Asking for a friend: Was Genesis 3 literal or figurative?

Was Genesis 3 literal or figurative?

The first verse of Genesis chapter 3 opens up with the stunning claim of a talking Snake. The hardest thing for people to wrap their minds around in Genesis 3 is that talking snake bit. Snakes largely lack vocal cords and are generally known for loud hissing, and the occasional rattle. They are not known as animals with the ability to vocalize words. There are some species of birds that have been known to mimic human speech but there are no recorded accounts of snakes being able to do the same, save Genesis 3. It so boldly states, 

“Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”

How can we reconcile this with our current reality where SNAKES DON’T TALK? Jamieson, R. Et al. (1999) point out that the very real fall of man was affected by the seductions of a very real serpent. That it was a real serpent is evident from the plain and artless style of the history recounted in the writings and from the many allusions made to it in the New Testament. Jamieson (1999) posits that the material serpent was being manipulated at that moment as an instrument or tool of a higher agent. That agent specifically being Satan, whom John in Revelations 20:2 also reproachfully refers to as “the devil”, “the dragon” and “that old serpent”. Though in his writing of this section of the Pentateuch Moses does not explicitly make mention of this wicked spirit. It is understood that Moses is giving only the history of the visible world here. However, when we examine the wider exposition of New Testament scripture, it is distinctly intimated that Satan was the architect of the plot in Genesis 3 (John 8:44; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 John 3:8; 1Timothy 2:14; Revelation 20:2).

John Gill (1746) goes further to deepen this perspective on the text. Working through the lens of textual analysis, he points out that the words “Now the serpent”, taken from Genesis 3:!1, maybe better rendered, "that serpent”. As in that particular serpent, of which so much is spoken of afterward; or “the serpent was become", or "made more subtle", that is, not naturally, but through Satan being in it, and using it in a very subtle manner, to answer his purposes.

To simplify what both Jaimieson et al. (1999) and Gill (1746) present. An ordinary serpent, lacking the ability to speak, in that instance was manipulated by the devil. They suggest the description given in scripture of the serpent being “more subtil (subtle) than any beast of the field”, is a direct result of this “manipulated state”, temporarily conferring on that specific snake the ability to communicate linguistically with the two human occupants of the garden. Consequently, empowering that specific serpent to be used as a deceptive messenger. 

The hardest thing for people to wrap their minds around in Genesis 3 is that talking snake bit. But to make it even simpler, I do believe that the events of Genesis chapter 3 involved a literal snake speaking to Adam and Eve, in the literal garden. With the understanding that there was a nefarious and cunning agent speaking through the ordinary serpent to accomplish a sinister plan. I do believe Genesis 3 is a literal account of what transpired and not simply a figurative representation of some other truth.

References

• Jamieson, R.,Fausset, A. & Brown, D.  (1999). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary On the Whole Bible. Zondervan.

• Gill, J. (2012). John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible. Amazon Digital Services LLC.