In
Genesis 3:1-6 (Concordant Version of the
Old Testament) we read the following:
Now the serpent, it became more crafty than any other animal of the
field that Yahweh Elohim had made. The serpent said to the woman: Indeed did
Elohim say, You shall not eat from every tree of the garden? The woman replied to the serpent: We may eat
of the fruit of the trees of the garden; yet of the fruit of the tree that is
in the midst of the garden Elohim said, You shall not eat from it, and you
shall not touch it lest you should die. But the serpent said to the woman: Not
to die shall you be dying; for Elohim knows that on the day you eat of it your
eyes will be unclosed, and you will become like Elohim, knowing good and evil.
Then the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it brought a yearning
to the eyes and that the tree was desirable for gaining insight. So she took of
its fruit and ate. She also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate.
In
2 Cor. 11:3 and 1 Tim. 2:13-14, the Apostle Paul referred to the historical event
recorded in the above passage as follows:
“Yet I fear lest somehow, as the
serpent deludes Eve by its craftiness, your apprehensions should be corrupted
from the singleness and pureness which is in Christ.”
“…for Adam was first molded,
thereafter Eve, and Adam was not seduced, yet the woman, being deluded, has
come to be in the transgression.” (cf. 1 Cor. 11:8-12)
Just
as Paul believed that Adam was created before Eve (1 Cor. 11:8-12; 1 Tim. 2:13)
– and that it was through Adam that sin (and, through sin, death) came into the
world (Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:21-22) – so Paul believed that it was by the
craftiness of the serpent referred to in Genesis 3:1-6 that Eve was “deluded.” There
is simply no good reason to believe that, for Paul, the account of Eve’s being deluded
by the serpent is any less literally true or historically factual than the
account of Eve’s creation (it also wouldn’t make sense for Paul to appeal to
the creation and subsequent seduction of Eve in order to support the point he
was making in 1 Tim. 2:13-14 unless he believed in the historicity of the
events to which he was referring).
There
are some who, despite affirming the historicity of the account of Adam and
Eve’s creation, believe that what we read in Gen. 3:1-6 should be understood as
something other than a historical record of events that actually occurred in
the way that they’re said to have occurred. However, we have no more reason to
interpret Genesis 3:1-6 as a mythological fable or allegory than we have reason
to interpret the account of Adam and Eve’s creation in this way. Thus, if one
holds to straightforward understanding of the account Adam and Eve’s creation
(as I do, and believe Paul did), consistency demands that Genesis 3:1-6 be
similarly understood as a historically factual record of how Eve was deluded,
and how sin subsequently entered the world of humanity/human society.
But
does a straightforward reading of Genesis 3:1-6 necessarily lead to the view
that a serpent was involved in the events described in these verses? One biblical
scholar who didn’t think so was E.W. Bullinger. In Appendix 19 of his Companion Bible, Bullinger (who, it
must be emphasized, firmly believed Genesis 3:1-6 to be an account consisting
of historical facts, as opposed to an allegory, myth or fable) argued that the
Hebrew word translated “serpent” in Genesis 3 (נָחָשׁ or “nachash”) shouldn’t be
understood to mean “serpent” here. Instead, he claimed that the term “nachash”
simply means “shining one.” And on the basis of what he believed to be the more
literal meaning of the word, Bullinger argued that the “nachash” referred to in
Genesis 3 was “a celestial or spirit-being,” and that this entity appeared to
Eve as “a glorious shining being.” According to Bullinger’s position, then, the
“nachash” who spoke to Eve did not indwell and speak through (or assume the
appearance of) a serpent. Rather, the “nachash” who spoke to Eve was a glorious,
celestial being who appeared to Eve as “an angel of light.”
Although
I’m sympathetic toward Bullinger’s theory (and believe it to be much closer to
the truth than the view of those who see the serpent as merely an imaginary
being within a fictional tale or allegory), I also think his theory has some major
problems. The first problem involves the meaning of the term “nachash.”
Although some scholars would dispute Bullinger’s claim that the Hebrew term
“nachash” literally means “shining one,” I don’t think it’s necessary to
evaluate the validity of this particular claim in order to demonstrate the
problematic nature of Bullinger’s position. For, regardless of what the most
literal or primitive meaning of the word “nachash” may or may not be, the fact remains that this word is, in
the Hebrew Scriptures, the primary Hebrew word for “serpent” (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h5175). Thus, if
the inspired writer of Genesis had wanted
to communicate the fact that Eve was deluded by a serpent, then there was no better and more suitable word he
could’ve used than “nachash.” In no other passage of Scripture where the term
“nachash” occurs is there any ambiguity as to what kind of creature is in view,
or any reason to think that the term means something other than “serpent.” On
the other hand, had Moses wanted to
communicate the idea that the being who appeared to Eve and seduced her into transgressing
God’s command was a celestial spirit-being, there were, arguably, far better
ways of more clearly expressing and communicating this fact.
Even
more problematic for Bullinger’s theory is the fact that, when the “nachash” is
first introduced in Genesis 3 :1, it’s said to be (or to have become) ”more crafty than any
other animal of the field that Yahweh Elohim had made.” And later,
in Gen. 3:14, we read that God declared the following to this creature: “Cursed shall you be away
from [or “over”] every domestic beast and from every animal of the field!” What
would be the point of informing the reader that a celestial spirit-being or
angel was (or had “become”) craftier than “any other animal of the field” that
God had made? What would be the point of God’s cursing a celestial spirit-being
“away from” (or “above”) “every domestic beast and from every animal of the
field?” These statements imply that the kind of creature being referred to in
these verses belonged to, or was in some way closely associated with, the
category of earthly, field-dwelling creatures with which it was being compared
(and “away from” which it was cursed).
Significantly,
when quoting from Gen. 3:1 in his article, Bullinger left out the phrase “of
the field.” I suspect that this omission on Bullinger’s part was not
unintentional, for the phrase not only undermines the very point he was trying
to make when quoting from Gen. 3:1, but it exposes the weakness of his entire
position concerning the nature of the “nachash” of Genesis 3. In any event, the
fact remains that what we read in Gen. 3:1 and 3:14 implies that the “nachash”
being referred to belonged to the same earthly realm as the “domestic beasts”
and “animals of the field.” What’s being said in these verses would simply make
no sense if the “nachash” in view was a creature that belonged to a completely
different realm than that which is inhabited by “every animal of the field,” or
to an order of beings that, in accord with what we read in Psalm 8:5 and Heb.
2:7, is higher than that to which humans belong. However, when we understand
the term “nachash” to simply mean “serpent,” no such difficulty arises.
But
if the “nachash” of Genesis 3 was, in fact, a serpent, how do we account for
its extra-ordinary intelligence and speaking ability? It’s reasonable to believe
that no other serpent in earth’s history has ever possessed the ability to do
what we’re told the serpent in Eden did. Does this mean that, when serpents
were first created by God, they naturally possessed both the intelligence and
the speaking ability manifested by the serpent by which Eve was deluded? This
view would imply that serpents lost these abilities at some point subsequent to
the time at which the event described in Genesis 3:1-6 occurred. In support of
this position, some have appealed to the unusual incident involving Balaam’s
donkey that we find recorded in Numbers 22:21-39. Based on what we read in this
passage, it’s suggested that God simply restored to Balaam’s donkey an ability
that all animals once naturally possessed (but eventually lost, after creation
was cursed).
Although
this is an interesting theory, I think it’s more likely (and more in keeping
with what Scripture reveals elsewhere) that the serpent by which Eve was
deluded had, at some point prior to the exchange recorded in Gen. 3:1-5, come
to be indwelled and controlled by another, more intelligent being. According to
this view, the serpent’s “craftiness” (and ability to speak) was not inherent
in the serpent itself, but rather was derived from an unseen source which
inherently possessed the “craftiness” manifested by the serpent’s words. It was
by means of this unseen intelligence that the serpent, on this particular
occasion, “became more crafty than any other animal of
the field that Yahweh Elohim had made,” and was enabled to speak the
seductive words that it spoke to Eve.
It
has been objected that, if this were the case, then there would’ve been no good
reason for God to curse the serpent. Why would God have cursed the serpent if
it was simply the unwitting instrument of another being? In response to this
objection, it should first be noted that, although the serpent’s curse
apparently involved a change in its physical condition, we have no reason to
think that the curse involved the infliction of pain and suffering upon the
serpent (let alone that the serpent felt any kind of resentment – or any other
negative emotions – as a result of its being cursed). Second, if we understand
God’s cursing of the serpent as illustrative
(and as prophetically pointing to the future judgment of the unseen being who
indwelled and spoke through the serpent), God’s curse makes more sense. The
fact is, however, that we don’t have
to know why, exactly, God cursed this creature in order to believe that he had
a good reason for doing so. Since a straightforward reading of Genesis 3:14-15
indicates that God did, in fact,
curse the serpent – and since God doesn’t do anything without a good reason –
then it necessarily follows that God did
have a good reason for doing so (even if we’re unsure as to what, exactly, that
reason was).
That
the serpent by which Eve was deluded was indwelled by, and under the control of,
a more powerful and intelligent entity who had essentially made the serpent an
extension of itself is, I believe, supported by what the apostle John wrote in
Revelation 12:7-12. Here is how these verses read in the CLNT:
And a battle occurred in heaven. Michael and his
messengers battle with the dragon, and the dragon battles, and its messengers. And
they are not strong enough for him, neither was their place still found in
heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, the
ancient serpent called Adversary and Satan, who is deceiving the whole
inhabited earth. It was cast into the earth, and its messengers were cast with
it. And I hear a loud voice in heaven saying, “Just now came the salvation and
the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of His Christ, for the
accuser of our brethren was cast out, who was accusing them before our God day
and night. And they conquer him through the blood of the Lambkin, and through
the word of their testimony, and they love not their soul, until death. Therefore,
make merry, ye heavens, and those tabernacling in them! Woe to the land and the
sea, for the Adversary descended to you having great fury, being aware that
brief is the season that he has.”
A few verses earlier, the
“great dragon” referred to in this passage was described as ”a great fiery-red
dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads seven diadems” (Rev. 12:3). As is the case with
the seven-horned, seven-eyed “Lambkin” (Rev. 5:6-7) and the seven-headed,
ten-horned “wild beast” (Rev. 13:1-2), the fiery-red dragon is most likely a composite symbol or figure that represents
both a single individual as well as a particular group of beings with whom the
primary individual represented is closely associated. In the case of the
seven-eyed, seven-horned “Lambkin,” for example, the immediate context makes it
clear that the primary individual being represented is Jesus Christ. However,
we’re also told that the seven horns and eyes of the Lambkin represent “the seven spirits of God, commissioned for the entire
earth” (Rev. 5:6). These seven spirits were first represented by “seven
torches of fire” which John saw “burning before the throne” (Rev. 4:5), and
which are later referred to as “the seven messengers
who stand before God” (Rev.
8:2; cf. Luke 1:19). Their inclusion in the “Lambkin” symbol is, evidently, due
to the fact that these spirits/messengers will play a key role in executing the
judgments associated with the opening of the seven-sealed scroll by Christ
(who, by virtue of his sacrificial death, is revealed to be the only created
being worthy of opening the scroll and breaking its seal; see Rev. 5).
That a
single individual was primarily being
represented by the “great dragon” (as is the case with the “Lambkin” and the
“wild beast”) is confirmed by the fact that John referred to the dragon as a
“him” and a “he” in the above passage. Specifically, the particular individual represented by the
“dragon” (and with whom we’re told Michael and his messengers will be battling)
is the entity whom John referred to in v. 9 as “the
ancient serpent called Adversary and Satan.” The expression ”the ancient
serpent” is undoubtedly a reference to the serpent by which Eve was deluded,
and is actually the first of two occurrences in Revelation in which this
expression was used by John (the second occurrence being found in Rev. 20:1-3).
In both occurrences, the expression is used to identify an entity referred to
by John as “(the) Adversary and Satan.”
But if “the ancient serpent”
by which Eve was “deluded” was simply the visible guise of another being who
temporarily indwelled and controlled the serpent (and who inherently possessed
the intelligence and “craftiness” manifested in the serpent’s words), then why
is the being who indwelled the serpent – i.e., he who is “called Adversary and
Satan” – referred to as if he were the serpent itself? Answer: John was likely
using the figure of speech “metonymy” here. According to this figure of speech,
something that’s closely associated with something else – e.g., something that
serves as the instrument or means through which something else acts – is referred
to as if it were the thing with which it’s associated (see the following entry
for an expanded explanation of this figure of speech: https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/bullinger/metonymy-or-change-of-noun.html). In the case of Rev. 12:9 and 20:2, the serpent through
which the being who is “called Adversary and Satan” acted and spoke is referred
to by John as if it were this being.
But what is the true nature of
the entity to whom John was referring in these verses? The position I am going
to be defending in the next few installments of this study could be briefly
summarized as follows: the being whom John said is “called Adversary and Satan”
belongs to the general order of superhuman, heaven-dwelling beings referred to
in Rev. 12:7-12 as “Michael and his messengers”
(and who are included among those said to be ”tabernacling
in the heavens”), and was created by God to be the chief antagonist/opponent
of God and humanity during the eons.
Some have objected to this
understanding of the nature of this being by arguing that we’re not provided with any clear and explicit account of his origin.
According to this objection, if the being referred to in Rev. 12:7-12 as
“Satan” and “the Adversary” should be understood as a created, superhuman being
(as opposed to, say, a personification of something impersonal), then God
would’ve provided us with an account of his creation. However, this argument is
undermined by the fact that Scripture is just as silent concerning the origin
of every other created, superhuman being referred to in Scripture. Whether
they’re referred to by name or not, their creation is simply a fact that is
taken for granted in Scripture. It would be absurd to argue that “Michael and
his messengers” (or the “heavenly host” referred to in Luke 2:13) are personifications
just because Scripture provides us with no account of their origin. And the
same could be said of the being with whom this study is concerned.
No comments:
Post a Comment