THE SERPENT OF GENESIS 3
By Dr. Bullinger
In Genesis 3 we have neither allegory, myth, legend, nor fable, but literal historical facts set forth, and emphasized by the use of certain Figures of speech.
All the confusion of thought and 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, emphasizing, and intensifying,
the reality of the literal sense, and the 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 of Revelation (ch. 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 Gen. 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 Gen. 3.1 is
Nachash (from the root
Nachash, to shine), and means
a shining one. Hence, in Chaldee it means
brass or
copper, because of its
shining. Hence also, the word
nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2 Kings 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
nachash 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 will show that the
Cherubim (which are similar celestial or spirit-beings) of the last verse (Genesis 3.24) require a similar spirit-being to correspond with them in the first verse (for the structure of the whole chapter is a great Introversion). The
Nachash, or serpent, who beguiled Eve (2 Corinthians 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 superior (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 brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that may behold thee" (verse 17).
Even supposing that these things were spoken to, and of, an exalted human being in later days (in 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 thus 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. 1 Samuel 23.22. Psalms 83.3.
The word "beast" also, in Genesis 3.1,
chay, denotes
a living being, and it is 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 has 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 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" (2 Timothy 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 intended. 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 emphasizing the truth and reality of what is said.
(continued in post below)
