1 edit
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeOn Gerhard von Rad's comments.
'The serpent which now enters the narrative is marked as one of God's created animals (ch. 2.19). In the narrator's mind, therefore, it is not the symbol of a "demonic" power and certainly not of Satan. What distinguishes it a little from the rest of the animals is exclusively his greater cleverness. [...] The mention of the snake here is almost inc ...[text shortened]... or the story than an attempt at making evil something existing outside man.'
Gerhard von Rad
'The serpent which now enters the narrative is marked as one of God's created animals (ch. 2.19). In the narrator's mind, therefore, it is not the symbol of a "demonic" power and certainly not of Satan.
How much Moses understood may be a point to argue.
I believe he was faithful to write what he was suppose to.
For those thinking the Bible is a chaotic scrapbook of unrelated miscellaneous fragments, they might reason that no one understood Satan as the referent of the serpent.
But for us who view the entire plenary revelation of the 66 books, we are TOLD, albeit latter, that Satan is the OLD deceiving serpent.
"And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole inhabited earth, ..." (See Rev. 12:9a)
If you don't get it by now, the last book of the Bible tells you explicitly virtually who the ancient serpent was.
Besides this the activity of the serpent is so closely corresponding to the slanderous activity of Satan the Adversary in an even older writing, the book of Job.
Genesis has this one slandering God to man.
Job, an earlier book, has this one slandering man to God.
I think Moses, though he did not elaborate at the time, understood that God's enemy, God's nemesis, was involved in waylaying human beings away from God in the beginning.
What distinguishes it a little from the rest of the animals is exclusively his greater cleverness. [...]
That is right. That is all Moses writes at the time.
Job though speaks of "the sons of God" including Satan.
And latter in Genesis 6 reference to "the sons of God" certainly suggest superhuman angelic beings.
There is no obvious direct link in Genesis between the serpent and the bad angelic "sons of God" in Genesis 6.
Latter we learn that Satan has his angels and demons as his opposition party against God.
The mention of the snake here is almost incidental; at any rate, in the "temptation" by it the concern is with a completely unmythical process,
The whole narrative is speaking about the origin of death in man. What is its source? Where did it come from?
This is not trivial to the writer. It is of momentous significance that the TRUTH of the situation is that man WOULD die upon disobeying God and eating of the forbidden fruit.
The repeated phrase in the geneological survey.
And he died, ...
And he died, ...
And he died, ...
And he died. (See Gen 5:1-27)
This should not be taken for granted. Moses is explaining how death passed on down the line from the first human beings.
The serpent's lie has lead to such a momentous phenomenon as human beings DYING from that point of disobedience on into our familiar world.
Could it have been any typical serpent ?
The prophecy of Genesis 3:15 indicates a universal struggle between God and this serpent in which he will finally be vanquished. But the "seed of the woman" who crushes its head will be wounded himself in the victory.
Now you ask yourself how much you trust in the integrity and wisdom of Jesus Christ centuries latter. He says that His crucifixion is the judgment of the Devil.
" Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out.
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." (John 12:31,32)
The "ruler of this world" is Satan. He is the one who attempted to tempt Jesus to have the Satanic empire delivered to Jesus in total, only if Jesus would fall down and worship him.
"Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
And he said to Him, All these will I give You if You will fall down and worship me.
Then Jesus said to him, Go away, Satan! For it is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.
Then the devil left Him, and behold angels came and ministered to Him." (Matt. 4:8-11)
When you read about the serpent in Genesis 3 understand Satan.
2 edits
-Removed-Divegeester, in theology your arguments are Unitarian.
Now you may not attend any congregation regularly.
But your theology of the three-oneness of the Bible's God being a "No, No" is vintage Unitarian thought.
Don't tell me that you have no Unitarian scholars back there persuading you somewhere in the past with their kind of Bible exposition.
But tell me, where is the real actual literal genesis discussed tree of life now?
That's an easy one.
I have no earthly idea where such a literal tree as that is now.
I don't have a clue!
is it important?
We also have no idea where the body of Moses was buried.
If people did they would probably make relics out of the dust and bones to worship, totally distracting them from the living God by their idolatry.
And a actual "tree of life" ?
Hey, God had John the Baptist beheaded to get him out of the way so that people could focus on Jesus. You know any physical "tree of life" He would hide.
1 edit
Divegeester, Now it may be possible, but I couldn't insist on it, that the Genesis tree of life was around to be seen for a period of time.
When Cain and Abel offered sacrifices to God, G.H. Pember believed that they did so before the entrance of the Edenic garden before the tree of life. Pember speculated that the sign of acceptance by God of their offerings was seen by fire coming forth from the tree of life maybe, as the fire came down from heaven to ignite the consecration offering to the Levitical priests.
If that is so, then I suppose that for a period of time, the tree of life was there to be seen. This is entirely speculation.
2 edits
-Removed-I will not refer to you as a Unitarian then.
You have referred to me as a trinitarian, I am pretty sure.
Only in as much as it makes your argument that it is a literal “tree of life” look completely dud
How so ?
Explain, how anything I wrote makes a completely dud explanation out of me believing Genesis 3 is history.
Should be easy.
2 edits
-Removed-So we agree.
No one knows for sure about the physical tree of life after Genesis 3.
Now, it should be easy for you to show the "completely DUD" nature of me believing the history of the world presented in Genesis 3.
Take all the time you need.
Show me how what I wrote makes belief in world history recorded in Genesis 3 a complete "dud".