gen 3:1 Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You can’t eat from any tree in the garden’?
14 Then the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all animals, domestic and wild. You will crawl on your belly, groveling in the dust as long as you live
Some people claim Genesis is not literal, so what would they say the serpent was?
Meet the new thread, same as the old thread.
Ever read Essop’s fables?
Richard
Looks like a no vote. Of course you also have to reject the new testament, as it confirmed the serpent was real.
Looks like your responses are the same anyhow
non sequitur.
Do not tell me what I believe, know, reject or accept.
Richard
If you reject that the serpent was real you reject what the New Testament says. I can tell you that with authority.
Revelation 20:2
And he took hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;
That serpent of old refers to the garden. You are welcome to accept and believe whatever you like. Not to pretend it is not against Scripture though.
It certainly wasn’t a real serpent.
Satan is the deceiver and the tempter.
Picturing the Devil as a serpent was figurative language.
OK. Another vote for no.
The “serpent” was Satan. I have literally zero doubts he is the deceiver who tempted them, this doesn’t mean that the deceiver was a literal serpent (although he could have conceivably taken the form of one, the devil can take any form).
So you think Satan was in the garden talking?
Genesis does narrate God cursing the serpent, but this doesn’t mean that we are required to think that the ultimate meaning is simply “God cursed snakes as an animal species”.
The serpent is the figure through which Satan, the real deceiver, is presented. Revelation explicitly identifies the “ancient serpent” with the Devil and Satan.
So the point is that the animal imagery has a deeper theological referent.
Whether that means a representation indicating Satan tempting them, or Satan actually taking the form of a serpent (again, he can take any form, a beautiful woman, a serpent, a dog, anything, many saints have confirmed this throughout history * , which also stands to reason; he is an angel afterall), is not defined.
*St. Thomas Aquinas explicitly says that demons can assume bodies of different forms and shapes, and the lives and writings of saints contain many such accounts: St. Anthony saw the devil take the form of a woman and of various animals, while St. Gemma Galgani reported seeing him in the form of a large black dog. So there is nothing inherently problematic about Satan appearing under the form of a serpent.
St. Athanasius also wrote on this subject, here newadvent.org/fathers/2811.htm
chapter 5
“But when the enemy saw himself to be too weak for Antony’s determination, and that he rather was conquered by the other’s firmness, overthrown by his great faith and falling through his constant prayers, then at length putting his trust in the weapons which are ‘in the navel of his belly’ and boasting in them — for they are his first snare for the young — he attacked the young man, disturbing him by night and harassing him by day, so that even the onlookers saw the struggle which was going on between them. The one would suggest foul thoughts and the other counter them with prayers : the one fire him with lust, the other, as one who seemed to blush, fortify his body with faith, prayers, and fasting.And the devil unhappy wight, one night even took upon him the shape of a woman and imitated all her acts simply to beguile Antony. But he, his mind filled with Christ and the nobility inspired by Him, and considering the spirituality of the soul, quenched the coal of the other’s deceit.”
Much more recently in history Padre Pio was continuously harassed by the devil in many ways, but the examples are countless.
It is a very common interpretation that the serpent in Eden was Satan. True or not, it is a projection of an interpretation to the Eden narrative, not something that the narrative tells - except in one sense: the serpent is pictured as someone opposing the will of God, and ‘satan’ means an adversary. In that sense, the serpent was a satan.
By the way, even apostle Peter was ‘a satan’ when he tried to speak against what Jesus said will happen.
If we look closely what the narrative tells about the serpent, I agree that the description sounds mythological, figurative language. Given all the details in the narrative that seem mythologized, it is unlikely that the Eden narrative happened literarily as is told in the narrative. Although there are people who take everything literarily, word-by-word, just as an English translation tells, it does not take much learning or courage to conclude that the narrative is mythologized teaching.
Sure, but we don’t have to go to the opposite end and conclude that everything was symbolical or mythologized.
I think the fairest assessment of Genesis is “theologized history”.
As for the serpent, I’m sure it was Satan, but it is also conceivable that he could have taken the form of a serpent, nothing prevents that.
There are many accounts throughout history of Satan taking animal forms.
Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum super Sententiis, lib. II, distinctio 8, quaestio 1, articulus 2, corpus
(Super Sent., lib. 2 d. 8 q. 1 a. 2 co.)
Translation from the original Latin corpusthomisticum.org/snp2005.html
“I answer that there is an error held by certain people who say that angels never assume bodies, and that everything Scripture says concerning angelic apparitions was accomplished either by illusion or by an imaginary vision. But since the saints commonly say that angels have appeared to human beings even by bodily vision, and since the text of Scripture appears to agree with them, it must be held without doubt that angels sometimes assume bodies in which they are seen by human beings.
How this takes place must now be considered.
Since spiritual nature is superior to corporeal nature, corporeal nature must be subject to it. It is not, however, subject to spiritual nature with respect to the reception of forms, because the first beginning of forms in matter—insofar as matter is said to possess certain aptitudes for form—is the work of the Creator; while the bringing of those forms into actuality belongs to the power of determinate natural agents.
But with respect to local motion, by which no form is introduced into the thing moved, a body is subject to spiritual power. And insofar as a spiritual power moves a body, it is joined to that body as a mover is joined to what is moved.
But beyond this, when an angel gives shape to the body it moves, in the manner explained above, so that there appear in it certain visible properties corresponding to the angel’s invisible properties, then the angel is said to assume that body.
Hence angels sometimes appear in the form of a man or of a lion, and the like, because through the properties of such forms the spiritual powers of the angels themselves are signified.”
It may well be mythologized/theologized history. On the other hand, it may have preserved so little about what actually happened that it might be called teaching in the form of a narrative. I do not know which alternative is closer to truth.
There are stories of Satan taking animal forms, especially in popular mythology. Even more common is to describe Satan using symbolical forms, for example a dragon, just like in Revelation.
A ‘scriptural’ alternative is that Satan appears in the form of ‘an angel of light’, masking himself as a good character that wants to advance what is beneficial. Even as a messenger or representative of God.
It’s a very common account in the lives of the saints, even recent ones. I see no reason to discard said accounts as just mythology. It is in the power of angels (demons are still angels, albeit fallen) to take human or animal forms, so it’s not problematic in the slightest, unless one has a very rationalistic mindset, which is one of the problems of modernity.
You claim a definitve understanding the Catholic church claims a definitive understanding, @St.Roymond claims a definitive understanding, everyone has the only valid view.
I guess someone must be mistaken. Or maybe there isn’t a definitive view, so al are mistaken.
I heard that diplomacy was the art of making everyone unhappy.
Richard
There is no definitive understanding of the manner in which Satan tempted Adam and Eve. It is conceivable that he may have used the form of a serpent to tempt them, though, because Satan and demons in general have taken the forms of men/women and animals many times throughout recorded history. Conceivable doesn’t mean that anybody is required to believe that it literally happened in that specific way.
It has been fun to look modern stories from the viewpoint that there may be symbolical figures or events that are taken from the biblical narratives. The latest such story I watched was the series ‘The Rings of Power’. As a movie, it was not as engaging as the previous ‘The Lord of the Rings’ or ‘the Hobbit’ but along the series, there appeared characters or events that had a familiar symbolic content.
In the making of the Rings, the dark character appears as a messenger of light that gives as a gift a possibility to save the whole land through making powerful items. By skillful deceiving, he makes others to do what he wants. In that scene, I saw quite strongly the symbolic pattern of how Satan deceives: what is pictured as good and beneficial is just a cover for the evil goals.
Be careful, you might just have admitted that Scripture can have other conceivable understandings.
Richard
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.