|THE SERPENT OF GENESIS 3. This Is Appendix 19 From The Companion Bible. PAGE 1|
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 the truth of the historical facts;
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
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
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
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
In the same way Saraph, in Isaiah
means a burning one, and,
because the serpents mentioned
in Numbers 21 were burning,
in the poison of their bite,
they were called Saraphim,
But when the
said unto Moses,
"Make thee a fiery serpent" (Numbers
He said, "Make thee a Saraph",
and, in obeying this command,
we read in verse
"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 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
(on page 7 of the Companion Bible)
will show that the Cherubim
(which are similar celestial or spirit-beings)
of the last verse (Genesis
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
is spoken of as
"an angel of light"
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"
¹ Ezekiel 28:11-19, who is quite a different being from "the Prince of Tyre", in verses 1-10 who is purely human.
read from verses
His presence "in Eden,
the garden of
is also clearly stated,
as well as his being
"perfect in beauty" (verse
his being "perfect in his ways
from the day he was created till
iniquity was found in him" (verse
and as being "lifted up because
of his beauty" (verse
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
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 they may behold thee" (verse
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
than was literally true of
"the prince of Tyre" (verses
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
(see note) means wise,
in a good sense as well as in a bad sense.
we have the good sense,
"Thou sealest up the sum,
full of wisdom";
and the bad sense in verse
"thou hast corrupted thy wisdom" (referring,
of course, to his fall).
So the word rendered "subtle"
is rendered "prudent" in Proverbs
and in a bad sense in Job
The word "beast" also, in Genesis
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
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 ¹
by one, apparently "an angel of light"
(that is to say, a glorious angel),
possessing superior and supernatural knowledge.
When Satan is spoken of as a "serpent",
it is the figure Hypocatastasis (see
it no more means a snake than it does
when Dan is so called in Genesis
or an animal when Nero is called a "lion"
or when Herod is called a "fox" (Luke
or when Judah is called "a lion's whelp".
It is the same figure when "doctrine"
is called "leaven" (Matthew
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.
¹ 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.
|TOP PAGE 1 PAGE 2 BOTTOM APPENDIX LIST HOME|
|THE SERPENT OF GENESIS 3. (cont.). PAGE 2|
Other Figures of speech are used in verses
but only for the same purpose of emphasising
the truth and the reality of what is said.
When it is said in verse
"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
"He shall crush thy 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
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,
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
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
"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
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
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
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
something more heart-breaking is meant than
the literal words used in the Figure.
When "His enemies
shall lick the dust" (Psalm
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 knowledge,
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"
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 miracle.¹
¹ Greater than that wrought by God Himself, who opened the mouth of Balaam's ass.
|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 interpretation, 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, and 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 of 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 question "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 newspapers 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 is 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.|
|TOP PAGE 1 PAGE 2|