Bible stories literal or symbolic?

[Gman]

I guess this brings up other questions too... If progressive revelation is the answer, what are we saying is the first book in the Bible? Is it Genesis or the Book of Job?

[jenna]

I guess this brings up other questions too... If progressive revelation is the answer, what are we saying is the first book in the Bible? Is it Genesis or the Book of Job?

Actually, we might could start with the first part of John?

[Jac3510]

You couldn't start with the first part of John, because we aren't interested in actual chronology so much as when, in human history, a particular truth was revealed.

As far as Genesis/Job goes, Genesis provides the actual basis for a developed theology. Job may not have even been written by a Jew, so any theology that came before it would not have been based on Mosaic thought; likewise, Mosaic thought probably was not at all dependent on Job, either. From a historian's perspective, you have two independent traditions that originated in the same general timeframe.

Job is actually a very fascinating book for that reason, because several parts seem to show a fairly advanced theology. Job, for instance, speaks of the resurrection of the dead, an idea that we don't see explicitly stated until Daniel 12. I'm really looking forward to tearing that book apart verse by verse here in a couple of years.

[August]

I guess I thought a bit more about the serpent discussion earlier in the thread.

A few questions then, which may revive the discussion...
1. Was the serpent part of the creation of Gen 1? It looks like it:
Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.
2. So if creation was good (1:25) and the serpent was part of that creation (created along with the other beasts of the field), how could that serpent then be Satan, as we read in revelation? Does this not imply that Satan is "good"?
3. If God gave man dominion over all living things (Gen 1:26,28), why did they not also have dominion over the serpent, and withstand the temptation? Can one argue that we have dominion over serpents today?
4. While I don't particularly like snakes, there are some people that actually do. How then do we explain that the offspring of the serpent are to be our eternal enemies? "Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." Does this mean that the sum-total of what Satan can do is limited to snakes bruising our heels? And we respond by stepping on the snakes head? At least my personal experience shows otherwise.

And so on.

Look, I am not trying to be too clever or too simple here, but there clearly are some indications here that this serpent was not a typical serpent. In Gen 3:1 we see that he was "more crafty", at least one distinction. It does not seem as if this serpent was good, since he leads man into disobedience against God, so there is another distinction. And thirdly, the consequences of what the serpent did to man seems fairly inconsequential, and far removed from the eternity in the flames of hell that this same guy is promised in Revelation, thus showing that until this particular serpent is removed from the earth, there will be much more dire problems for man than snakebites on the heel.

Comments? I have my own thoughts on what all of this means and will share that later.

[Gman]

Look, I am not trying to be too clever or too simple here, but there clearly are some indications here that this serpent was not a typical serpent. In Gen 3:1 we see that he was "more crafty", at least one distinction. It does not seem as if this serpent was good, since he leads man into disobedience against God, so there is another distinction. And thirdly, the consequences of what the serpent did to man seems fairly inconsequential, and far removed from the eternity in the flames of hell that this same guy is promised in Revelation, thus showing that until this particular serpent is removed from the earth, there will be much more dire problems for man than snakebites on the heel.

Comments? I have my own thoughts on what all of this means and will share that later.

I think you brought up some valid points... This might even collaborate with Isaiah 56:9, where God calls the wicked "all ye beasts of the field" or Jesus calling the pharisees "vipers." Perhaps spiritual...

[Jac3510]

My thoughts:

1. Of course.
2. Depends on how you define "good." I don't think that God was referring specifically to moral goodness here, but rather to functional goodness. Regardless, the question comes back on us anyway, because Satan himself was a created being, and if God can't create anything evil, then, at some point, Satan was likewise good.If, then, Satan could fall, there seems to be little reason to believe that a snake could not. Likewise, Satan's fall likely happened before man's fall, so Satan's use of a (good) serpent is in perfect harmony with everything else in Scripture, including the more general principle that Satan's primary method is to use what is good to introduce evil.
3. Yes, they had domain over the serpent and should have withstood the temptation. It was their choice to sin. Eve was decieved. Adam deliberately chose to sin. A solid reason for this is that he actually believed God told the truth--that Eve would die--and he chose to die with her rather than live without her. Thus, he chose Eve over God.
4. For the record, the word for "bruise" and "crush" the same word in Hebrew. No difference whatsoever. I don't know why it is translated differently. It would be better rendered, "You will strike his heel, but he will strike your head." That holds true for humanity in general, and it also does justice to the prophetic nature of the passage with reference to the Cross.

All in all, then, I see no reasons to take this as anything other than the genre demands: historical narrative. This event really happened as it is recorded.

So much for my $0.02.

edit:

Regrading the indications you mentioned:

1. Craftiness just refers to intellect. There is nothing evil in being crafty or witty. That is why Jesus told us to be as "wise" as a serpent.
2. The disobedience against God doesn't require us to take the snake as nonliteral. See (2) above.
3. I don't see any indication of symbolism here. You have to assume a non-literal snake to make this argument. As I argued earlier, the symbol was cursed, which pointed to a deeper curse with reference to Satan. Further, the Lake of Fire was prepared for Satan, so the implication is that his condemnation was pronounced before Adam's fall. We cannot, then, say that the snake's sin resulted in Satan's condemnation.

[August]

Jac, thanks for your thoughts. I've not made a case for a literal or non-literal snake, just tried to figure out whether we are dealing with your normal runofthemill snake here.

Is your position, to summarize then, that it was a normal snake (or one with legs, as Canuckster suggested), that was "possessed" by Satan, and that the evil spirit therefore manifested as a serpent? If that is indeed your position, why then would the physical snake, and all snakes after him, be punished for being possessed? That implies that the snake, and by implication all beasts of the field, have some sort of moral capacity or choice to have resisted being possessed. Just to clarify, is it your position, since you seem to at least imply it, that beasts have a moral capacity and they can be saved and condemned in the same way that man, Satan and angels can be?

Also, your point 2. refers to how we define good, and whether that refers to moral goodness or not. I'd think that since this was before the fall, and even before the completion of creation, that it may well include moral goodness. If not, why not? We then have to assume that somewhere between Day 6 and the fall Satan went from good to bad, but that is an argument we have arrive at, it is not explicitly stated anywhere. (When was Satan cast out of heaven on to the earth?)

Your point 3...I know this has long been baffling many great minds, and your explanation is as good as any, and is probably the most widely accepted one. But the same question applies, if Eve was "good", how could she choose to do what was essentially out of character? And the same for Adam. I'm not so sure about the rest of your statement, I've not seen anything to indicate Adam's choice and decision from Scripture. Do you have some references?

All in all, then, I see no reasons to take this as anything other than the genre demands: historical narrative. This event really happened as it is recorded.

I don't think that anyone is seriously disputing whether this was a historical event or not. At least, I am not. And using the basic hermeneutical rule of reading the text in the simplest possible fashion, I think that it cannot really be disputed. The only question we are trying to resolve, and which you are helping us with, is whether the serpent was a previously-walking now-crawling spitting snarling hissing scaly beast, the same thing but possessed by the spirit of Satan, whether it was an apparition that appeared and looked like a dragon/serpent/scale beast, or whether it was a completely different apparition that disgusted Moses so that he described it as a snake (kinda like some people trying to sell you something you don't need..., or Richard Dawkins)

1. Craftiness just refers to intellect. There is nothing evil in being crafty or witty. That is why Jesus told us to be as "wise" as a serpent.

Not to be pedantic, but do you then propose that a beast, a snake, had a higher intellect than Adam and Eve, since it convinced them to sin? Even though they knew the consequences? Or was it because the snake had some other quality than just being a snake?

2. The disobedience against God doesn't require us to take the snake as nonliteral. See (2) above.

I guess this is what the whole discussion is about.

3. I don't see any indication of symbolism here. You have to assume a non-literal snake to make this argument. As I argued earlier, the symbol was cursed, which pointed to a deeper curse with reference to Satan. Further, the Lake of Fire was prepared for Satan, so the implication is that his condemnation was pronounced before Adam's fall. We cannot, then, say that the snake's sin resulted in Satan's condemnation.

No, I don't think you don't have to assume anything. We have the benefit of hindsight being where we are in the history of revelation. How do you think Moses' audience understood the whole thing? Did they think the snake was Satan or not in some form or the other? We know that it was because we have the benefit of Revelation telling us.

But you are telling us that the snake was cursed, but Satan was also cursed. I agree, we cannot say that the snake's sin resulted in condemnation for Satan, but you are saying that the snake sinned, i.e. it had moral accountability in the same way that Adam and Eve had? Satan is condemned because of Satan's sin, and man because of Adam's. I don't think we can argue that it was the result of the corporate fall of all creation because of the fall, because this was before the fall.

Jac, thanks again for your thoughts. I still think we are not dealing with a "normal" snake here.

[Jac3510]

Is your position, to summarize then, that it was a normal snake (or one with legs, as Canuckster suggested), that was "possessed" by Satan, and that the evil spirit therefore manifested as a serpent?

It probably goes beyond the text to say that the serpent was possessed, but given your quotation marks, I'd probably be ok with it. The text doesn't clearly state the relationship between the serpent and Satan, but later revelation does make it clear that some sort of relationship existed.

If that is indeed your position, why then would the physical snake, and all snakes after him, be punished for being possessed?

Federal headship. Why were we "punished" when Adam fell? Because we are "in Him." God cursed the snake, and since like begets like, everything after it had the same punishment attached. Further, if I am right that the cursing of the symbol says something with regard to the thing symbolized, it would require that the symbol be forever cursed, just as the rainbow is forever blessed (or any other sign of rememberence for God, either good or bad).

That implies that the snake, and by implication all beasts of the field, have some sort of moral capacity or choice to have resisted being possessed.

No. It means that the particular symbol was cursed. Consider the fig tree Jesus cursed. It had no moral capability, and yet it was cursed as well. But it pointed to a different reality, namely, Israel.

Just to clarify, is it your position, since you seem to at least imply it, that beasts have a moral capacity and they can be saved and condemned in the same way that man, Satan and angels can be?

Note the above. Beasts have no moral capacity. Satan and angels do, but they are not savabe because salvation is only offerd to those creatures made in God's image, namely, mankind.

Also, your point 2. refers to how we define good, and whether that refers to moral goodness or not. I'd think that since this was before the fall, and even before the completion of creation, that it may well include moral goodness. If not, why not? We then have to assume that somewhere between Day 6 and the fall Satan went from good to bad, but that is an argument we have arrive at, it is not explicitly stated anywhere. (When was Satan cast out of heaven on to the earth?)

Because moral goodness implies moral perfection. Do keep in mind what "good" in that context would mean. I would tend to see it as functional goodness (functional perfection) with untested righteousness.

Your point 3...I know this has long been baffling many great minds, and your explanation is as good as any, and is probably the most widely accepted one. But the same question applies, if Eve was "good", how could she choose to do what was essentially out of character? And the same for Adam. I'm not so sure about the rest of your statement, I've not seen anything to indicate Adam's choice and decision from Scripture. Do you have some references?

Eve was deceived. She didn't choose evil per se. Adam chose evil because he was not morally good, he was functionally good. He was morally neutral at that point. As far as the rest of it, it's just inference on my part. I'm just filling in the blanks with a possible explanation. It could be wrong. What is not wrong, obviously, are the Scriptural statements themselves. With that much, we both agree.

I don't think that anyone is seriously disputing whether this was a historical event or not. At least, I am not. And using the basic hermeneutical rule of reading the text in the simplest possible fashion, I think that it cannot really be disputed. The only question we are trying to resolve, and which you are helping us with, is whether the serpent was a previously-walking now-crawling spitting snarling hissing scaly beast, the same thing but possessed by the spirit of Satan, whether it was an apparition that appeared and looked like a dragon/serpent/scale beast, or whether it was a completely different apparition that disgusted Moses so that he described it as a snake (kinda like some people trying to sell you something you don't need..., or Richard Dawkins)

As I understood Gman, he takes the snake to be purely symbolic. For him, there was NO snake in the garden--or at least, no snake that tempted Eve. It was strictly a symbol--a literary device--Moses used to talk about Satan. With that, I harshly disagree, because, from a heremeneutical perspective, it justifies absolutely anything in the Bible, including turning the Cross into a literary device.

Not to be pedantic, but do you then propose that a beast, a snake, had a higher intellect than Adam and Eve, since it convinced them to sin? Even though they knew the consequences? Or was it because the snake had some other quality than just being a snake?

No. I suggest that Satan used the craftiest beast in the field because he knew it would give him the best chance. To use a silly example, Babe Ruth could have probably hit a home run with just about any bat you gave him, but he chose the biggest one he could get his hands on because it gave him the best chance to knock the ball out of the park. Same idea, here. The snake couldn't have done anything on its own. It seems to me that it was "inspired" by Satan; Satan just used it because it best fit his needs.

How do you think Moses' audience understood the whole thing? Did they think the snake was Satan or not in some form or the other? We know that it was because we have the benefit of Revelation telling us.

I think they took it as a literal snake and nothing more. They didn't have a fuller revelation about Satan yet (although they did have SOME concepts about him. See Job). As far as I am concerned, the whole relationship between Satan and the snake is a matter of later revelation, as you point out. But that, of course, doesn't negate the literalness of the narrative.

But you are telling us that the snake was cursed, but Satan was also cursed. I agree, we cannot say that the snake's sin resulted in condemnation for Satan, but you are saying that the snake sinned, i.e. it had moral accountability in the same way that Adam and Eve had? Satan is condemned because of Satan's sin, and man because of Adam's. I don't think we can argue that it was the result of the corporate fall of all creation because of the fall, because this was before the fall.

Hopefully my above comments should clarify what you are asking here. I can see your difficulty, as I didn't make clear what my view on moral accontability was. I really don't see the snake as anything other than a tool.

Thanks for this discussion. It's fun to think through these issues. I would say this is something of a "fruitful" ( ) conversation.

[jenna]

Folks,

I would like to ask if you believe that certain stories in the Bible are symbolic or literal. As an example, do you believe that the Garden of Eden was symbolic or a literal place on earth. Tree of life, literal or symbolic? Talking snake, literal or symbolic?

Gman, I noticed you did not put the option of both. My take on this; is that the bible contains many literal stories, and many symbolic ones also. for instance, I believe the Garden of Eden was a literal place. But then I also believe that the beast in Revelation was symbolic.

[Gman]

Gman, I noticed you did not put the option of both. My take on this; is that the bible contains many literal stories, and many symbolic ones also. for instance, I believe the Garden of Eden was a literal place. But then I also believe that the beast in Revelation was symbolic.

Yes, I already addressed that. First page.

[Gman]

As I understood Gman, he takes the snake to be purely symbolic. For him, there was NO snake in the garden--or at least, no snake that tempted Eve. It was strictly a symbol--a literary device--Moses used to talk about Satan. With that, I harshly disagree, because, from a heremeneutical perspective, it justifies absolutely anything in the Bible, including turning the Cross into a literary device.

I don't think it needs to go that far. In certain cases I wouldn't think it's the whole enchilada or nothing at all seeking to paint it figuratively or literal with a wide brush. However, certain words can be brought into question in the storyline as we have seen throughout the Bible.

[Jac3510]

And I am saying to you that not only can it go that far, but it must go that far--not in terms of actually making the Cross a literary device only, but at least in allowing for the possibility. It doesn't matter what you personally believe about the snake and the Cross here, because we can't read our beliefs into what the account means. That would be what we call eisogesis rather than exegesis. What matters here is HOW you do your exegesis to get to what you believe, and any way you cut it, if, for you, any given word in a historical narrative can be taken to be a literary device without linguistic flags--in fact, if the only flags necessary are those that imply the miraculous or the abnormal (which has been your case in this thread)--then that must be true for all historical narratives as well.

So, you have three choices:

1) Extend the principle evenly, thus, even the Cross can be only a literary device;
2) Protect the Cross by challenging the genre of Genesis 1-11 (that is, argue it is non-historical);
3) Extend your exegetical principles you apply to the Resurrection historical narrative to Genesis 1-11, which requires you to accept the snake to be a real, talking snake.

Well, you do have a fourth option, which is to just be inconsistent in your logic, but I'm talking about three rational possibilities.

[Gman]

So, you have three choices:

1) Extend the principle evenly, thus, even the Cross can be only a literary device;
2) Protect the Cross by challenging the genre of Genesis 1-11 (that is, argue it is non-historical);
3) Extend your exegetical principles you apply to the Resurrection historical narrative to Genesis 1-11, which requires you to accept the snake to be a real, talking snake.

Well, you do have a fourth option, which is to just be inconsistent in your logic, but I'm talking about three rational possibilities.

This discussion has nothing to do with the cross. Please let's stay on the subject. If we are going to talk about logic, please explain to me how a snake can talk.... Again, they do not have the vocal cord capacity to produce human like sounds. Only certain 'human' sounds can be produced by using certain parts of the throat such as the larynx, the tongue, lips, teeth, to 'valve' the sound into speech. Also, the lungs come into play here as well. If you could explain to me how a snake can talk, then I might change my mind.

[Jac3510]

Yes, it does have to do with the Cross. And the parting of the Red Sea. And turning water into wine, and every other miraculous event in the whole of Scripture. Because,

1. Miraculous/abnormal events in historical narratives should be taken as literary devices,
2. A talking snake is a miraculous/abnormal event,
3. Therefore, the talking snake is a literary device.

So likewise,

1. Miraculous/abnormal events in historical narratives should be taken as literary devices,
2. The Cross/Resurrection is a miraculous/abnormal event,
3. Therefore, the Cross/Resurrection is a literary device.

We aren't talking about a snake. We are talking about identifying your hermeneutic and applying that consistently to the whole of Scripture.

As far as how a snake could talk, the answer is pretty simple: either (1) a demon/Satan possessed it, giving it the ability to speak (as when the donkey spoke), or (2) it could naturally talk before the Fall (could other animals? I don't know), yet part of its curse was that it lost that ability.

The latter is more likely, but the former is possible as well. If we believe in a God who can create an entire universe, form man out of dust, part the Red Sea, and give a Shumanite woman a flask of oil that never ends, God is perfectly capable of modifying a snake's vocal chord structure.

[Byblos]

I don't understand what the issue is in seeing the snake as a literary device and a real snake at the same time. It seems to me both logical and consistent with the narrative. The danger in reading symbolism in every unexplainable event in scripture is that it turns scripture in its entirety as a symbolic story, or at least symbolism at the whim of the interpreter. As to the question why God would curse all snakes just because that one in the garden was possessed by satan, my guess would be the same reason mankind was cursed with the fall just because Adam and Eve fell. Perhaps another line of thinking is that the snake had free will before the fall and allowed satan to possess it, hence the curse on all snakes? A stretch I know but hey, anything's possible with God, right?

On the other hand, there is a lot more historical evidence for the cross and the resurrection than there is for possessed snake in the garden of Eden. How damaging would it be to the cross to think of the snake in terms of a symbolic story rather than an actual event in history? My guess would be minimal but still not consistent.