|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 7, 2010 17:22:18 GMT -5
This idea initially came to me last week as I was reading Romans. It now gelled just a little bit more as I was reading a rehash of the serpent's conversation in the Garden with Eve.
When I was reading through Romans 7 last week, it occurred to me that Romans 7:8-11 was very suggestive of the serpent with Eve in the Garden:
Romans 7:8-11 NASB
(8) But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.
(9) I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
(10) and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;
(11) for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
The serpent is representative of the flesh.
Genesis 3:1-6 NASB
(1) Serpent: ..."Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"
(2) Eve: ..."From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;
(3) but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"
(4) Serpent: ..."You surely will not die!
(5) "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
(6) When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
The serpent represents Eve's flesh battling internally with the command given by God. A lot of people have wondered what Adam was doing this whole time since verse 6 makes it sound like he was there with her. Was he just ignoring the serpent, letting his wife be deceived? I think the "conversation" with the "serpent" was going on within Eve as she struggled to make a choice about eating the fruit. Very much like Paul's description of the struggle in Romans 7.
When we knowingly and willfully disobey God for the first time, that is when we've eaten the fruit from the tree and become knowledgeable of good and evil.
Romans 7:15-20 explains the consequences of having the knowledge of good and evil:
Romans 7:15-20 NASB
(15) For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
(16) But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.
(17) So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
(18) For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
(19) For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.
(20) But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
Now look:
Genesis 2:17 NASB
(17) but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
Romans 7:8-11 NASB
(8) But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.
(9) I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
(10) and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;
(11) for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
Notice also that Paul wrote that "sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind." And this coveting of what God had forbidden is exactly the struggle that Eve was having over the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Edit: Added the following verses a few minutes after posting...
Genesis 3:13 NASB
(13) Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
Romans 7:11 NASB
(11) for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
1 Timothy 2:14 NASB
(14) And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
Any comments?
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jun 7, 2010 17:40:41 GMT -5
Hi Bev,
I hope you realize that you have hit on a subject that few wish to engage...
And that subject is how the serpent is related to the law, and in the same way satan, the devil and the adversary are related to the serpent.
It is quite possible that the "adversary" is any entity, including people, that oppose the righteousness of (and through) Christ.
That puts quite a damper on a red-suited bad boy doesn't it? It also may give a lot more meaning to the following Scriptures:
Revelation 19:20 - And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Revelation 20:10 - And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Revelation 20:14 - And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
To separate the above three verses from the old covenant would be a mistake in my opinion...
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 7, 2010 18:38:38 GMT -5
Hi Bev, I hope you realize that you have hit on a subject that few wish to engage... And that subject is how the serpent is related to the law, and in the same way satan, the devil and the adversary are related to the serpent. It is quite possible that the "adversary" is any entity, including people, that oppose the righteousness of (and through) Christ. That puts quite a damper on a red-suited bad boy doesn't it? It also may give a lot more meaning to the following Scriptures: Revelation 19:20 - And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. Revelation 20:10 - And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Revelation 20:14 - And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. To separate the above three verses from the old covenant would be a mistake in my opinion... Micah 7:19 NASB (19) He will again have compassion on us; He will tread our iniquities under foot. Yes, You will cast all their sins Into the depths of the sea.  |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 7, 2010 18:44:29 GMT -5
... It is quite possible that the "adversary" is any entity, including people, that oppose the righteousness of (and through) Christ. ... Yes, that is a conclusion that I've already come to. When you say "including people," I would add to that, "including ourselves (what is described in Scripture as our flesh)." That was the point I was attempting to draw out from my original post. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jun 7, 2010 20:18:31 GMT -5
So are we saying here that the serpent is nothing more than our succumbing to the desires of the flesh? The serpent was not real but was just a manifestation of a battle within?
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jun 7, 2010 20:30:47 GMT -5
So are we saying here that the serpent is nothing more than our succumbing to the desires of the flesh? The serpent was not real but was just a manifestation of a battle within? I for one am not of that persuasion. I have, at least more or less, believed the "flesh" referred to the old covenant economony in most instances of the NT, as in "Israel after the flesh." The adversary takes on many forms in the Bible and is certainly not just one living individualized living entity...IMO |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 7, 2010 21:12:18 GMT -5
Yes, that is a conclusion that I've already come to. When you say "including people," I would add to that, "including ourselves (what is described in Scripture as our flesh)." That was the point I was attempting to draw out from my original post. Hi, Bev. We find general agreement yet again, at least as far as my understanding goes currently. As for "flesh", I believe it is generally a term referring to the natural, or the 'self'. Mel and I have discussed this before so I'm not going to go into it again, other than to say that my brother and I differ somewhat on this. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 7, 2010 22:31:52 GMT -5
So are we saying here that the serpent is nothing more than our succumbing to the desires of the flesh? The serpent was not real but was just a manifestation of a battle within? I am for the time being leaning in that direction, Allyn. I realize this has problems, such as what then to make of Genesis 3:13-15. Another thing I just thought of is, if the serpent was real and was the devil and Satan (Revelation 12:9, 20:2), and in Genesis 3 was cursed to an existence on his belly to eat dust all the days of his life, why wasn't he destroyed in the Flood? Or was Satan saved on the Ark, too? |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jun 8, 2010 5:46:36 GMT -5
Another thing I just thought of is, if the serpent was real and was the devil and Satan (Revelation 12:9, 20:2), and in Genesis 3 was cursed to an existence on his belly to eat dust all the days of his life, why wasn't he destroyed in the Flood? Or was Satan saved on the Ark, too? Makes a good case for a local flood and a covenant creation... |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jun 8, 2010 6:46:42 GMT -5
So are we saying here that the serpent is nothing more than our succumbing to the desires of the flesh? The serpent was not real but was just a manifestation of a battle within? I am for the time being leaning in that direction, Allyn. I realize this has problems, such as what then to make of Genesis 3:13-15. Another thing I just thought of is, if the serpent was real and was the devil and Satan (Revelation 12:9, 20:2), and in Genesis 3 was cursed to an existence on his belly to eat dust all the days of his life, why wasn't he destroyed in the Flood? Or was Satan saved on the Ark, too? Thanks Bev, And those would be the verses I had in question. I have never thought that Satan was a physical snake or serpent. I have always looked at this as Satan coming into the snake or appearing as one. I have found it odd that Eve would not be shocked to be spoken to by a creature with no vocal cords but then if we were to believe the futurists then eveloution had its beginning after the fall when animals became meat eaters and such.  I believe Satan entered the serpent and there is much more of the introduction of Eve to the serpent we are not seeing. |
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Jun 8, 2010 7:54:36 GMT -5
Wow. Very Interesting topic Bev.
I'd like to take this in another direction. I've believe that Eve was talking to Satan himself. There is nothing in scripture anywhere that says Satan, demons, demonic entities, etc. can either turn into animals or possess them, or make them talk. In Matthew 8:31-32 Jesus cast the demons into the swine, they did not enter into them of their own accord.
The word "serpent" can be used as either a noun, verb, or adjective. For a noun, then serpent or snake. For a verb it can mean "to practice divination, the diviner." For an adjective, it can mean "shining bronze, or polished: shiny." Lucifer literally means " the shining one." Hence, the "shining one" was the one who deceived Eve. I haven't as yet studied covenant creation, so I admit that I am ignorant of the topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jun 8, 2010 8:07:55 GMT -5
For an adjective, it can mean "shining bronze, or polished: shiny." Lucifer literally means " the shining one." Hence, the "shining one" was the one who deceived Eve. Hopefully, you are not equating Lucifer with satan. It is mentioned only once in Scripture and that in regard to the Babylonian king. It is amazing how folklore and hollywood take these things to the extreme! |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 8, 2010 9:39:35 GMT -5
Makes a good case for a local flood and a covenant creation... Personally, I find far more cases against this. But that's just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Jun 8, 2010 9:59:04 GMT -5
For an adjective, it can mean "shining bronze, or polished: shiny." Lucifer literally means " the shining one." Hence, the "shining one" was the one who deceived Eve. Hopefully, you are not equating Lucifer with satan. It is mentioned only once in Scripture and that in regard to the Babylonian king. It is amazing how folklore and hollywood take these things to the extreme! Good morning Ted. Yes, I guess I do. In Ezekiel 28, the Lord is speaking to the ruler of Tyre. Yet am I to believe that the King of Tyre was in Eden? Was he a guardian cherub? A metaphor for Satan makes sense to me. Thats what I believe. And the style of writing is similar to Isaiah 14:12 where Lucifer is mentioned. I haven't studied elsewhere a different meaning to these passages. Could be remnants of dispy in me still . . . . ? Beats me. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 8, 2010 10:58:10 GMT -5
For an adjective, it can mean "shining bronze, or polished: shiny." Lucifer literally means " the shining one." Hence, the "shining one" was the one who deceived Eve. Hopefully, you are not equating Lucifer with satan. It is mentioned only once in Scripture and that in regard to the Babylonian king. It is amazing how folklore and hollywood take these things to the extreme! From my viewpoint, I agree that we shouldn't equate Lucifer with Satan, for as you say, it was referring to the Babylonian king. However, there are possible connections here that shouldn't necessarily be brushed away with further investigation. According to Strong's, "Lucifer" simply means "the morning-star". I find it interesting that Jesus is also referred to as the "Morning Star" twice in Revelation. However, I can also find another meaning using Strong's. I don't know if it is correct or not, but it is interesting. Strong's has another word which appears to me to be identical to #1966 ("the morning-star") that is seen in Isaiah 14:12. This other word even appears with #1966 in a search. That word is #3213. Note the comparisons; - both appear as "eill" in the Westminster Leningrad Codex transliterated (as well as identical in the Hebrew as it is written there). - both appear as "howl-you !" in the Concordant Hebrew-English Sublinear. Let's look at #1966 in Isaiah 14:12, " How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!" Now, let's look at #3213 as it appears (as "Wail", recalling "howl-you !") in Zechariah 11:2, " Wail, O pine tree, for the cedar has fallen;
the stately trees are ruined!
Wail*, oaks of Bashan;
the dense forest has been cut down!" [* note: plural of #3213; first 'wail' refers to pine tree, singular; second 'wail' refers to oak s, plural] Here in Zechariah is found the only instance of #3213 appearing exactly as #1966 appears in Isaiah (the first 'wail'), and we also find that the usages are themselves identical. Both verses speak of being fallen and cast/cut down as to the earth. Should both words (#1966 & #3213) also be seen as Howl/Wail? I don't know definitively but it may be possible. If this is the case (and again, I'm not sure), the verse in Isaiah would read, "How you have fallen from heaven! Wail, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!" We see this imagery later in the same chapter against the Philistines, Isaiah 14:31 " Wail [#3213], O gate! Howl, O city!
Melt away, all you Philistines!
A cloud of smoke comes from the north,
and there is not a straggler in its ranks." Quite an interesting study regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 8, 2010 11:17:20 GMT -5
Yes, I guess I do. In Ezekiel 28, the Lord is speaking to the ruler of Tyre. Yet am I to believe that the King of Tyre was in Eden? Was he a guardian cherub? Let's reverse this then. Am I to believe that Satan gained wealth by amassing gold and silver, or increased his wealth through skillful trading? Am I to believe that God sends foreign nations against Satan, or that Israel's neighbours were literal briers and sharp thorns? Am I to believe that Pharaoh, king of Egypt, was a great monster lying in the Nile, or that he even created that river? Am I to believe that he had scales just like fish have, or that fish were going to stick to him? I don't believe so, myself. All this is imagery in a Hebrew literary style. |
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Jun 8, 2010 11:42:54 GMT -5
Yes, I guess I do. In Ezekiel 28, the Lord is speaking to the ruler of Tyre. Yet am I to believe that the King of Tyre was in Eden? Was he a guardian cherub? Let's reverse this then. Am I to believe that Satan gained wealth by amassing gold and silver, or increased his wealth through skillful trading? Am I to believe that God sends foreign nations against Satan, or that Israel's neighbours were literal briers and sharp thorns? Am I to believe that Pharaoh, king of Egypt, was a great monster lying in the Nile, or that he even created that river? Am I to believe that he had scales just like fish have, or that fish were going to stick to him? I don't believe so, myself. All this is imagery in a Hebrew literary style. Good morning Morris. Agreed. Good point, I saw that and expected someone to come right back at me with that. I'm just trying to find which best fits the context of Eve's conversation with the "serpent." Who was the serpent? Others have said, "Any entity, including people, that oppose the righteousness of (and through) Christ? Represents the flesh? Succumbing to the desires of the flesh? The battle within? I look at this encounter as happening between 1 real living, breathing person and Satan. I haven't been convinced as of yet to see it any other way. Bev' original post is intriguing though. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 8, 2010 20:49:29 GMT -5
Allyn and Steve,
Allyn, you said that you believe Satan had entered the serpent. Steve, you said that you believe it was actually Satan. Either way, Satan becomes the guilty one, not some snake. How then do you explain the meaning of the curse on the serpent? The punishments on the woman and man were normal, things that would actually affect them (pain in childbirth, toiling for food). How does crawling on his belly and eating dust "all the days of his life" apply to Satan?
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 8, 2010 21:03:26 GMT -5
From my viewpoint, I agree that we shouldn't equate Lucifer with Satan, for as you say, it was referring to the Babylonian king. However, there are possible connections here that shouldn't necessarily be brushed away with further investigation. According to Strong's, "Lucifer" simply means "the morning-star". I find it interesting that Jesus is also referred to as the "Morning Star" twice in Revelation. However, I can also find another meaning using Strong's. I don't know if it is correct or not, but it is interesting. Strong's has another word which appears to me to be identical to #1966 ("the morning-star") that is seen in Isaiah 14:12. This other word even appears with #1966 in a search. That word is #3213. Note the comparisons; - both appear as "eill" in the Westminster Leningrad Codex transliterated (as well as identical in the Hebrew as it is written there). - both appear as "howl-you !" in the Concordant Hebrew-English Sublinear. Let's look at #1966 in Isaiah 14:12, " How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!" Now, let's look at #3213 as it appears (as "Wail", recalling "howl-you !") in Zechariah 11:2, " Wail, O pine tree, for the cedar has fallen;
the stately trees are ruined!
Wail*, oaks of Bashan;
the dense forest has been cut down!" [* note: plural of #3213; first 'wail' refers to pine tree, singular; second 'wail' refers to oak s, plural] Here in Zechariah is found the only instance of #3213 appearing exactly as #1966 appears in Isaiah (the first 'wail'), and we also find that the usages are themselves identical. Both verses speak of being fallen and cast/cut down as to the earth. Should both words (#1966 & #3213) also be seen as Howl/Wail? I don't know definitively but it may be possible. If this is the case (and again, I'm not sure), the verse in Isaiah would read, "How you have fallen from heaven! Wail, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!" We see this imagery later in the same chapter against the Philistines, Isaiah 14:31 " Wail [#3213], O gate! Howl, O city!
Melt away, all you Philistines!
A cloud of smoke comes from the north,
and there is not a straggler in its ranks." Quite an interesting study regardless. Very interesting, Sheldon! The pattern and similarity of the other verses would seem to support a translation of "Wail" instead of "star of the morning." |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jun 8, 2010 21:10:48 GMT -5
Allyn and Steve, Allyn, you said that you believe Satan had entered the serpent. Steve, you said that you believe it was actually Satan. Either way, Satan becomes the guilty one, not some snake. How then do you explain the meaning of the curse on the serpent? The punishments on the woman and man were normal, things that would actually affect them (pain in childbirth, toiling for food). How does crawling on his belly and eating dust "all the days of his life" apply to Satan? I don't know if I have an answer for that except unless it is like something God has done since with nations He used to punish Israel and then destroyed the nation He uses. Or maybe like the Pharaoh whose heart was hardened so as to reject the demands of Moses to let his people go. Or maybe like the big fish who first had to swallow a human being and then was made to throw-up all over the place to get him back out of the stomach.  |
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Jun 9, 2010 7:39:27 GMT -5
Allyn and Steve, Allyn, you said that you believe Satan had entered the serpent. Steve, you said that you believe it was actually Satan. Either way, Satan becomes the guilty one, not some snake. How then do you explain the meaning of the curse on the serpent? The punishments on the woman and man were normal, things that would actually affect them (pain in childbirth, toiling for food). How does crawling on his belly and eating dust "all the days of his life" apply to Satan? Good morning Bev. Good questions. I'm just guessing, but if the curses were on a real snake, then a snake really did talk. I don't believe that. Concering the account in Genesis 3, some questions I ask myself: Are snakes more subtile or craftier than any other beast or living thing? Did snakes have legs before the curse? Do snakes now eat only dust? These must have a meaning more to do with the spiritual than an actual, physical animal. How they all apply to Satan I just don't know. God said that there would be enmity between the seed (offspring) of the woman. Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." Tradition has always maintained this to be related to Satan, he being defeated at Calvary. Is the seed spoken of here Christ? If it is, then the serpent is Satan. Rom 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. Was Satan eventually thrown down from his original home to roam earth? Is this the "dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life?" I don't know. Mike Heiser has written concerning this topic, in his "Divine Council" studies, some things that I do agree with about this encounter in Genesis. There might be some articles online. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jun 9, 2010 14:09:51 GMT -5
Allyn and Steve, Allyn, you said that you believe Satan had entered the serpent. Steve, you said that you believe it was actually Satan. Either way, Satan becomes the guilty one, not some snake. How then do you explain the meaning of the curse on the serpent? The punishments on the woman and man were normal, things that would actually affect them (pain in childbirth, toiling for food). How does crawling on his belly and eating dust "all the days of his life" apply to Satan? Good morning Bev. Good questions. I'm just guessing, but if the curses were on a real snake, then a snake really did talk. I don't believe that. Concering the account in Genesis 3, some questions I ask myself: Are snakes more subtile or craftier than any other beast or living thing? Did snakes have legs before the curse? Do snakes now eat only dust? These must have a meaning more to do with the spiritual than an actual, physical animal. How they all apply to Satan I just don't know. God said that there would be enmity between the seed (offspring) of the woman. Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." Tradition has always maintained this to be related to Satan, he being defeated at Calvary. Is the seed spoken of here Christ? If it is, then the serpent is Satan. Rom 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. ... Good afternoon, Steve! If Satan was defeated at Calvary, why does Paul write after Calvary that Satan will soon be bruised? (Romans 16:20) Peter writes: (1 Peter 5:8-9a NASB) Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. But resist him, firm in your faithIn Genesis 4, God said to Cain: (Genesis 4:7 NASB) "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it." Sin "crouching" sounds a bit like a "lion"; sin having "desire for you" sounds a bit like the lion "seeking someone to devour." Cain was told to "master" sin, which sounds a bit like Peter writing that we should "resist" the devil. James writes of it in plainer language: (James 1:14-15 NASB) But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Jesus said that Judas Iscariot was "a devil" (John 6:70). Judas was unable to master his flesh, unable to resist "the devil." (James 4:7 NASB) Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. (Galatians 5:24 NASB) Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. But not Judas, he had not crucified his flesh. Ephesians 2:1-3 NASB (1) And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, (2) in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. (3) Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. God's desire is to replace the evil spirit within us (and I am not talking about an entity or demon possession, but the common desire or lust of the flesh towards selfishness) with a holy spirit, the spirit that God himself has. Here is how God Himself describes Himself: Exodus 34:6-7 NASB (6) Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; (7) who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations." Good grief, I was going to write a few sentences and look what it's turned into? I need to go exercise! |
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Jun 9, 2010 19:35:13 GMT -5
Good morning Bev. Good questions. I'm just guessing, but if the curses were on a real snake, then a snake really did talk. I don't believe that. Concering the account in Genesis 3, some questions I ask myself: Are snakes more subtile or craftier than any other beast or living thing? Did snakes have legs before the curse? Do snakes now eat only dust? These must have a meaning more to do with the spiritual than an actual, physical animal. How they all apply to Satan I just don't know. God said that there would be enmity between the seed (offspring) of the woman. Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." Tradition has always maintained this to be related to Satan, he being defeated at Calvary. Is the seed spoken of here Christ? If it is, then the serpent is Satan. Rom 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. ... Good afternoon, Steve! If Satan was defeated at Calvary, why does Paul write after Calvary that Satan will soon be bruised? (Romans 16:20) Hi Bev. Agreed. Thanks for the correction.  Steve |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jun 9, 2010 19:44:20 GMT -5
Steve, Bev...
I think you are both right concerning the defeat/bruising of satan. Wouldn't it be better to say that satan was bound at the cross but the final demise would not come until 70 AD following the period of his short loosing?
All comments welcome...
|
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Jun 9, 2010 19:54:55 GMT -5
Steve, Bev... I think you are both right concerning the defeat/bruising of satan. Wouldn't it be better to say that satan was bound at the cross but the final demise would not come until 70 AD following the period of his short loosing? All comments welcome... Thanks Ted. You stated that well. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jun 10, 2010 9:02:58 GMT -5
The story in Genesis certainly seems to intend to introduce the reality of a devil into our understanding. The conversation between Eve and the serpent would not make sense if these were only Eve's own thoughts. How does Eve convince herself that the forbidden fruit is not poisonous since that is what she thinks is why God said don't eat of it - even adding that it should not be touched lest they die. No, it is another voice that comes for her to listen to that has not been heard before. And it is not her own according to the story.
She has heard what God spoke to Adam and already had her own reason for why He said what He did. Now she is hearing personally something else that she had not thought of before. If the serpent is merely sin personified coming from within her own mind, then she must have been nuts! Who picks up a piece of what they think is tainted poisonous fruit and takes a bite to find out if it is true? Is the beauty of the fruit what is tempting her to find the knowledge of good and evil by eating of it? Only if death is her desire! There was no temptation coming upon her because she was already desiring to eat of the fruit.
No, these thoughts are not hers, in fact they are wholly foreign to anything she has heard or thought before. She had no desire to disobey God until she heard these words that contradicted what she believed to be true. And that was the new experience that was introduced in the garden thru the serpent who came to beguile her - and succeeded. Her transgression came because she chose to believe it and then acted upon it.
Whatever metaphorical usuage we find later in prophecy can only make sense if a devil is not merely the personification of our own innate sinfulness just waiting to come to the fore. That sin also affected the heavenly realm in the fall of angels, shows the scope that sin has on all God's sensient creatures. Now if we are to personify sin as the devil then what are we to do with the holy angels? Which can only lead to denying that a heavenly realm where men can live forever like angels even exists. Which we know is true and do not deny because the Lord is there!
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jun 10, 2010 9:44:49 GMT -5
Steve, Bev... I think you are both right concerning the defeat/bruising of satan. Wouldn't it be better to say that satan was bound at the cross but the final demise would not come until 70 AD following the period of his short loosing? All comments welcome... Hey, mel. Good comments. I can certainly agree with the binding of Satan at the cross, but I'm not sure I can see how 70 AD brought the demise of Satan. I mean, I've heard it before, but don't know this conclusion is arrived at. Could you expand on this? (Probably best in a new thread though). Thanks. |
|
