Page 81 - Foundations

In Genesis 3 we have neither allegory, myth, legend, nor fable, but literal historical facts set forth,
and emphasized by the use of certain Figures of speech.

All the confusion of thought and conflicting exegesis have arisen from taking literally what is
expressed by Figures, or from taking figuratively what is literal. A Figure of speech is never used
except for the purpose of calling attention to, emphasizing, and intensifying, the reality of the literal
sense, and truth of the historical facts; so that, while the words employed may not be so strictly true
to the letter, they are all the more true to the truth conveyed by them, and to the historical events
connected with them.

But for the figurative language of verses 14 and 15 no one would have thought of referring the third
chapter of Genesis to a snake; no more than he does when reading the third chapter from the end of
Revelation (chapter 20:2). Indeed, the explanation added there, that the "old serpent" is the Devil and
Satan, would immediately lead one to connect the word "old" with the earlier and former mention
of the serpent in Genesis 3: and the fact that it was Satan himself who tempted "the second man," "the
last Adam," would force the conclusion that no other than the personal Satan could have been the
tempter of "the first man, Adam."

The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Genesis 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine,
and means a shinning one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining.
Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4.

In the same way Saraph, in Isaiah 6:2,6, means a burning one, and, because the serpents mentioned
in Numbers 21 were burning, in the poison of their bite, they were called Saraphim, or Seraphs.

But when the LORD said unto Moses, "Make thee a fiery serpent" (Numbers 21:8), He said, "Make
thee a Saraph," and, in obeying this command, we read in verse 9, "Moses made a Nachash of
brass." Nachash is thus used as being interchangeable with Saraph.

Now, if Saraph is used of a serpent because its bite was burning, and is also used of a celestial or
spirit-being (a burning one), why should not Nachash be used of a serpent because its appearance
was shining, and be also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a shining one)?...

Have we not, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a snake, but a glorious shining being,
apparently an angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed
to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a being of a superior (not of an inferior)
order?...

We cannot conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake, but we can understand her being
fascinated by one, apparently "an angel of light" (i.e. a glorious angel), possessing superior and
supernatural knowledge.

When Satan is spoken of as a "serpent," it is the figure Hypocatastasis or Implication; it no more
means a snake than it does when Dan is so called in Genesis 49:17; or an animal when Nero is called
a "lion" (2Timothy 4:17), or when Herod is called a "fox" (Luke 13:32); or when Judah is called "a