MYSTERY OF THE SNAKE EVE ENCOUNTERED IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN

In his monumental work titled "Paradise Lost," John Milton (1608-1674), considered by many to be the most significant English author after William Shakespeare, wrote in some depth "of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit of that forbidden tree whose mortal taste brought death into the world, and all our woe, with loss of Eden" [Paradise Lost]. The writings of John Milton would come to have a tremendous impact upon the thinking and theology of Christians with respect to the fall of mankind and the consequences thereof: an impact of which most, unfortunately, are completely unaware.

We are, however, all familiar with the story of Adam and Eve itself, and especially of their misadventure in Eden. Even children can recite how Eve was tempted by the evil serpent to eat of the forbidden fruit, and that she then gave some to Adam to eat, and how this would ultimately result in their banishment from the garden in Eden. We know of the punishments that befell each of the parties involved: the man, the woman, the serpent, and even the earth, and we know that the consequences of their moral failure extend even to us today in a number of very significant ways, including the reality of our own physical death.

There are many details about this whole account (and about creation itself and the first humans) that fascinate us, as well as perplex us,.

Question: Who or what exactly was the serpent Eve encountered in Eden? The Bible says it was a "serpent," so that is precisely what it was. This is the view of the textual literalist:

However, nothing in the creation account is phrased in figurative language; there is no allegory; no symbolism; no hint of fable or parable. Other believers, however, who also love God and honor the Scriptures, feel there is room for imagery that conveys ultimate Truth in less literal language and figures.

No one is denying the truth of God's message to mankind; it is the methodology employed for conveying that message over which they differ. The fallen state of mankind is an accepted reality; we all see it and experience it daily. In Genesis 3 we find an ancient depiction of that fall, yet the details of that depiction easily lend themselves to debate among serious students of the Scriptures.

One of the main focal points of that debate is the serpent, and it is this creature or figure in the story upon which is worthy of attention.

Once again, to the biblical literalist this will seem to be an unnecessary exercise. But let's take a closer look.

Adam Clarke rightly observes that in this chapter in Genesis, "We have here one of the most difficult as well as the most important narratives in the whole Book of God" [Clarke's Commentary, vol. 1, p. 47].

Part of the difficulty, as noted in a comment contained in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (a commentary published by Cambridge University Press from 1882 onwards), is this: "As vivid and picturesque as it is, the story leaves many things omitted and unexplained." We are told nothing at all, for example, about the origin or identity of this "serpent," nor is there any explanation given as to how it is able to speak or to reason with Eve.

Many believe this "serpent" was Satan (the Devil), or that Satan possessed this serpent and miraculously spoke through it. However, I would urge you to go back and read the passage again! Nowhere in this account is there even a hint that Satan, or some "evil spirit," was possessing this serpent.

"This fact, indeed, is not distinctly stated in the canonical books of the Old Testament" [Drs. Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1 - The Pentateuch, p. 92].

Such a view comes many centuries later in a few quotes from the NT writings, but such a view was never expressed by the early Jews: indeed, "the belief in the devil was then foreign to the Hebrews" [The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 1, p. 57].

The same is true, by the way, with respect to Genesis 3:15, in which "the woman" is said to point to the "virgin Mary" and her "seed" identified as Jesus the Messiah.

Although each of these assumptions and understandings are, in my view, valid for disciples of the Lord Messiah Jesus, they were not actually stated as fact in the text itself. They are understandings later assumed from the text (something we also do with Isaiah 7:14:Therefore Yehovah Himself will give you all a sign. Behold, the young woman is pregnant and about to bear a son, and you, young woman, will call his name Immanuel..

Many of the OT figures, symbols, and prophecies have what is known as dual application; they have both primary as well as secondary meanings and fulfillments. It is also not unusual for the latter to be assumed from the former, rather than specifically stated within the text and context of the former. Admittedly, this can be problematic, for assumptions and inferences can be very subjective in nature.

Assumptions are not facts, although assumptions stated within the NT writings are most certainly given that weight in the minds of most Christians. Thus, based on such assumptions about Genesis 3, many feel confident in seeing a messianic fulfillment to verse 15, and most feel equally confident in identifying the tempter of Eve as Satan, although neither is actually stated in the text.

But, returning to the matter of this "serpent" and its identity, there are a number of fascinating theories proffered that are worth considering. Following is a brief discussion of the foremost of these theories as to the identity of this tempter.

A Literal Serpent/Snake:

The Hebrew word that is rendered "serpent" in Genesis 3 is "nachash." In the Septuagint, this word was translated with the Greek word "ophis," which means "literally: a snake, serpent; figuratively: (as a type of sly cunning) an artful malicious person" [The New Strong's Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words, p. 1279].

The meaning of the Greek term was rather straightforward; no ambiguity - it was a snake (although it was often used figuratively of persons, such as Satan).

The Hebrew term, on the other hand, was not so clear and definite. It could mean a number of things. Yes, it could most certainly refer to a snake, but it also is used in Scripture to refer to other creatures. For example, in Job 26:13 (cf. Job 41) and Isaiah 27:1, the "fleeing serpent" is called "Leviathan," the "dragon who lives in the sea", a creature that is clearly something other than a mere snake (the most likely creature in view here being the crocodile). Most scholars regard the Hebrew term, in light of its varied meaning and usage in the OT writings, to be a rather general term confined to no specific species, but rather to any number of twisting and slithering creatures.

Thus, our understanding today is based largely on the choice of the Septuagint translators, and the fact that the NT writers relied heavily upon that ancient Greek translation. "The original Hebrew word is by the Septuagint translated 'ophis,' a 'serpent,' not because this was its fixed determinate meaning in the sacred writings, but because it was the best that occurred to the translators" [Dr. Adam Clarke, Clarke's Commentary, vol. 1, p. 48].

But, for the sake of argument, let's embrace the assumption, as voiced in this first theory, that the tempter of Eve was a literal snake. In Genesis 3:1 it is described as "more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made." Other translations read "subtle" ... "cunning" ... "sneakier" ... "clever" ... "shrewd." The Hebrew word is "orem," which Dr. James Strong, in his Hebrew/Aramaic Dictionary, says means "craftiness" [p. 733]. This, in itself, is not necessarily a negative trait, but one which can most certainly be used in a hurtful way.

The apostle Paul observed that "the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness" (2 Corinthians 11:3), yet Jesus said to His chosen apostles, "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves" (Matthew 10:16).

In Genesis 3:1-5, we witness the craftiness of the serpent as it seeks to deceive Eve. It speaks to her and reasons with her, neither of which we would expect from a literal snake. If in fact this is a literal snake acting on its own, rather than an unwilling conduit for the evil intent of Satan, then we have some problems on our hands with the account, for we see a snake doing things snakes don't do.

This is partly why some scholars refuse to regard this whole account as being literal, but rather an allegory. "An allegory is a fictitious narration to illustrate Truth. Its nature is similar to that of a metaphor; but its imagery is extended to a great many details and analogies, so that it is very often defined as an extended metaphor" [Dr. Clinton Lockhart, Principles of Interpretation, p. 162].

Thus, since it is all fictitious, we can accept talking snakes, just as we find equally absurd things in the ancient biblical fables, myths, and parables. They are not meant to be literal, and to try and make them so only leads to theological confusion. We find the same problem when some seek to understand the book of Revelation literally: it just becomes an absurdity.

But, again, for the sake of argument, let's embrace the assumption that this is a literal snake, and that it is, all on its own, actually speaking to and reasoning with Eve in this "garden toward the east, in Eden" (Genesis 2:8). If this is the case, then we might reasonably ask, "How come snakes aren't doing this today?!" And secondly, "Why was this particular snake doing it then?!"

To answer the second question first, the response of those who hold to this view is: "The serpent, in his Edenic form, is not thought of as a writhing reptile," but rather as being "the most beautiful as well as the most 'subtle' of creatures less than man" [C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible with Notes, eSword].

"These reptiles were at first, probably, far superior in beauty as well as in sagacity to what they are in their present state. From being a model of grace and elegance in form, it has become the type of all that is odious, disgusting, and low" [Drs. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, p. 20].

"Among the beasts of the field that had been examined and named by Adam was one whose coloration was bright and beautiful and whose movements were smooth and graceful, a most attractive animal. Furthermore, this animal, the serpent, was more clever than any of the other animals. In her innocence, the woman was dazzled and soon led astray by this subtly attractive and deceptive creature" [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings, p. 106].

"The serpent of Genesis 3 is more than merely a wild creature. It has capacities that rise above the typical capabilities of animal life: it is subtle, can speak in human language, and is able to reason and to present convincing arguments to man that rival even the commandments of God Himself in man's mind" [Dr. John T. Willis, The Living Word Commentary on the OT: Genesis, p. 122].

Albert Barnes even suggests: "Up to a certain point there had been concord and alliance between these two parties," and "the woman was at one with the serpent" [Barnes' Notes on the Bible, eSword].

The English theologian, Dr. John Gill (1697-1771), speculated that Eve had formerly "taken a particular liking to that creature, and was delighted with it, and laid it perhaps in her bosom, adorned her neck with its windings, or made it a bracelet for her arms" [Gill's Exposition of the Bible, eSword].

Soon, however, the eyes of Eve (and Adam) were opened to what had happened (Genesis 3:7), and when confronted with her sin by the Lord, she admitted, "The serpent deceived me" (vs. 13). The harmony and affection between the woman and the serpent (a liking and closeness which this theory assumes) was broken, being replaced by a deep revulsion and even fear. Because the serpent had used its "charms" to deceive Eve, God told it that, as part of its punishment, "I will put enmity between you and the woman" (vs. 15), a state of enmity that would exist from that day forward, even unto future generations.

The serpent would also forfeit its former "high estate," and would henceforth be more cursed than the other animals, and would slither on its belly in the dust of the ground (vs. 14). This curse seems to imply to many that the serpent may at one time have walked on legs and stood erect. But these qualities, as well as speech, were taken from it due to its treasonous act against both God and man.

John Wesley (1703-1791) wrote, "Upon your belly you shall go - no longer upon feet, or half erect, but you shall crawl along, your belly cleaving to the earth. Dust you shall eat - which signifies a base and despicable condition" [Wesley's Notes on the Bible, eSword].

"To eat dust conveys the idea of total defeat - Isaiah 65:25; Micah 7:17.

Adam and Eve must have been terrified as this once-beautiful creature called a serpent was transformed into the creeping, slithering, hissing snake we know today. They must have thought, 'It's our turn next!'" [David Guzik, The Enduring Word Bible Commentary, eSword].

Satan Using the Serpent:

"The first mention of a serpent (nachash) is in Genesis 3, introducing the fall of man, the discussion of which is a theological rather than a zoological matter" [The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 5, p. 356].

In other words, some feel the focus on whether a literal serpent could speak, or whether it stood erect, or whether it had legs, or if it was "beautiful to look upon," misses the point of the biblical account. Instead, they suggest, the passage simply seeks to inform us of a deadly break in the fellowship between God and man (and man and creation), and the consequences of that break, rather than serving as a treatise on the biology of "pre-curse serpents."

The true focus of the text, therefore, is far more spiritual than physical in nature; a focus in which we are given a glimpse "behind the scene" transpiring before us in the garden to the spiritual forces at work in and on the "actors on the stage." God and Satan, good and evil, are central to the account far more so than man and beast according to this theory, although it is the latter (primarily man) that is the prize for which these forces do battle.

In this understanding of the text, the serpent itself is of little consequence. It is merely an unwilling tool of the great deceiver: the Devil, Satan, man's accuser and God's enemy and enemy of mankind. "It must be at once apparent that it was not from the serpent, as a sagacious and crafty animal, that the temptation proceeded, but that the serpent was simply the tool of that evil spirit, who is met with in the further course of the world's history under the name of SATAN (the opponent - adversary), or the DEVIL (diabolos, the slanderer or accuser).

When the serpent, therefore, is introduced as speaking, and that just as if it had been entrusted with the thoughts of God Himself, the speaking must have emanated, not from the serpent, but from a superior spirit, which had taken possession of the serpent for the sake of seducing man" [Drs. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the OT, vol. 1 - The Pentateuch, p. 92].

We certainly know that evil spirits can indeed enter animals and alter their behavior in negative ways, as seen in the account of the herd of swine who rushed into the sea and perished (Matthew 8:30-32), and we know that animals can also speak (being influenced by a superior spiritual force), as is seen in the account of Balaam being addressed by the Angel of the Lord through the voice of a donkey (Numbers 22:28f). Thus, this serpent in the garden was no more the source of the temptation of Eve than the donkey was the source of the message to Balaam. Both were simply instruments used by a higher power.

"Although Moses makes no mention of this wicked spirit" that used the serpent as its instrument of deception, "yet in the fuller discoveries of the Gospel, it is distinctly intimated that Satan was the author of the plot" against mankind [Drs. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, p. 19-20].

Jesus almost certainly had the temptation of Eve in mind when He spoke these words to a group of Jews, "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies" (John 8:44).

Satan has always evidenced a murderous intent, which led Peter to caution believers, saying, "Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8).

John wrote, "The devil has sinned from the beginning" (1 John 3:8).

In Revelation 12:7 we read of a "war in heaven" between those loyal to God and "the dragon and his angels." In verse 9 we are given the identity of this dragon: "the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world."

In Revelation 20:2-3 we find this identification again: "An angel laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he should not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed." He is the deceiver, the accuser, the father of lies, a murderer from the very beginning, the "serpent of old."

Clearly, the NT writings link this evil being to the temptation of Eve in the garden; not that Satan was the snake (any more than he was a roaring lion or a dragon), but that Satan used the snake as his unwitting tool to deceive mankind. The devil presents himself to us in many forms, so we must be cautious, as Paul warns: "Satan disguises himself as an angel of light; therefore, it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness" (2 Corinthians 11:14-15).

Satan appeared to Eve in a form that was appealing to her, which was part of the deception. Sin always looks good to us, until our eyes are opened (Genesis 3:7) and we behold the consequences of our deception.

Many scholars see a reference to this Evil One, who appears to have been one of the many created spirit-beings often referred to as "angels" (which had a variety of forms, functions, and positions of authority), in the reference to "Lucifer" (the "day-star"; the bright, shining one) in Isaiah 14:12-15: How you have fallen from heaven, Shining One, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, “I will ascend into heaven! I will exalt my throne above the stars of God! I will sit on the mountain of assembly in the far north! I will ascend above the heights of the clouds! I will make myself like the Most High!” Yet you will be brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the pit.

The depiction of this glorious being who suffered a  great fall and was cast out certainly seems to fit the circumstance of Satan (although the primary message of the text was a warning to the king of Babylon).

We also find a similar passage (intended for the king of Tyre) in Ezekiel 28:11-19, which speaks of a beautiful "guardian cherub" (vs. 16) who was at first "full of wisdom and perfect in beauty" (vs. 12), "blameless in your ways, from the day you were created" (vs. 15). "You were placed in Eden, the garden of God" (vs. 13); "You were the anointed cherub who guards, and I placed you there" (vs. 14). But, this all went to the head of this special angel who was sent to guard the garden in Eden. His pride led him to rebel against Yehovah and to influence violence and unrighteousness on mankind as filled with a desire to impede the Plan of God the salvation of mankind (vs. 15-16). "Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor, and I cast you to the ground" (vs. 17).

"Thus Lucifer, the 'day-star,'" ... the anointed cherub ... "became Satan, the 'adversary,' or 'accuser,' opposing and calumniating God and all His purposes. And now he became 'that old serpent,' entering into the body of this 'most clever' of all the 'beasts of the field' in order to approach Eve with his evil solicitations" [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings, p. 109].

This, then, presents the basic tenets of this particular theory (the one which I personally feel makes the most sense and seems to be the most consistent with the rest of the Scriptures).

NOTE: Just as an interesting aside, after Adam and Eve were cast from the garden, and after that "serpent of old" was cast to the ground, once again, "at the east of the garden of Eden God stationed the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every direction, to guard the way to the tree of life" (Genesis 3:24). Like Judas, in a way, the traitorous cherub over Eden was removed, and "another took the traitorous cherub's place."