3 ms·

But Revelation 12 says (the) Satan is one and the same as the devil and “that old serpent” (presumably the serpent in the garden). It’s possible of course that

But Revelation 12 says (the) Satan is one and the same as the devil and “that old serpent” (presumably the serpent in the garden). It’s possible of course that various beings had taken on the role, and the devil was just one of them

cygx 6y ago
> presumably the serpent in the garden That association never made sense to me. In Genesis, it's pretty clear that we're talking about an actual serpent (which gets punished to crawl in the dirt for its part in the whole affair). Quote: Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made (Genesis 3:3, NIV) Contrast to Revelation, eg He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. (Revelation 20:2, NIV). Looks like just a bit of flowery language to me, a paraphrasis of 'dragon', and not necessarily meant as reference to other serpents that make appearances in other biblical stories...
- RedComet 6y ago
  It actually isn't. Take a look at an exegesis of it from any of the church fathers. The "dirt" it is sentenced to crawl in is mankind, made clear only pages apart ("for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return").
- nimbleal 6y ago
  > In Genesis, it's pretty clear that we're talking about an actual serpent I’m not sure it is clear. If we are talking about an actual serpent, it’s only in the sense that there’s a familiar “just so”-type story which provides the framework for a cosmic, theological story overlayed on top of it (“how the serpent lost his legs”). But a common reading of it is that the garden in Eden is a “home of the gods” — a mountaintop garden, populated by Yahweh, the snake, and Adam and Eve without their “garments of skin”, and possibly others (the mysterious “they will be like us”). So in this reading, the serpent would be one of the gods/sons of God/divine council. His “being made to crawl in the dirt”, as you put it, would then be a condemnation to live a terrestrial existence, “going to and fro on the earth, and ... walking back and forth on it”.
  - cygx 6y ago
    If you just consider the internal logic of the story, it looks like a fable: The protagonists of the story, First Man and First Woman ('earthling' and 'life-giver') get tempted by a talking animal to eat magical fruit. This upsets God, who had planted the magical tree in his garden, where he likes to take a stroll. The story then goes on to handily explain why snakes have no legs, why childbirth is painful and why only humans wear clothing in one fell swoop. One interpretation would be that this is coded language for cosmological and theological capital-T Truth (such as the serpent being the devil). My interpretation would be that a fable got put into an athology of other stories about man's interaction with God, and that anthology got elevated to Divine Revelation of Unquestionable Truth, leading people to read all kinds of things into it that were never intended.
    - nimbleal 6y ago
      Sure, but when you are considering it theologically (and not historically) you are asking about what theologians/the church teaches and understands, and the internal logic of the bible and church teaching, not what the “actual” truth of the story is (an interesting question but a different area of inquiry). As a Christian I’m happy for it to be both a fable in the sense you describe and true in a theological sense (some Christians would disagree with my position of course).
      - cygx 6y ago
        Just note that the message might change depending on your take on the story. For example, there's a difference between being led astray by some malevolent cosmic power, or a mundane trickster...

cygx 6y ago

> presumably the serpent in the garden That association never made sense to me. In Genesis, it's pretty clear that we're talking about an actual serpent (which gets punished to crawl in the dirt for its part in the whole affair). Quote: Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made (Genesis 3:3, NIV) Contrast to Revelation, eg He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. (Revelation 20:2, NIV). Looks like just a bit of flowery language to me, a paraphrasis of 'dragon', and not necessarily meant as reference to other serpents that make appearances in other biblical stories...

RedComet 6y ago
It actually isn't. Take a look at an exegesis of it from any of the church fathers. The "dirt" it is sentenced to crawl in is mankind, made clear only pages apart ("for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return").
nimbleal 6y ago
> In Genesis, it's pretty clear that we're talking about an actual serpent I’m not sure it is clear. If we are talking about an actual serpent, it’s only in the sense that there’s a familiar “just so”-type story which provides the framework for a cosmic, theological story overlayed on top of it (“how the serpent lost his legs”). But a common reading of it is that the garden in Eden is a “home of the gods” — a mountaintop garden, populated by Yahweh, the snake, and Adam and Eve without their “garments of skin”, and possibly others (the mysterious “they will be like us”). So in this reading, the serpent would be one of the gods/sons of God/divine council. His “being made to crawl in the dirt”, as you put it, would then be a condemnation to live a terrestrial existence, “going to and fro on the earth, and ... walking back and forth on it”.
- cygx 6y ago
  If you just consider the internal logic of the story, it looks like a fable: The protagonists of the story, First Man and First Woman ('earthling' and 'life-giver') get tempted by a talking animal to eat magical fruit. This upsets God, who had planted the magical tree in his garden, where he likes to take a stroll. The story then goes on to handily explain why snakes have no legs, why childbirth is painful and why only humans wear clothing in one fell swoop. One interpretation would be that this is coded language for cosmological and theological capital-T Truth (such as the serpent being the devil). My interpretation would be that a fable got put into an athology of other stories about man's interaction with God, and that anthology got elevated to Divine Revelation of Unquestionable Truth, leading people to read all kinds of things into it that were never intended.
  - nimbleal 6y ago
    Sure, but when you are considering it theologically (and not historically) you are asking about what theologians/the church teaches and understands, and the internal logic of the bible and church teaching, not what the “actual” truth of the story is (an interesting question but a different area of inquiry). As a Christian I’m happy for it to be both a fable in the sense you describe and true in a theological sense (some Christians would disagree with my position of course).
    - cygx 6y ago
      Just note that the message might change depending on your take on the story. For example, there's a difference between being led astray by some malevolent cosmic power, or a mundane trickster...