is all the more true to truth. It tells of

constant continuous dissapointment, failure, and mortification; as

when deceitful ways are spoken of as feeding on deceitful food,

which is "sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth shall be filled

with gravel" (Proverbs 20:17). This does not mean literal "gravel",

but something far more disagreeable. It means disappointment so

great that it would gladly be exchanged for the literal "gravel". So

when Christians are rebuked for "biting and devouring one

another" (Galatians 3:14,15), something more heart-breaking is

meant than the literal words used in the Figure.

When "His enemies shall lick the dust" (Psalm 72:9) they will

not do it on their knees with their literal tongues; but they will be so

prostrated and so utterly defeated, that no words could literally

depict their overthrow and subjugation.

If a serpent was afterward called a nachash, it was because it was

more shining than any other creature; and if it became known as

"wise", it was not because of its own innate positive knowlwdge,

but of its wisdom in hiding away from all observation; and because

of its association with one of the names of Satan (that old serpent)

who "beguiled Eve" (2Corinthians 11:3,14).

It is wonderful how a snake could ever be supposed to speak

without the organs of speech, or that Satan should be supposed able

to accomplish so great a miracle3

It only shows the power of tradition, which has, from the infancy

of each one of us, put before our eyes and written on our minds the

picture of a "snake" and an "apple" : the former bassed on a wrong

interpretaion, and the latter being a pure invention, about which

there is not one word said in Holy Scripture.

Never was Satan's wisdom so craftily used as when he secured

universal acceptance of this tranditional belief: for it has succeeded

in fixing the attention of mankind on the letter and the means, thus

blinding the eyes to the solemn fact that the Fall of man had to do

solely with the Word of God, and is centred in the sin believing

Satan's lie instead of Jehovah's truth.

The temptation of " the first man Adam" began with the question

"Hath God said ?" The temptation of "the second man, the Lord

from heaven" began with the similar quetion "If thou be the Son of

God", when the voice of the Father had scarcely died away, which

said "This IS My beloved Son".

All turned on the truth of what Jehovah had said.

The Word of God being questioned, led Eve, in her reply, (1) to

omit the word "freely" (3:2, compare 2:16); then (2) to add the

words "neither shalt thou touch it" (3:3, compare 2:17); and finally

(3) to alter a certainty into a contingency by changing "thou

SHALT SURELY die" (2:17) into "LEST ye die" (3:3).

It is not without significance that the first Ministerial words of

"the second Man" were "It is written", three times repeated; and

that His last Ministerial words contained a similar threefold

reference to the written Word of God (John 17:8,14,17).

The former temptation succeeded because the Word of God was

three times misrepresented ; the latter temptation was successfully

defeated because the same Word was faithfully repeated.

The history of Genesis 3 is intended to teach us the fact that

Satan's sphere of activities is in the religious sphere,and not the

spheres of crime or immorality; that his battlefield is not the sins

arising from human depravity, but the unbelief of the human heart.

We are not to look for Satan's activities to-day in the newspaper

press, or the police courts ; but in the pulpit, and in professors'

chairs. Wherever the Word of God is called in question, there we

see the trail of "that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan".

This is why anything against the true interests of the Word of God

(as being such) finds a ready admission into the news-papers of the

world, and is treated as "general literature". This is why anything in

favour of its inspiration and Divine origin and its spiritual truth is

rigidly excluded as being "controversial".

This why Satan is quite content that the letter of Scripture should

be accepted in Genesis 3, as he himself accepted the letter of Psalm

91:11. He himself could say "It is written" (Matthew 4:6) so long as

the letter of what is "written" could be put instead of the truth that

is conveyed by it; and so long as it is miquoted or misapplied.

This is his object in prepetuating the traditions of the "snake"

and the "apple", because it ministers to the acceptance of his lie, the

hiding of God's truth, the support of tradition, the jeers of the

infidel, the opposition of the critics, and the stumbling of the weak

in faith.

NOTES :

1 Ezekiel 28:11-19, who is quite a different being from "the Prince

of Tyre", in verses 1-10 who is purely human.

2 It is remarkable that the verb nachash always means to enchant,

fascinate, bewitch; or of one having and using occult knowledge.

See Genesis 30:27; 44:5,15. Leviticus 19:26. Deuteronomy 18:10.

1Kings 20:33. 2Kings 17:17; 21:6. 2Chronicles 33:6. So also is the

noun used in Numbers 23:23; 24:1.

3 Greater than that wrought by God Himself, who opened the

mouth of Balaam's ass.