An interesting thought-provoking dialogue between a
conservative and theologically aware Christian.
[Disclaimer: The whole layout is AI-generated on basis of
author’s real script which is provided at the end]
Conservative Christian (Chris): You know, we really need to
take the Bible literally. The serpent in Genesis was clearly a real snake that
Satan used to speak to Eve.
Theological Scholar (Thomas): I appreciate your commitment
to Scripture's authority. But let me ask you something interesting - when you
read Psalm 91 about being under God's wings, do you imagine God as a literal
bird?
Chris: pauses thoughtfully Well, no... that's
obviously metaphorical. But this is different - we even see another talking
animal with Balaam's donkey, so God can make animals speak!
Thomas: Indeed, God certainly can do that. But what if I
told you that to the ancient Near Eastern audience, serpents held deep symbolic
meaning? They would have immediately recognized something profoundly wrong in
the garden, beyond just a talking snake.
Chris: leans forward, intrigued What do you mean by
symbolic meaning?
Thomas: In their culture, serpents were often associated
with wisdom, chaos, and deception. When they heard this story, they weren't
focused on how the snake could talk - they understood it represented something
far more sinister. The real horror wasn't the talking; it was what the serpent
represented.
Chris: concerned But if we start saying parts are
figurative, aren't we in danger of turning God's Word into just myths and
stories?
Thomas: Actually, that raises a fascinating point about
ancient literature. To ancient peoples, myths weren't fairy tales - they were
sacred vehicles of profound truth. Think about Jesus's parables - they're not
literally true stories, but they carry deep spiritual truth. Sometimes
figurative language can actually convey truth more powerfully than literal
description.
Chris: thinking But the Bible specifically says the
serpent was the most cunning of all God's creatures. Doesn't that clearly
indicate we're talking about an actual animal here?
Thomas: nodding enthusiastically Ah, that's a great
observation! But there's something really fascinating happening there - it's
actually a brilliant piece of word-play. The text is using the serpent's
natural characteristics to illuminate spiritual truth. Think about how
Scripture uses the nature of a lion to describe both Satan as a "roaring
lion seeking whom he may devour" and Jesus as the "Lion of
Judah."
Chris: intrigued So it's like... how Ezekiel 28 talks
about the King of Tyre, but we often see it as also describing Satan's fall?
Thomas: Exactly! You've got it! The Bible often uses these
kinds of associations to make deeper points. The natural cunning of serpents
becomes a vehicle to communicate spiritual truths about deception and evil.
It's not diminishing the text; it's actually showing us how sophisticated and
multilayered God's communication is.
Chris: thoughtfully I've always wondered about that
part where God curses the serpent to crawl on its belly. I assumed it must have
had legs before...
Thomas: That's a natural assumption for us modern readers!
But the ancient audience would have focused on something different - they would
have seen it as a powerful symbol of degradation from a position of wisdom to
shame. It's about status and judgment, not necessarily physical transformation.
Chris: nodding slowly You know, seeing how Scripture
uses these literary devices... it actually makes me appreciate God's wisdom
even more. He really knew how to communicate with people in ways they'd
understand deeply.
Thomas: Absolutely! And isn't it amazing how discovering
these deeper layers of meaning doesn't diminish Scripture's truth, but rather
enriches our understanding of God's incredible wisdom in how He chose to
communicate with us?
Chris: I'm beginning to see that defending the Bible's truth
doesn't mean we have to ignore its literary sophistication. Would you mind
sharing more about how the ancient readers would have understood other parts of
Genesis?
Thomas: Of course! Understanding these ancient literary
techniques actually helps us better grasp the profound truths God was
communicating. Shall we look at some other examples?
[The dialogue has naturally progressed from initial
skepticism about figurative interpretations to a deeper appreciation of
biblical literary devices, while maintaining respect for Scripture's authority
and truth.]
Further study recommendation:
- Dr. Michael Heiser
- John Walton
- William Craig’s book ‘In Quest of the Historical Adam
- Dan Kimball’s book ‘How (Not) to Read the Bible
Author’s script
A talking snake?
Premise 1: “We take the Bible literally!”
While its good to take the Bible literally which is
obviously one of the interpreting rules, the inclusion of the metaphorical
languages do not exclude the value and seriousness of the text. In fact, the
metaphorical language stands more literal than wooden literal letters.
Premise 2: “God could have done that! You see Balam’s
donkey?”
Yes, no doubt! God could have done that! God could make a
normal snake speak just the way Balam’s donkey spoke. However this assumption doesn’t
consider the seriousness of genre and God’s communicative skill to his peoples.
The question is not what God can do and he cannot. The question is what sort of
genre the text is actually dealing. The question is what was God actually
telling his original audience? When we deepen down to the text, it would be so
much obvious that God was trying to communicate something deeper. His concern wasn’t
snake talking.
Premise 3: “The Satan used the snake and it talked.”
This is how we modern readers read into the text. But the
original audience would have known that something isn’t going right in the
garden. Something terrible is going to happen.
Premise 4: “If you think the snake is a figurative language
then you are degrading God’s word to a mythical story and that’s a dishonour!”
The real dishonour is to discredit the real meaning of myth
to the ancient audience. Myth can be baffling to our modern ears which we may
think like fairy tale and imaginative stories. But to the ancient ears,
mythology carried great norms, values and essential teachings that were
considered sacred.
Next, how does the scripture degrades when we think certain
things are figurative? This shows problem in lacking the knowledge of literary
works and power of literature. The figurative language carries greater strength
in the weightage of the message.
Premise 5: “Snake must have had legs before the curse.”
Here, we are reading our modern thoughts into the ancient
scripture. There is no association whatever with having or not having legs. The
association is with the serpent and ancient near eastern understanding of its
function.
Premise 6: “But the verse also says the serpent was the most
cunning amongst all God’s creation, so doesn’t that mean it is talking about an
animal?”
Yes you pointed out a good verse but you missed the point of
word-play here. The real nature of the snake is presented here to associate it
with nature of the devil. Just for an instance, we know Ezekiel 28 is often
quoted to tell about the Satan but the real context is talking about the king of
Tyre. However, it is used to associate the king’s status and condition to
clarify Satan’s. You know? Lion’s nature is also used to clarify Satan’s nature
and even of Jesus’. Hence, it was an art of association to make a point clear
to the audience.
***
.png)
.png)
0 Comments