The ads placed on this web site are placed here by the web hosting service and are not endorsed by the Arkansas CofCC!
All Opinions express on this web site are those of the authors not necessarily those of the Arkansas or national Council of Conservative Citizens


Home
Documents
About
CofCC.Info
What's New?
Contact


FROM THE BULLETIN OF THE ARKANSAS COUNCIL OF CONSERVATIVE CITIZENS ISSUE NUMBER 3 (NOVEMBER 1994)

Editorial

BIBLE STUDENTS ARE FAMILIAR with the work of Adam Clarke, a renowned minister of the Methodist church in early 19th century England, whose commentaries on the Bible are still in print. According to Clarke's Commentaries on Genesis 3:1-4, the Serpent was a serpent in name only, but in fact an ape. Clarke argues at length on the basis of the etymology of Nachash (the Hebrew name of The Serpent transliterated) that the creature who walked upright and talked to Eve was simply a highly gifted ape. A talking ape seems less improbable in the light of recently reported research. This highly cunning ape was known to his fellows as The Serpent, but was not a snake himself, just as the great Indian chief know as Sitting Bull was not in fact a bull. The snake, of course, is prominent as an idolatrous image in heathen fertility and phallic worship. Does the snake somehow symbolize a tempter of Eve who approached, but did not attain to the human condition, a situation of being so near yet so far that would be hateful to him and motivate him through envy to seek to tempt Adamic humanity into disobedience to its Creator?


RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE