Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden '?"
A "Crafty" Serpent?
I had always assumed from quick reads that craftiness was supposed to be attributed to Satan, but after inspecting multiple translations, it seems clear to me that the verse maps the trait to the animal itself. But how can an animal be "crafty" unless it possesses a level of intelligence which no animal we know of today does?
"It is not improbable, that reason and speech were then the known properties of the serpent. And therefore Eve was not surprised at his reasoning and speaking, which otherwise she must have been." (John Wesley Commentary) This makes sense, considering the degenerative effects of the fall of man, which would have affected every single thing, including animals. However, this answer leads me to another question...
Talking animals?!
The satisfactory answer above as to why we no longer find crafty talking snakes anymore leads me to another question: does that mean that - at least before the fall of man - animals used to be able to talk?
The most common supportive answer for this was that because Eve didn't seem surprised by the snake speaking to her, logically, animals must have spoken. Rational Christianity shows how you can accept those same two points without coming to the same conclusion: "As for Eve, she didn't necessarily have the same perspective we do on talking animals. We know from history as well as our own experience that animals don't talk. We also grew up with stories of animals talking, and were taught to regard them as imaginary. Adam and Eve didn't have a childhood, nor did they have other humans to learn from. They may not even have been alive for very long when the incident occurred. For all they knew, animals did speak from time to time." Inconclusive.
Numbers 22:28: And the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” Now this verse too could be interpreted as being supportive, but looking at multiple translations and the lexicon for the word 'opened' (pathach: to open wide; specifically, to loosen, begin, plough, carve) it doesn't seem clear cut. Inconclusive.
A House Church Network Association article adds to the above by asking the - admittedly intriguing - question: "Who did Adam and Eve talk about? [...] there was not only no one else to talk about (except perhaps to talk about God), but there was not yet any sin and gossip [...] So the traditional answer would be there was no one to talk about. Except... Could it be that there were others to talk about?" They go on to mention two other supportive points for talking animals:
1) Genesis 2:18, God himself notes that "it is not good for the man to be alone" and so he makes the animals.
It would seem to make sense that God, recognizing a human's need for companionship and communication would create animals with the ability to speak. But you could then also argue the opposite side saying that 's perhaps one of the reasons why he ended up needing to create Eve. Inconclusive
2) The animals are named by Adam.
Interesting point. If the animals can't speak, why bother having Adam name them? Just for himself and God to appreciate? Maybe, maybe not. Inconclusive.
This issue remains for me... inconclusive.
(back to Genesis 3)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hmm I've never thought through the talking animal bit the way you presented it. Interesting. I had always attached "crafty" to Satan (I still think it makes sense), assuming that "the serpent" was talking about this specific animal (who was Satan in snake form), rather than the species.
As to your final point, I think the naming of the animals wasn't necessarily for communication's sake with them (although I suppose it could be if they did talk), but rather, naming things was a way of establishing dominion and claiming authority over. For example, that's why God names the different natural phenomena in Gen. 1, but allows Adam to exercise his dominion over the natural and animal world in Gen. 2.
I like reading your thoughts, Jon. Awesome stuff.
While you make a good point, Jon, that it appears inconclusive to say definitively whether the serpent was Satan, I have to disagree with your final verdict.
First, I find it poor logic to say that just because Eve wasn't surprised upon hearing the serpent speak, all animals must have been able to speak. Remember that this was before the fall, so Adam and Eve were not plagued with fear and suspicion, which are consequences of sin. So can it not be possible that Eve was simply innocent of mind and willing to accept strange occurrences? There are also many occasions in Scripture where we are simply not given details of people's emotional reactions. So it's important not to make assumptions and then treat them as truths.
Another point to consider is how the rest of Scripture refers to Satan. In other words, if there are no references to Satan as a serpent in any other parts of Scripture, then the argument that the serpent in gen. 3 is really just a serpent gains support (since there's no reason we should think otherwise). But in fact there are other passages in Scripture that link Satan with having the form of a serpent (or dragon, as some interpret the hebrew/greek). I can also point out that the translation of the hebrew word for serpent can also be translated "image of serpent," as seen here: http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05175&Version=kjv
Finally, although you've found some articles on the net that voice out your same wonderment, it's important to recognize that the large majority of Christian thinkers (past and present), being led by the Holy Spirit, have concluded that the best interpretation of this passage is to understand the serpent as Satan.
Personally, I find it both awesome and frustrating that there are so many mysteries in the Bible. So your entry both stimulates me and amuses me, knowing that as Christians we all share in these kinds of wondering. Hope my two cents were in someway also encouraging and beneficial. Cheers.
Thanks Jer and Ying for your thoughts. It's nice to have your comments not so much for the satisfaction of interaction (hey that rhymes!) but as a sort of truth check.
Just to clarify Ying, I never decided that animals did indeed use to talk, I just asked the question. If anything I lean more towards 'no'.
Yours and Jer's comments have made me reconsider that I might be looking into this verse too much. I can definitely see how the description of the serpent could really just be describing Satan and have nothing to do with the animal itself. That said, the way the verse is worded still leaves me to question (from my limited knowledge) why it necessarily has to be.
All creation,we are told, was innocent. No conniving,no conspiring. no craftiness. All lovey dovey ,hmm. Then along comes serpent with a new script and vocal chords no less. A velvety seductive voice, pst pst. Are you talking to me. Eve says. Ah beautiful maiden purrs Serpent. Maiden what is maiden. Good question says Serpent; the answer is in this apple. Eat, Mother of all the world. Strange words Serpent Eve said. I will tell Adam. Adam here is an Apple with special powers, eat it and you will have all the knowledge you will ever need . Oh Eve cried Adam its an i Pad 2, yes said Eve, a very nice sales person persuaded me to buy it. Have fun. Thanks Eve Oh Eve, did you see the salespersons vocal chords? Vocal Chords/ queried Eve. never mind said Adam.
Post a Comment