Misreading the Serpent
Genesis 3
Gen. 3.1 "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made." Notice that the verse categorizes the serpent with all of the beasts made by God, simply suggesting it was "smarter." There is, in the story, no indication that the serpent was different from the other animals in the sense that it was "possessed" by the devil. In fact, there is no mention in this story of the devil. Satan comes much later. Nor are there any verses in the Bible identifying Satan as the serpent in the garden. While there are a number of references to the serpent in Genesis, none identify the serpent with Satan or suggest that the serpent is a supernatural being. The devil is twice called the serpent, that great dragon in Revelation, but this seems metaphorical rather than an identification with Genesis 2. In Ezekiel 28, the earthly king of Tyre is metaphorically compared to the serpent in the garden of Eden and to an annointed cherub that was "perfect." Commentators use the Ezekiel passage to argue that the serpent is Satan, but that is not what a literal reading of that passage says. (A metaphor says one thing equals another thing as in "the assignment was a breeze," but no one would take this to literally mean the assignment was an actual wind.). The argument used is logical rather than a literal reading. Since Christians do not believe in talking animals, the serpent could not be a talking animal (despite what the story says). Therefore someone must have spoken through the animal, and the best choice is the devil. In other words, the whole argument that the serpent is "possessed" by Satan is given to avoid having a talking animal. The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary gives this information:
The serpent , [ hanaachaash (H5175) is the generic name of a serpent; 'aaruwm (H6175), subtle.] This word is used sometimes in a good sense (Proverbs 12:23; Proverbs13:16; Proverbs 14:8; Proverbs 14:15; Proverbs 14:18), and as synonymous with wisdom, prudence, and particularly shrewdness in adopting the means of self-preservation--an attribute which is declared to be characteristic of the reptile brood (Matthew 10:16); and taking the word here in this view, the Septuagint has rendered it by phronimootatos, the wisest of any beast of the field. But it is obvious from the whole tenor of this context that the term is employed in a bad sense, implying craft, cunning, guile (cf. Job 5:12; Job 15:5); and, accordingly, others have more appropriately translated it by panourgos (G3835), skilled in all manner of deceit and mischief, any beast of the field. Although it is improper, in a scientific point of view, to class a serpent with brutes, in this simple and artless history objects are popularly described, and the comparison between it and the beasts of the field was apparently suggested by the last scene which the historian had described (Genesis 2:19-20). Now, with regard to the superior subtilty ascribed to serpents, it is impossible to say whether all the stories related in illustration of this characteristic property are worthy of credit.
Assuredly, serpents are not naturally the most sagacious of the inferior creation; because there are several others in the animal kingdom which far surpass them in point of instinctive sagacity; but with respect to craft, artifice, and similar qualities of the baser sort, they have in all ages been pre-eminently distinguished. The common view taken of this first verse is that a material serpent is referred to; but what was the particular kind of serpent has given rise to a variety of conjectures. Bochart thinks it was the Dragon serpent--Dr. Patrick, a saraph, the supposed winged serpent, which, from its bright luminous appearance and springing motions, he conceived, strangely enough, to bear some resemblance to the seraphim (cf. Isaiah 6:2). Dr. Adam Clarke held the opinion that the animal was an orang-outang [Stifler's note: an orangutan, a kind of ape. Clarke's view might have suggested an evolutionary viewpoint indicating another intelligent human-like species)--an opinion, however, which has found no supporters.
Whatever the species of serpent was (and since no hint is given it would be idle to prosecute an enquiry where certainty is unattainable), it is presented in this narrative as the prominent agent in a wicked scheme of seduction. Josephus considered it the only agent. He represents all living creatures as having had one language at first, and describes the serpent as living in familiar conversation with Adam and Eve, until, becoming envious of their happiness, he resolved to work their destruction. But the views of the Jewish historian are inadmissible; and since the continued management of such a plot as the temptation of our first parents, with a knowledge and skillful use of the insidious arts necessary to carry it into successful completion, seems far beyond the natural capabilities of an irrational animal, there is no way of explaining the mystery except by the light shed on the transaction by later passages of Scripture, where we are informed of the latent influence of an artful and malevolent spirit who had formed the diabolical purpose of accomplishing the ruin of the happy human pair in the garden of Eden.
In other words, theologians conclude that the only logical explanation is that the devil was at fault even though nothing in the passage says that. All of this is done to avoid the literal reading of the passage as a reference to a serpent who can speak.
The Treasure of Scriptural Knowledge makes this observation: "serpent: The Samaritan copy, instead of nachash, "a serpent," reads cachash, "a liar or deceiver," read John 8:44," suggesting that the word serpent is a misspelling.
Which approach anyone takes depends on his or her presuppositions about the text. (Presuppositions are conclusions made before looking at the evidence. Conservative evangelical interpretations presuppose that animals cannot talk; therefore, someone must have spoken through the serpent, and the logical choice is Satan, despite no textual evidence in support of that presupposition).
People might argue that the serpent in the Bible always refers to Satan, but this is inaccurate. The serpent is symbolic of more than evil, even in the Bible. While the serpent can symbolize evil, it can also symbolize fertility, mystery, wisdom, and, even, eternal life. An example of the serpent representing wisdom appears in Christ's admonition to his disciples when sending them out to speak to the masses in Matthew 10:16 "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."
An example of the serpent representing fertility (life-giving force) appears in the Gospel of John. Jesus tells Nicodemus "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life (King James Bible, John 3.14-15). This is a reference to Numbers, chapter 21: "And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived (King James Bible, Numbers 21:8-9). In his conversation with Nicodemus, Christ compares himself to the serpent placed on a staff by Moses in Numbers 21. Also, as a Greek Jew (the name Nicodemus is Greek), Nicodemus would have recognized the serpent twined around a staff as similar to the Rod of Asclepius, a symbol of healing and medicine.
Reading John 3:16 in context reveals Christ as the staff of healing and prefigures his crucifixion. Christ's reference to Moses and his use of that image in the context of John 3:16 clearly indicates Christ saw the serpent as representative of eternal life or immortality.
John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV)
Another major flaw in seeing the serpent as Satan is that the serpent is cursed to crawl on his belly, but no curse is mentioned for Satan. Certainly, if Satan spoke through the serpent, God would have condemned him, and why, then, condemn the serpent?
The Serpent's Deceit
Genesis 3:1 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?
Genesis 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (KJV)
Strictly speaking, the serpent did not lie. Adam and Eve did not die. They did become like God, as is confirmed in Genesis 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." The serpent's deceit was in telling a half-truth, hiding the consequences from Eve of disobeying God's command.
Although the text does not explain why Adam and Eve do not die, the traditional interpretation is that God spared their lives for the moment (they did not die the day that they ate) in order to further His purposes although humans were punished for their disobedience and would eventually die. Again, the text does not explain this. This is a logical explanation provided by theologians.
Sources
King James Bible. eSword. Software. Rick Meyers. 14.1.0. 2000-2024.