Blog

In this essay, I am going to make a case that the serpent in Eden was not a mere ordinary garden snake, nor was it an undefined, chaos creature, but it was a serpentine divine being. Either a seraph or a cherub, and that, therefore, the traditional view that this being is Satan is correct. We know this from later books of the Bible, such as Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, as well as the New Testament in passages like Revelation 12:8. Once again, I will rely heavily on the work of the late Dr. Michael S. Heiser as well as Ben Stanhope when it comes to making the argument from the triple entendre of the word “Nachash” as well as the iconographic depictions of seraphs being winged creatures with snake-like heads. There is an odd trend in biblical scholarship to de-Satanize the Edenic villain. I am not sure what drives this motivation, but the evidence pretty clear that the serpent who spoke to Eve is the Satan we all know. Before I wrap up the essay, I will address some specific objections to the view I’m defending here.

Point 1: The Divining Of The Shining Serpent (Triple Entendre)

There are a lot of things in the Genesis narrative that don’t translate well into English. A lot of English readers may not know this, but the author of Genesis loves to make play on words. One better known example of this is Genesis 1:2 where the text says that the Ruach of God hovered over the surface of the waters. The ESV and NIV translate Ruach as Spirit while the NRSV translates it as “wind”. Well, which is it? I have recently concluded that the author most likely meant both. The Holy Spirit is hovering over the surface of the water, but most likely they envisioned the watery surfaces being windy, as anyone would know from being on a boat out at sea or even standing on a beach, oceans are typically windy places. The author is employing a double entendre.

When it comes to the description of the villain of Eden, I would agree with biblical scholars Dr. Michael S. Heiser and Ben Stanhope that the author is employing a triple entendre. In fact, there is a play on words even within the play on words. In Genesis 2:25, we read “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (ESV). Genesis 3:1, the very next verse, says “Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.” (ESV) The words for naked and crafty are “arom” and “arum” respectively. They aren’t the same word, but phonetically, they sound very similar. I’m not so sure that the author of Genesis just had a big love for Dad Jokes like yours truly, these may have been oral tactics to help people memorize the stories as they pass them down orally prior to being written down. Word play would have aided memorization. We are introduced to the slithering rebel in Genesis 3:1 “Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.” (ESV) For the sake of not making this article lengthier than it needs to be, I won’t be quoting the whole fall account. I suspect most readers are pretty familiar with the story anyway, and, besides, I won’t be commenting on anything other than who or what this entity was that tempted Adam and Eve.

In his book, The Unseen Realm, the late biblical scholar Dr. Michael S. Heiser wrote “The pivotal character of Genesis 3 is the serpent. The Hebrew word translated serpent is nachash. The word is both plain and elastic. The most straightforward meaning is the one virtually all translators and interpreters opt for: serpent. When the Hebrew root letters n-ch-sh are a noun, that’s the meaning. But n-ch-sh are also the consonants of a verb. If we changed the vowels to a verbal form (recall that Hebrew originally had no vowels), we would have nochesh, which means “the diviner.” Divination refers to communication with the supernatural world. A diviner in the ancient world was one who foretold omens or gave out divine information (oracles). We can see that element in the story. Eve is getting information from this being. The consonants n-ch-sh may also form an alternative noun, nachash, which is at times used descriptively, like an adjective. This term is used in place names outside the Bible and once within the Old Testament. First Chronicles 4:12 refers to ‘Tehinnah, father of Ir-Nachash.’The otherwise unknown Tehinnah is regarded in this verse as the founder of the city (Hebrew: ir) of nachash. This city has yet to be securely identified by archaeologists. The phrase means ‘the city of copper/bronze (smiths).’ Hebrew words like nechosheth (‘bronze’; ‘copper’) are derived from this noun.” ^[1]Heiser, Michael S.. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (p. 87). Lexham Press. Kindle Edition.

Dr. Heiser then said that authors sometimes want their readers to think about all the possible definitions of a word, and he uses the illustration of asking a student, “How has your reading been?” Heiser says he could be referring to the assignment (noun), whether he had the right glasses (adjective), or he could be referring to the process of reading. ^[2]Ibid.

In Genesis 3, Heiser posits that the word used to describe the villain holds a triple meaning, referring to a serpent, a diviner, and a shining one. The qualities of “diviner” and “shining one” are also attributed to other divine beings.

For instance, the term “shining one” is frequently applied to divine beings, likely stemming from the root word nachash. This connection is evident in Daniel 10:6, where a divine being’s appearance is described with imagery of brilliant light, including a face like lightning and body like gleaming bronze. Similarly, Ezekiel 1:7 portrays divine beings as having the sheen of polished bronze, and the fallen one in Isaiah 14 is referred to as “halel,” meaning “shining one” or “morning star.” The serpentine aspect is also linked to divine beings. This can be seen in Isaiah 6, where the Seraphim are described as winged, serpentine beings surrounding God. The word Seraphim itself literally means “to burn” and is often associated with fire. The word for seraph is also used to refer to snakes in passages like Numbers 21:6-8, Deuteronomy 8:15, Isaiah 14:29, and Isaiah 30:6.

“There is now an emerging consensus that the Egyptian uraeus serpent is the original source of the seraphim motif.” – Tryggve Mettinger ^[3]Tryggve Mettinger, “Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible”, Page 743

Point 2: Iconographic Evidence Of Seraphim Being Serpentine.

Researching Judean iconography from the same historical period reveals a stranger aspect of the Seraphim motif. As noted by Dr. Benjamin Sommers, seals 273 and 274 show ancient representations of Seraphim as winged, serpent-like beings.

Based on the research, here is what is known about the seals:

• Seal 273 depicts Yahweh as a sun disk with a crown, surrounded by winged seraphs. It belonged to a courtier of King Ahaz named Ashna.
• Seal 274a may portray Yahweh as a king on a throne, also attended by a seraph with wings.

The drawings are available in academic articles that cite Keel and Uehlinger’s work, such as the article “Seraphs” by Benjamin Sommer from Bible Odyssey, which also provides additional context on the seals. ^[4]See Benjamin Sommers, “Seraphs”, Bible Oddysee. –> https://www.bibleodyssey.org/articles/seraphs/ Ben Stanhope includes these and many more images in his book “(Mis)Interpreting Genesis”. ^[5]See Ben Stanhope, “(Mis)Intepreting Genesis: How The Creation Museum Misunderstands The Ancient Near Eastern Context Of The Bible”, Scarab Press, pages 51-58.

The case for seeing the Edenic villain as a seraph is cumulative, and I’ve barely even scratched the surface. Let’s now see what later biblical authors had to say about this infamous reptilian.

Point 3: Isaiah and Ezekiel’s Parallels to Genesis 3

In Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, the prophets address not only a human ruler, but a spiritual entity behind that human ruler. The astonishing parallels between Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 have been pretty common knowledge among pastors, theologians, and Bible scholars for a long time. But what often gets overlooked is how many touch points there are between these passages and Genesis 3.

We have good reason to believe that this is a place where a divine council would be not only because of other passages that refer back to Eden, but also based on what I’ve said in prior blog posts and essays, that Genesis 1 is about God inaugurating the universe as his cosmic temple. ^[6]See my essays, “Genesis 1 and Psalm 115: The Image Of God and The Intermediate State” and “Why I No Longer Think Walton’s View Of Genesis 1 Functions” for an in-depth … Continue reading It’s his dwelling place where he comes to rest and The Garden of Eden is kind of like the Holy of Holies in the temple in sacred space. Biblical scholars are increasingly recognizing that it’s likely that Adam and Eve were a priest and priestess in sacred space ^[7]See, John Walton, “The Lost World Of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and The Human Origins Debate” InterVarsity Press, pages 104-116, Michael S. Heiser, “The Unseen Realm: Recovering The … Continue reading. So, the Garden of Eden was not just green space, but sacred space. As John Walton wrote, “Given this background, we can see that the Garden of Eden is not simply beautiful green space (though it is) to provide people with food (which it does). Far more than anything else, it is sacred space that reflects the fact that God is dwelling there (notice that Ezek 28:13 refers to Eden as the ‘garden of God’; cf. Ezek 31:8).”^[8]Walton, John H.. The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate (The Lost World Series Book 1) (p. 104). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition. It is not just a garden, it’s a sanctuary, and so that’s one reason to believe that that God’s divine council would be there; because whenever we say there is sacred space, God’s heavenly host is there either actually or symbolically, like in the Holy of Holies, you had the Ark of the Covenant, and the ark the the seat above the ark, the lid of the Ark, it represented God’s throne, and next to God’s throne were two cherubim; statues of winged guardians (see Exodus 25, 1 Kings 8:6-7, Hebrews 9:3-5).

But in Ezekiel 28, we have the text explicitly saying to (and pretty much everyone recognizes) that this is the king of Tyre and that Ezekiel is speaking to someone who is an analogy of the king of Tyre. Ezekiel 28 says “You were in Eden the Garden of God.” So this directly links us back to Genesis 3, and that is a place of the divine council. In Isaiah 14, we have this being saying “I will sit on the Mount of Assembly on the summit of Zaphon”, and in the Hebrew Bible and in the Ugaritic text, Zaphon is the mountain of God. It’s where God and his council meet the seraphim in Isaiah 6. They are said to guard the throne of God, the helm of the divine council. Notice that in all of these instances, they are capable of speech. In Genesis 3, we have the divining serpent shining one; he’s described as crafty, and the being in Ezekiel 28 is described as a wise cherub. In verse 13, he is described as having shining qualities. There’s a large list of gemstones that this being is said to be adorned with; onyx and gold, and sapphire, and so on.

But in Isaiah 14, he’s called “the shining one”, well that’s part of the triple entendre in the designation of “nahash” to the Edenic villain, and the seraphim in Isaiah 6 are described as seraphim, which, again, is a word that can have two meanings; “burning” which also takes us back to that it invokes that imagery of luminosity, and “snake”.

Now let’s look deeper at these two passages that link back to Eden, Ezekiel 28:12-17 and Isaiah 14. Ezekiel 28:12-17 says “You were the seal of perfection. full of wisdom and flawless in beauty. You were in Eden, the Garden of God. Every precious stone was your adornment. I created you as a cherub with outstretched shielding wings, and you resided on God’s holy mountain. You walked among the stones of fire. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created until wrongdoing was found in you. So I have struck you down from the mountain of God, and I have destroyed you, O shielding cherub, from among the stones of fire. I have cast you to the ground. I have made you an objects for kings to stare at.” (NJPS)

Isaiah 14:12-16 says, “How you are fallen from heaven, O shining one, son of dawn, how are you felled to earth, O vanquisher of nations? Once you thought in your heart, I will climb to the sky higher than the stars of God. I will set my throne. I will sit in the Mount of Assembly on the summit of Zephon. I will mount the back of a cloud. I will match the Most High. Instead, you are brought down to Sheol to the bottom of the pit, they who behold you stare.” (NJPS). So we’ve got additional evidence that the being who was in Eden in the Garden of God was adorned with precious stones. What do precious gemstones do when they’re exposed to sunlight? Well, they kind of shine and they kind of glimmer, kind of like divine beings as we saw in Daniel 10:6 and Ezekiel 1. The seraphs, they burn so they emit light like giant candles. He’s a cherub. He’s on God’s holy mountain. And Isaiah 14 also describes this being in very similar ways. He’s a shining one. That’s one of the meanings of the Hebrew Nahash. He is felled to earth, and he’s brought down to Sheol, and those who behold him stare.

Now, I agree with Ben Stanhope and Michael Heiser that both of these biblical passages are referring to a divine being. These are both recounting some cherub rebellion, but we are in the minority here in saying that about Ezekiel 28. ^[9]See Dr. Michael S. Heiser, The Naked Bible Podcast “Episode 143: Ezekiel 28”, January 28th 2017 –> https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcast/naked-bible-143-ezekiel-28/ Not with this text. In Isaiah 14, there’s a consensus that the person Isaiah is talking to whom he is comparing the power behind this earthly ruler, is a divine being. ^[10]See ibid. That’s a divine being. It’s not a human that’s the analogy to the ruler that the prophet is railing against. But when it comes to Ezekiel 28, the majority scholarly view is that the secondary figure Ezekiel is addressing is Adam, not Satan. And to a point, I can kind of see why. The Garden of Eden was not just the first nudist resort ever built, though that it was (Genesis 2:25, Genesis 3:11), but it was much more than that. As I said earlier, scholars are increasingly finding that Eden was “sacred space” to use Walton’s and Heiser’s term. It was where Heaven and Earth met. ^[11]In addition to the citations in footnote number 7, check out The Bible Project’s video “Where Heaven and Earth Overlap”, –> https://bibleproject.com/videos/heaven-and-earth/. They weren’t just hanging around eating mangos and playing pickleball all day. They were working and keeping God’s sacred domain. The holiest place within the cosmic temple.

Just go back up to figures 3 and 4, and compare how Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 read. They share so many elements, that it’s hard for me to believe that they aren’t referring to the same being. Because they’re talking about this creature using very similar terms.

In verse 13, The Bible says, “You were in Eden, the garden of God, every precious stone adorned you, carnelian, chrysalite and emerald, topaz, onyx and jasper, lapis lazuli, turquoise and barrel. Your settings and mountings were made of gold. On the day you were created, they were prepared.” (NIV) And they’ll say that when you look at the list of gemstones here and you compare it with what the Levitical priests would use later in biblical history, there’s a lot of overlap. They have the same list of gemstones. And so, what these scholars will argue is that Ezekiel the prophet is, he’s talking about Adam, and he’s using a list of these gemstones that would adorn the breastplate of the Levitical priest. (see Exodus 28:17-21)

Now, what about the fact that “you were anointed as a guardian cherub”? Well, scholars argue that the Hebrew usage there could be translated, “you were anointed with a guardian cherub.” ^[12]Brian Godawa,”When Giants Were Upon the Earth: The Watchers, the Nephilim, and the Biblical Cosmic War of the Seed”. Pages 149-152. See also Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton, The Septuagint … Continue reading Those are just a couple of the arguments for the Adam view. I’m not totally unsympathetic to it. I do think it has some degree of plausibility, but when you look at the parallels between Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 (see figures 3 and 4), it’s kind of hard to argue that Isaiah 14 is about a divine being and Ezekiel 28 is not. This is because they’re both talking about this creature using very similar terms.

First, one argument against the Satan view that Brian Godawa offers is “It was Adam who was in Eden and was blameless in his ways, not Satan. According to the Evangelical Satan legend, Satan already fell before the Garden. It was Adam who was created blameless and fell into sin and was cast out of Eden, not Satan. Satan’s name is nowhere to be found in this passage.” ^[13]Godawa, Brian. When Giants Were Upon the Earth: The Watchers, the Nephilim, and the Biblical Cosmic War of the Seed (pp. 149-150). Embedded Pictures Publishing. Kindle Edition. While a lot of this is true, for one, I don’t adhere to the “Evangelical Satan Legend”. The Bible does not tell us when Satan became a bad guy. Due to books like Milton’s “Paradise Lost”, we are lead to believe that it happened sometime during the creation week, if not before the creation of any part of the material universe. And he took a third of all the angels with him. Yet the only text that could plausibly refer to such an angelic rebellion where Satan takes a third of the angels is Revelation 12:1-6, which Godawa rightly notes happened at the time of Jesus Christ. ^[14]ibid. This was not a pre-fall rebellion that John the Revelator was describing here. I suspect that Satan fell just ever so shortly before he tempted Adam and Eve. I don’t know the specifics because, frankly, I don’t even know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. In narrative time (i.e between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3) it feels like they fell almost immediately after they were created. However, I am of the opinion that they were likely in the garden for at least a few days, if not a couple of weeks. I say this on the basis that if Adam and Eve were kicked out on the same day they were created, they would have had no time whatsoever to get to know any of these celestial entities. Short as their stay was, it had to have been at least a few days, otherwise, Eve probably would have been just as freaked out over a talking snake-headed person with 6 wings as she would have if it were a garden snake! But in realty, Eve was just talking to one of her family members. ^[15]The Bible teaches that God has two different types of sons; angelic sons and human sons. In passages like Genesis 6:2-4; Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7, and Psalm 82:6, the heavenly host are identified … Continue reading For these reasons, I believe that Adam and Eve’s stay in the garden was short, but not immediate. They were there for a short while, perhaps a few days, but clues within the text prohibit us from believing they were either expelled immediately or stayed in the garden for a few years.

Moreover, Godawa objects that Satan’s name isn’t mentioned in Ezekiel 28, but neither is Adam’s! If that logic rules out the view that Ezekiel 28 has Satan’s fall in view, then it must also rule out the view that Ezekiel is addressing Adam as well. If the sword cuts at all, it cuts both ways. Finally, I don’t think anyone believes that God created Satan with an already evil personality and evil intentions. Even Godawa would likely say that Satan was initially created as a good being and then, at some point (even if we don’t know when), he decided that Yahweh was not fit to be King. And if this is the case, then why couldn’t Ezekiel say of Satan “You WERE blameless in all your ways UNTIL iniquity was found in you?”

Taking the view that this is Adam is less plausible for a variety of reasons. When was Adam’s heart proud because of his beauty? (verse 17)? Neither Genesis nor any apocryphal text that I know of depicts Adam as this conceited, handsome man constantly admiring himself in the mirror. “Eve, aren’t I just especially hunky today?” This just doesn’t fit what (admittedly little) we know of Adam. Now, perhaps Adam was that impressed with his looks, and as a prophet of God, it could be argued that Ezekiel was getting additional info about Adam through his direct communication with The Holy Spirit. However, while this is possible, this point would need to be argued from the text. And I honestly can’t see how that can be done. Moreover, Ezekiel 28:17 says, “I cast you to the ground; I exposed you before kings, to feast their eyes on you.” (ESV) When was Adam thrown to the ground in the sight of kings? If we assume Adam is in view, what could this be referring to? In verse 2, the entity says, “I am a god and I sit in the seat of gods.” The late Dr. Michael S. Heiser pointed out concerning this verse that “Those who have read Unseen Realm know that these are phrases drawn right out of Canaanite Ugaritic material for the divine council. So that situates us pretty clearly in supernatural divine territory as far as the analogy. Everybody knows that this chapter is about the prince of Tyre—a human being. But the key question is going to be, ‘What is he being analogized to or with?’ And I’m going to say it’s a tale of a divine rebellion.” ^[16]Dr. Michael S. Heiser, The Naked Bible Podcast, “Episode 143: Ezekiel 28”, January 28th 2017, –> https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcast/naked-bible-143-ezekiel-28/ While this might fit with Adam since he was tempted to be like God/the gods in Genesis 3:5, but in light of what the late Heiser said, this is just as good evidence for a divine being. Verse 16 is also bizarre on the view that this is Satan. When was Adam filled with violence? His son Cain was a bit violent, but unless I’m overlooking some tradition about Adam (I’ve never heard of), I don’t think of Adam as a violent person. The book of Genesis gives us the impression that he just lived the quiet life of a farmer with Eve until their natural deaths. Again, one can argue that maybe Ezekiel knew more about Adam since he’s receiving his information directly from God, and maybe Adam did some violent things the text just doesn’t tell us about. However, a bare possibility is not an argument. Demonstrate this from the text!

At the end of the day, I find it more plausible to see a divine rebel in both Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.

Now let’s contrast what we’ve seen about the divine rebel in these two passages with Genesis. Was he cast to the ground (Isaiah 14:15-16, Ezekiel 28:17)? Yes. “The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.” (Genesis 3:14, ESV) This is not a story of “how the snake lost its legs.” Was he in Eden (Isaiah , Ezekiel 28:13). Yes, that’s obvious where the story of Genesis 2-3 take place. Ezekiel 28:17 tells the person in view that he had corrupted wisdom. Genesis 3:1 says that the Serpent was “Crafty”. ^[17]This is interesting to me because Proverbs 1:7 says that the fear of The Lord is the beginning of wisdom. I did a deep study on the book of Proverbs last year, and it occurred to me that not once was … Continue reading Craftiness is something like wisdom, but biblically speaking, it isn’t true wisdom. (Proverbs 1:7). This would explain why Ezekiel calls it “corrupted wisdom” and why the author of Genesis calls it “craftiness”.

Point 4: Revelation 12:9 Says The Serpent Was Satan

Finally, we come to perhaps the number 1 reason why most Christians throughout church history have taken The Serpent of Genesis 3 to be the devil. Revelation 12:9 says “And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.” (ESV, emphasis mine in bold)

This isn’t the only verse. Revelation 20:2 identifies the serpent as Satan. “He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years” (Revelation 20:2, NIV). And in Revelation 20:9, we read “The great dragon was hurled down, that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.” (Revelation 20:9, NIV). It would seem very hard to argue that the Edenic serpent was either just an ordinary garden snake or some undefined chaos creature (John Walton) in light of this evidence. Now, granted, this The New Testament, but so what? 2 Timothy 3:16 says that “All scripture is God Breathed”. And while it is true that Paul had The Old Testament in mind when he said “All scripture is God-Breathed”, this isn’t a valid rebuttal to my point. Paul’s statement is a categorical one. In other words, for any writing X, if X is scripture, then X is God-breathed. X is scripture. Therefore, X is God-Breathed. So if The New Testament is scripture (as practically all Christians will want to affirm, regardless of their other views on inspiration, inerrancy, book composition, et. al.), then 2 Timothy 3:16 applies just as much to New Testament books like Revelation as it does the Old. And I do believe that The New Testament has a right to provide additional meaning to Old Testament passages, whether the original author and audience of that Old Testament book would have taken it that way or not. Again, it’s all inspired. 40 different human authors, 66 books of the canon, but one Holy Spirit guiding the process (cf. 2 Peter 1:21).

Objections

Although I’ve interacted with arguments against the Satanic Serpent view within the positive case, I now want to turn my attention to specific objections to these arguments. Some of these will have come from a friendly interaction with a friend on Facebook, who takes the view that the Nachash was an ordinary talking snake.

Objection 1: The Text Says The Serpent Was Just Another Beast Of The Field

One objection I admittedly feel the force of is how Genesis 3:1 introduces the Serpent. “Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.” (ESV). The text seems to be comparing the Serpent to all the other “beasts of the field” implying that the Serpent itself is just another animal. If, as I am arguing, this adversary was a divine being, shouldn’t the text say something like “Now the Serpent was more crafty than any of the other sons of God,” or some similar rendering?

First, we must remember to take ALL of the evidence into account when opting for a view. When deciding between differing views on a subject, I am looking for one that has the largest amount of explanatory scope. In any academic discipline, explanatory scope refers to the number of pieces of evidence a hypothesis can account for. If you have Facts A, B, and C that need to be accounted for, and Hypothesis 1 can account for A and B, but not C, while Hypothesis 2 can account for A, B, and C, then Hypothesis 2 is said to have greater explanatory scope than Hypothesis 1. In this case, the “Ordinary Snake” hypothesis might be able to account for the description “more crafty than any other beast of the field”, but that’s about it. It can’t account for the likelihood of the triple entendre from the Hebrew word, the various paralells that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 have to Genesis 3, the former two are clearly about rebellious divine beings, and it surely doesn’t account for Revelation explicitly telling us that the “ancient serpent” became later known as “the devil” and “Satan”.

Moreover, the phrase “more crafty than any other beast of the field” in Hebrew uses the comparative “min “(מִן), which can be translated as “from” or “than.” Scholars argue that this doesn’t necessarily place the serpent within the category of “beast of the field,” but rather compares its extraordinary craftiness to the earthly creatures. A similar comparative construction is found in 2 Chronicles 2:5, where Solomon declares that God is “greater than all gods” (min kol elohim). This does not mean God is just another god in a class of deities; it establishes His unique superiority over all others. Similarly, the serpent’s “craftiness” (Hebrew: arum) is being contrasted with all other earthly life to show its unique and supernatural intelligence.

Moreover, The Serpent’s ability to speak, reason with Eve, and introduce doubt about God’s command clearly sets it apart from any known animal. The text’s description of its actions and its intellectual capacity are more consistent with a divine or supernatural entity than with a mere animal, which would not have the ability to engage in rational discourse. Of course, some might point out that Balaam’s donkey in Numbers 22:21-39 is a clear example in The Bible of an animal being able to speak. However, the text makes it clear that God supernaturally enabled Balaam’s donkey to have this ability. We are given no indications in the text that God supernaturally endowed a regular garden snake with the ability to speak, the intellectual capacity to reason, and, for some reason, it had the malicious intent to lead humanity astray. What, was that given by God too? That would raise a theological problem.

Objection 2: “The Hebrew word nachash (serpent) is consistently used in the Old Testament to refer to literal serpents (e.g., Numbers 21:9).” – Facebook Friend ^[18]Personal Correspondence, and I’m keeping his identity a secret just in case he objects. Even though he does have a blog and has written a few books. I also don’t want him to think … Continue reading.

Jesus also said “I am the door”. (John 10:7-10). Words don’t always carry their literal meanings. Especially in Genesis which is full of rich symbolism interacting with the mythological motifs of ANE creation accounts. In fact, in light of a case that Genesis 1-11 is Mytho-History, we should expect more symbolism than literalism overall. ^[19]Please don’t misunderstand me here. I do not think that Genesis 1-11 is mythological in the sense that the stories are not true or have no basis in reality. Rather, I would agree with Dr. William … Continue reading

Objection 3: Revelation Is Highly Symbolic, So We Can’t Take John Calling The Serpent The Devil Literally

My Facebook Friend wrote “Revelation is a highly symbolic book, and its language should not be taken as a literal description of historical events. The “ancient serpent” in Revelation is a symbolic figure representing evil, not a literal being. The New Testament often reinterprets Old Testament imagery to make theological points, and this does not necessarily reflect the original meaning of the Genesis account. The serpent in Genesis 3 is used symbolically in Revelation to represent the ongoing struggle between good and evil, but this does not mean the serpent in Eden was a supernatural being.” ^[20]Ibid, you know.

Revelation being highly symbolic, is often a weapon used to explain away parts of scripture we don’t like. I do not believe that what is described here is merely a generic ongoing battle between evil and good. While I don’t want to put words in his mouth, it sounds like my friend does not believe in a literal Satan. I do. Texts like Matthew 4 commit me to the existence of one. And I believe John is describing his literal defeat. Yes, there is much symbolism in Revelation. It is the nature of the apocalyptic genre, but at the same time, not every last jot and tittle is symbolic. The wrath of God in Revelation may be described in many metaphorical ways, but God will still literally unleash his wrath upon sinners in the eschaton. People may not literally beg for mountains to fall on them, but they will literally be afraid of the returning Jesus (Revelation 6:16-17). And given that the same Holy Spirit inspired The New Testament as well as the Old, I think it is hermeneutically sound to let later scriptures inform our readings of earlier ones. (2 Timothy 3:16-17). I am perplexed at biblical scholars who are reluctant to do so despite believing in the divine nature of the text. Scripture interprets scripture. John believed in a literal devil when he wrote 1 John 3:10. It seems clear to me that John is mentioning the devil again, and is saying that he was the ancient serpent. And notice how John words it; “So the great dragon was thrown out—the ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the one who deceives the whole world. He was thrown to earth, and his angels with him.”. (Revelation 12:9, CSB). John isn’t supposing that if you went back into the biblical text, you’d find the word “Satan” or “Devil”. But he knows that the serpent of Eden would become known by these titles.

Conclusion

As usual, much more could be said about this topic. Much more! However, I think that I have said enough to demonstrate that the Serpent in Genesis 3 was both a seraph and a specific one at that. Again, I don’t know why there is a trend to try to De-Satanize the Edenic adversary, but hopefully you can see that the trend is not in line with the truth.