PAUL AND THE SNAKE (ACTS 28:1-6)

In this story toward the end of Acts, Paul and Luke find themselves shipwrecked on the island of Malta. Because the inhabitants spoke a Phoenician dialect, both Greeks and Romans referred to them as “barbarians.” More modern translations render the word as “natives” or “inhabitants of the island” instead since “barbarians” has a decidedly negative connotation. And it fact, verse 2 goes out of its way to compliment the natives on their hospitality. As The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery points out, “Hospitality was key to the missionary endeavor of the early church, as evidenced by the way the ministries of Peter (Acts 10:6,18,32,48) and Paul (Acts 16:15; 18:7; 21:4; 8:16; 28:7) relied on a supply of hospitable contacts as they traveled on their missionary ventures.”

Since it is cold, Paul helps to gather sticks to put on the fire. As Neil says, “Paul was characteristically lending a helping hand.” And Bruce agrees: “Paul again shows a practical turn of mind.” His noteworthy example is in stark contrast to those who have been humorously characterized as being so heavenly minded that they are of no earthly use.

At this point in the story a dramatic incident occurs which has its close parallel in the later experience of Lawrence of Arabia, who wrote “When the fire grew hot a long black snake wound slowly out into our group; we must have gathered it, torpid, with the twigs.” In Paul's case, the snake fastened onto his arm and bit him.

Bible critics latch onto this episode just like the snake latched onto Paul and claim that the story is pure fiction since there are no poisonous snakes on the island of Malta. But there are several possible rebuttals to this perceived problem. Years ago Sir William Ramsay explained: “The objections which have been advanced, that there are now no vipers in the island, and only one place where any wood grows are too trivial to deserve notice. Such changes are natural and probable in a small island, populous and long civilized.” Other scholars agree and note that on an isolated island, one of the usual consequences of increasing civilization is to exterminate any venomous creatures that are present.

A second possibility advanced by Ramsay was that the snake may have been Coronella leopardinus, a snake found in Malta which closely resembles a viper. Fitzmyer notes that the Greek word for snake used here, echidna, was applied to many different snakes thought to be poisonous. He points to a figurative use of the word elsewhere in Luke's writing in Luke 3:7 when John the Baptist called the crowd “a brood of vipers.”

Returning back to Acts, when the people of the island see this happen, their immediate response is that Paul must be a murderer who has escaped drowning only to have “justice” (dike) catch up with him. The question at this point is whether that word is taken in the impersonal sense or refers to some sort of deity. Most commentators appear to weigh in on the latter opinion.

“Justice may have been originally referred to under the Maltese name for the goddess here given as Dike, the name of the Greek deity.” (Neil)

“Dike was the goddess of revenge mentioned in Greek literature.” (Fitzmyer)

“Observers concluded that the god Justice had taken revenge upon Paul when he was bitten by a viper.” (C.C. Newman)

“The Fates got the criminal after all.” (Trenchard)

Representing the opposing view is Falkenroth, who says, “Some scholars see here an allusion to the Gk. Mythological concept of a punitive deity. But, ekdikos = avenger appears in Romans 13:4 where it clearly refers to a purely secular office which is wholly unmythological.”

The only other places in the NT where dike occurs are II Thessalonians 1:9 and Jude 7, both of which promise God's vengeful justice on wrongdoers. However, unlike the pagan concept of a punishing deity which carries out its revenge here on earth, both these passages stress that God's retribution will occur on Judgment Day.

Trenchard explains what happens next: “The reactions of the natives were natural in the circumstances – here is a prisoner who escapes death in a shipwreck, but is bitten by a serpent...But when Paul continued his homely tasks unharmed, they decided he was a god. Better that way round than in the contrasting case in Lystra (14:8-20).” If you recall that earlier event, Paul and Barnabas are first taken to be Hermes and Zeus after they heal a cripple, but a little later the people stone Paul and leave him for dead outside the city.

Regarding the changeable attitude of the people toward Paul, Bruce says that “there is quiet humour in Luke's description of the natives' reaction, first thinking he was a murderer whom Justice had resolved to destroy...and then seeing no harm come to him after he shook the beast into the fire, changing their minds and concluding that he was a god.”

Stott similarly detects a humorous tone to this episode: “Luke is obviously amused that they should immediately change their minds.” He also contrasts this event with that at Lystra and concludes by saying, “The truth was at neither extreme.” Fitzmyer expands on this point when he says, “Paul is not a god, and he is not being pursued by the goddess of Justice. He is rather the chosen instrument of the risen Lord and is bringing his testimonies gradually to Rome, the end of the earth.”

The remaining question to ask is whether this should be considered a miracle or not, a point which hangs on the exact identity of the snake involved. Was it actually venomous or only appeared to be? Davids, for one, enumerates the miracles narrated in Acts and categorizes Paul's encounter with the snake along with six other incidents as “Miracles of Protection or Deliverance.” And Bietenhard gives added justification for holding to this opinion:

“Because Satan has been cast down, the disciples have obtained authority to tread upon snakes and scorpions, the instruments of the Evil One (Lk. 10:19 cf. Ps. 91:13). Mk. 16:18 is similar. Because the Messianic age has broken in, snakes can be picked up without danger (cf. Is. 11:8).”

Some caveats should be mentioned at this point regarding Bietenhard's comment. The editors of The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology remind the reader that Mark 16:18 belongs to the later ending to Mark's Gospel appended by another hand and indicate that it “is probably a late composition, reconstructed from other teaching and such events as Paul's handling of the viper in Acts 28:1-6.” Trenchard agrees with this possibility.

In addition, it should be noted that Psalm 91:13 is generally regarded as a prophecy applying specifically to the coming Messiah, and in Luke 10:19 such power over snakes is only given to the Seventy who were sent out by Jesus. As for the Peaceable Kingdom pictured in Isaiah 11:8, we certainly cannot apply that to the present time period or we would let our children play with poisonous snakes and observe lions eating straw instead of flesh.

For some readers, the last chapters of Acts read more like an adventure novel than something that belongs in the Bible and thus have trouble getting any spiritual meat out of it. But there at least a few lessons here that we would be well advised to heed:

We must be careful not to read too much into circumstances concerning our own lives or those we observe. Years ago, a good Christian friend of mine was having some personal problems at a time when I was not experiencing anything similar. He deduced that I must be closer to God than he was, a deduction I was very quick to dispel.

We often act just like those who lived on Malta in that we jump from one extreme to another in judging other people. Those we first put them on a pedestal as the paragon of goodness or the hope of our age are sure to fall in our opinion eventually when we learn that they are only human. And at that point we are prone to consider them the exemplar of evil instead. We need to temper our view of others, assuming that we feel the need to comment on their behavior and person in the first place, and judge with righteous judgment instead.

Finally, Newman reminds us, “In each of these episodes Acts puts Christian monotheism against the surrounding paganism.” By contrast, it appears that all too often today, Christians appear to act in concert with the surrounding secularism rather than opposing it.