Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more clever than any beast of the field which Yahweh Elohim had made Serpent The immediate context pictures the serpent as simply one of the animals of the field created by God (see Genesis 3:1, 14). An ancient Jewish interpretation explains the reference to the serpent in a literal manner, attributing the capacity to speak to all the animals in the Garden. This text (Jub. 3:28) states, “On that day [the day the man and woman were expelled from the Garden] the mouth of all the beasts and cattle and birds and whatever walked or moved was stopped
from speaking because all of them used to speak to one another with one speech and one language [presumed to be Hebrew, see Genesis 12:26].” Josephus, Ant. 1.1.4 (1.41) attributes the serpent’s actions to jealousy. He writes that “the serpent, living in the company of Adam and his wife, grew jealous of the blessings which he supposed were destined for them if they obeyed God’s behests, and, believing that disobedience would bring trouble on them, he maliciously persuaded the woman to taste of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”
This account of the temptation and fall of humankind helps us understand many of the references to serpents throughout Scripture. Serpents are mentioned under various names (for example, asp, cobra, and viper), and they pose a life-
threatening danger to people because of their poisonous bite (Deut. 8:15). They are also mentioned as instruments of Gods wrath upon rebellion or apostasy (Jer. 8:17). The best-known incident of this kind happened during the wilderness journey to the Promised Land when Yahweh sent fiery serpents among the people (Num. 21:56). Wicked and rebellious persons are addressed as serpents or are compared to serpents because of their destructive influence (Ps 58:4; Matt 3:7). In line with the theme of Genesis 3:15, redemption is sometimes described as the destruction or subduing of serpents (Isa 27:1; Mic 7:17). In Numbers 21, the threat of the fiery serpents was overcome when, at the command of Yahweh, Moses fashioned a serpent of bronze and put it on a pole: And so it was, if a serpent had bitten anyone, when he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived (Num 21:9). The bronze serpent raised up by Moses in the wilderness serves as a symbol of the saving power of the Messiah on the cross (Jn 3:14). By his crucifixion and resurrection, the Anointed One has crushed the head of the serpent (Gen 3:15; Rom 16:17). The prophet Isaiah used the taming of the serpent to describe the peace that will
prevail in the messianic kingdom (Isa 11:8; 65:25). And Yahshua gave his disciples authority to trample on serpents and scorpions (Luke 10:19).
Dragon Dragons are imaginary beasts with a long history in the folklore of many cultures. Usually the dragon is a crafty creature that represents evil. The word dragon, as used in some translations of the Bible, is often confusing.
Occasionally this word is used when the intended meaning was probably jackal (Lam 4:3, NRSV), sea serpent or serpents (Ps. 91:13, NRSV), or even crocodile (Ezek 29:34). In the church of early Christian history, dragons represented sin. Christian art often depicts a dragon at the feet of Yahshua to show his triumph over sin. Therefore the dragon is a symbol of the Old Serpent which is a symbol of sin or “sinful flesh” which is the “mind of the flesh” or “the thinking of the flesh” hence the “physical outlook“, or thinking of the flesh, unenlightened by the truth, is the serpent in the flesh. (Job 20:14,16).
Also the dragon is a symbol of the Roman Empire See Dan 7:7, 20; Rev 13:1; 17:3, 9-12; 5:6; 1 Sam 2:10; Deut 33:17; 1 Kings 22:11. In chapter 20:2 of Revelation, it is not a supernatural being that is chained up in the abyss but the iniquitous system of religious, civil and political government, which has associated with it the principle of holding the masses in subjection by preying upon their fears in this life and beyond (i.e. Heaven and Hell).
Sin The word sin is used in two principal acceptations in the scriptures. It signifies in the first place, “the transgression of the Law ”; and in the next, it represents that physical principle of the animal nature, which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust. It is that in the flesh “which has the power of death”; and it is called sin, because the development, or fixation, of this evil in the flesh, was the result of transgression. Inasmuch as this evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled “sinful flesh” that is “flesh full of sin” so that sin, in the sacred style, came to stand for the substance called man. In human flesh “dwells no good thing” and all the evil a man does is the result dwelling in him. Romans 7:17,18. Sin is a synonym for human nature. Hence, the flesh is invariably regarded as unclean. It is therefore written “How can he be clean who is born of a woman?” Job 25:4.
“Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.” Job 14:4. Sin in the flesh is hereditary; and entailed upon mankind as the consequence of Adam’s violation of Eden law.
Human nature or “sinful flesh,” has three principal channels through which it displays its waywardness against the Law of God. These are expressed by “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.” All that is in the world stands related to these points of our nature; and there is no temptation that can be devised, but what assails it in one, or more, of these three particulars. The world without is the seducer, which finds in all animal men, unsubdued by the Law
and testimony of God, a sympathizing and friendly principle, ready at all times to eat of its forbidden fruit. This sinful nature we inherit. It is our misfortune, not our crime, that we possess it. We are only blameworthy when, being supplied with the power of subduing it, we permit it to reign over us. This power of subduing it resides in “the testimony of God” so that we “are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.”
Satan and the Devil. “Satan” is a Hebrew word, and transferred to the English Bible untranslated from the original tongue.
Cruden (himself a believer in the popular devil) defines it as follows: “Satan Sathan, Sathanas: this is a mere Hebrew word, and means an adversary, an enemy, an accuser.” Now if Satan is a mere Hebrew word, signifying adversary obviously it does not in itself import the evil being which it represents to the common run of English ears. This conclusion is borne out by its uses in the Hebrew Scriptures. The first place where it occurs is Numbers 22:22. It next occurs in the same chapter, verse 32. In this case, Satan was a holy angel. Understanding “Satan” to mean adversary in its simple and general sense, we can see how this could be; but, understanding it as the evil being of popular belief, it would be a different matter. The following are other cases in which the word is translated “adversary.” in the Authorized King James Version of the Scriptures: 1 Samuel 24:4; 2 Samuel 19:22; 1 Kings 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25. In these cases, the translators have translated the word, and by this means have fenced off the notion of diabolical interference in the matters recorded, which would certainly have sprung up if the word had been “Satan” instead of adversary. In one or two other cases, however, they have not translated the word, but simply transferred it in its Hebrew form, unaltered, to the English version, thus mystifying the idea of the original, and giving countenance to the popular Satanic theory.
In light of usage of "Satan" or "adversary" in the Hebrew Scriptures it is always a human enemy, probably a nearby nation (or sometimes individuals see 1 Sam 24:4; 2 Sam 19:22;) the lone exception being Num 22:22, 32, where the angel of Yahweh assumes the role of an adversary to Balaam. in the case of 1 Chronicles 21:1 it was a nearby nation whose hostility against Israel pressured David into numbering the people so he could assess his military strength it refers to a personal or national adversary in the human sphere, (compare 2 Samuel 24:1 The Samuel version gives an underlying theological perspective, while the Chronicler simply describes what happened from a human perspective).
Now we must pass on to consider the word “devil.” First, then, with regard to the word “devil,” This word comes from the Greek diabolos, which means a calumniator, a slanderer or accuser. If we illustrate by referring to 1 Tim 3:11; 2 Tim 3:3; Titus 2:3: in all of which, as the reader will perceive by perusing the passages, it is applied to human beings. From this it will be perceived that the word “devil,” properly understood, is a general term, and not a proper name. It is a word that is, and may be, applied in any case where slander, accusation, or falsehood is exemplified. As Yahshua applied
“Satan” to Peter, so he applied “devil” to Judas (John 6:70). However, the terms Satan and the Devil are a personification of sin or “sin in the flesh” or “sinful flesh," human nature! This is the accuser, adversary, and calumniator of God, whose stronghold is the flesh. It is the devil and Satan within human nature; so that “when a man is tempted, he is drawn away of his own evil lust and desires.” James 1:13-15.
THE SERPENT (from Elpis Israel by Dr John Thomas)
"It was more subtle than any beast of the field."
The Serpent was one of "the living things that moved upon the earth", and which the Lord God pronounced "very good".
Moses says, it was more subtle, or shrewd, than any of the creatures the Lord God had made. It was, probably, because of this quality of shrewdness, or quickness of perception, that Adam named it nachash; which is rendered by drachun in the New Testament, from derchomai, to see; as, the Dragon, the old serpent (Rev. 20:2). It was doubtless, the chief of the serpent tribe, as it is styled "the" serpent; and, seeing that it was afterwards condemned to go upon its belly as a part of its sentence, it is probable it was a winged-serpent in the beginning: fiery, but afterwards deprived of the power of flight and made to move as at present.
Its subtlety, or quickness of perception by eye and ear, and skillfulness in the use of them (2 Cor. 11:3) was a part of the goodness of its nature. It was not an evil quality by any means; for Jesus exhorts his disciples to "be wise as the serpents; and unsophisticated as the doves". This quality of shrewdness, or instinctive wisdom, is that which principally strikes us in all that is said about it. It was an observant spectator of what was passing around it in the garden, since the Lord God had planted it eastward in Eden. It had seen the Lord God and His companion Elohim. He had heard their
discourse. He was acquainted with the existence of the Tree of Knowledge, and the Tree of Lives; and knew that the Lord God had forbidden Adam and his wife to eat of the good and evil fruit; or so much as to touch the tree. He was aware from what he had heard, that the Elohim knew what good and evil were experimentally; and that in this particular, Adam and Eve were not so wise as they. But, all this knowledge was shut up in his own cranium, from which it could never have made its exit, had not the Lord God bestowed upon it the power of expressing its thoughts in speech.
And what use should we naturally expect such a creature would make of this faculty? Such a one, certainly, as its cerebral constitution would enable it to manifest. It was an intellectual, but not a moral, creature. It had no "moral sentiments". No part of its brain was appropriated to the exercise of benevolence, veneration, conscientiousness, and so forth. To speak phrenologically, it was destitute of these organs; having only "intellectual faculties" and "propensities". Hence, its cerebral mechanism, under the excitation of external phenomena, would only develop what I would
term an animal intellectuality. Moral, or spiritual, ideas would make no impression upon its mental constitution; for it was incapable, from its formation, of responding to them. It would be physically impossible for it to reason in harmony with the mind of God; or with the mind of man, whose reasoning was regulated by divinely enlightened moral sentiments. Its wisdom would be that of the untutored savage race, whose "sentiments", by the desuetude of ages, had become as nothing. In short, we should expect that, if the faculty of speech were bestowed upon it, it would make just such a use of it, as Moses narrates of the serpent in the garden of Eden. Its mind was purely and emphatically a "Carnal Mind", of a more shrewd description than that of any of the inferior creatures. It was "very good"; but, when he undertook to converse upon things too high for him; to speak of what he had seen and heard; and to comment upon the law of the Lord, he lost himself in his dialogisms, and became the inventor of a lie.
Thus prepared, he commenced a conversation with the woman. "Yea", said he, as though he were familiar with the saying, "hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" In this manner he spoke, as if he had been pondering over the matter to find out the meaning of things; but, not being able to make anything of it, he invited her attention inquiringly. She replied, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden but of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die". This was enunciating "the law of the spirit of life", or the truth; for "the law of God is the truth" (Psa. 119:142). Had she adhered to the letter of this, she would have been safe. But the serpent began to intellectualize; and, in so doing "abode not in the truth; because there was no truth in him". When he may be speaking the falsehood he speaks out of his own (John 8:44) reasonings.
He could not comprehend the moral obligation necessitating obedience to the divine law; for there was nothing in him that responded to it. Hence, says Jesus, "there was no truth in him".
This, however, was not the case with Eve. There was truth in her; but she also began to intellectualize at the suggestion of the Serpent; and from his reasonings to doubt, and finally to conclude, that the Lord God did not mean exactly what He said. This was an error of which all the world is guilty to this day. It admits that God has spoken; that He has promulgated laws; that He has made promises; and that He has said, "He that believeth the gospel, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned". All this professors admit in theory; while, as in the case of Eve, in practice they deny it. They say He is too kind, too loving, too merciful, to act according to a rigid construction of the word: for if He did, multitudes of the good and pious, and excellent of the earth, would be condemned. This is doubtless true. Sceptics, however, of this class should remember that they only are "the salt of the earth" who delight in the law of the Lord, and do it. Every sect has its "good and pious" ones, who are thought little or nothing of by adverse denominations. The law of God is the only true standard of goodness and piety; and men may depend upon it, attested by the examples in Scripture, that they who treat Him as not meaning exactly what He says in His word, "make God a liar" (1 John 5:10), and are anything but good and pious in His esteem.
Eve having repeated the law in the hearing of the Serpent, he remarked that they should not surely die: "for", said he, "God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil". The falsehood of this assertion consisted in the declaration, "Ye shall not surely die", when God had said, "Dying ye shall die". It was truth that God did know that in the day of their eating their eyes would be opened; and it was also true that they should then become as the Elohim, in the sense of knowing good and evil. This appears from the testimony of Moses, that when they had eaten "the eyes of them both were opened" (Gen. 3:7); and from the admission of God Himself, who said, "Behold, the man is become like one of us, to know good and evil" (Gen. 3:22). The Serpent's declaration was therefore an admixture of truth and falsehood, which so blended itself with what Eve knew to exist, that "she was beguiled by his shrewdness" from the simplicity of the law of God.
But how did the Serpent know that the Lord knew that these things would happen to them in the day of their eating? How came he to know anything about the gods, and their acquaintance with good and evil? And upon what grounds did he affirm that they should not surely die? The answer is, one of two way -- by inspiration; or, by observation. If we say by inspiration, then we make God the author of the lie; but if we affirm that he obtained his knowledge by observation -- by the use of his eyes and ears upon things transpiring around him -- then we confirm the words of Moses, that he was the shrewdest of the creatures the Lord God had made. "Hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree?" This question shows that he was aware of some exceptions, He had heard of the Tree of Knowledge and of the Tree of Lives, which were both in the midst of the garden. He had heard the Lord Elohim, and the other Elohim, conversing on their own experience of good and evil and of the enlightenment of the man and woman in the same qualities through the eating of the Tree of Knowledge and of their living for ever, if obedient, by eating of the Tree of Life. In reasoning upon these things, he concluded that, if they did eat of the forbidden fruit, they would not surely die; for they would have nothing more to do than to go and eat of the Tree of Life, and it would prevent all fatal consequences. Therefore, he said, "Ye shall not surely die".
The Lord God, it is evident, was apprehensive of the effect of this reasoning upon the mind of Adam and his wife; for He forthwith expelled them from the garden, to prevent all possibility of access to the tree, lest they should eat, and put on immortality in sin.
The reasoning of the Serpent operated upon the woman by exciting the lust of her flesh, the lust of her eyes, and the pride of life. This appears from the testimony. An appetite, or longing for it, that she might eat it, was created within her. The fruit also was very beautiful. It hung upon the tree in a very attractive and inviting manner. "She saw that it was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes". But there was a greater inducement still than even this. The flesh and the eyes would soon be satisfied. Her pride of life had been aroused by the suggestion that by eating it their eyes would be opened and that she would be "made wise" as the glorious Elohim she had so often seen in the garden. To become "as the gods"; to know good and evil as they knew it -- was a consideration too cogent to be resisted. She not only saw that it was good for food and pleasant to the eyes, but that it was a tree to be desired as making one wise "as the gods; therefore she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat". Thus, as far as she was concerned, the transgression was complete.
No comments:
Post a Comment