Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis

[Fake Philosophy]

The serpent in the garden of Eden was probably not Satan

Note: This is a discussion about the "lore" in the bible, and not whether or not the bible is true. So I don't want any atheists coming in and saying "Yeah but the garden of Eden doesn't even exist", because that's not the point of this post.

Alright, so in the garden of Eden story, God punishes all the involved parties and their descendants. The serpent's punishment was that he would have to crawl on his belly to move around. From this, we can reasonably infer that the serpent here was the original serpent that God created when he made all land dwelling animals.

I have no idea what Jews and Muslims believe when it comes to the relationship between the serpent and Satan, but I do know that most Christians believe that the serpent was Satan. Also, according to Christian lore, Satan was originally an angel who rebelled against God at some point shortly after creation (the bible isn't really clear on the timeline here). However, if the serpent in the garden of Eden was just a normal snake, it makes no sense for the serpent to also be Satan. Did Satan become a serpent after rebelling against God? Or did the serpent become an angel? Neither option makes any sense.

Moreover, neither the Old nor New testaments seem to support this idea either. The serpent is never mentioned again in the Old Testament, and the New Testament only has vague references to it. It's been a while since I've actually studied the bible, so correct me if I'm wrong about this.

For the record, I don't believe that the garden of Eden story actually happened. I just thought this would be a fun topic to discuss.

[jimwalton]

For the record, I believe the Garden of Eden story actually happened, but not the way most Christians have been taught about it. And I agree it's fun to discuss.

I agree that the serpent in the Garden was not Satan. The serpent is not identified as the devil in Genesis or anywhere else in the OT. He is portrayed as a being with spiritual knowledge who deceives the woman. In the ancient Near East, serpents were often thought to be spiritual entities, and sometimes even divine, though Genesis 3 doesn't present the serpent as divine. Nor is he classified as evil. He's more like a chaos creature, contributing to disorder. Though it is often said that the serpent tempted the woman, the text doesn't identify it as such. In fact, the text ascribes no motive to the serpent at all. The woman says he deceived her (3.13), but there's no indication that he formulated a scheme or determined to motivate a Fall. He is probably more opportunistic than premeditational. He is disruptive. The point of the text is to juxtapose the conception of order found in Israelite theology with what is found in the rest of the ancient Near East. Nothing in the contextual understanding of Genesis 2-4 suggests that the serpent should be identified as Satan, or in any way providing a foundation for understanding Satan or demons.

> God punishes all the involved parties and their descendants.

Notice that only the serpent and ground are cursed. The man and the woman are not.

> The serpent's punishment was that he would have to crawl on his belly to move around. From this, we can reasonably infer that the serpent here was the original serpent that God created when he made all land dwelling animals.

We cannot necessarily reasonably infer this. First, it may not have been a literal snake. The Hebrew word for serpent is nahash, which is indeed the common word for snake, but it also possibly means "able to stand upright." There are all kinds of verbal possibilities here. For instance, nahash is the same root as nehoset, which means "bronze." We see that the shiny, upright snake in Number 21.9 is the same root: it was a literal thing, but a spiritual symbol. "Snake" could also be a word play, because the Hebrew word for "deceive" is very close to it, and is the same root as for magic and divination. Snakes in the ancient world were very much associated with spiritual powers, magic, and cultic rituals. So maybe that's why it was a snake and not another animal.

Back to Genesis now. So what if this "thing" (the nahash) was a spiritual power, represented to the woman as a bright creature, speaking "spiritual wisdom," and yet was deceiving her—all of these can be expressed by the word for snake? Just a little bit of research could change the whole picture. Bible scholars are still working on this text. New archaeological data, as I have just explained, are motivating them to rethink what we thought we knew. So maybe that's why there was a snake in the first place—it was actually a spiritual power (same word group).

So maybe, as I said, this wasn't a snake at all (though logically that is the word used by their culture). Maybe it was a deceiviant (my own coined word. You like it?) upright spiritual being. That may have been why Adam & Eve didn't think it was weird to converse with it. After all, who would talk to a snake? The nahash distorted God's words, deceived them both, and was cursed by God for what he did. And, by the way, *nahashim* are often the object of curses in the ancient world, and the curse of Genesis 3.14 follows somewhat predictable patterns, conforming to the culture's expressions and forms. The word curse ('aror) also means "banned," so what was happening was that this spiritual being was being thrown out of the garden, so to speak, removed from God's presence (banned), and that was his curse. Maybe that's why God punished the spiritual being. It distorted God's words, deceived them both, and motivated them to rebel against God. You'll notice in the text that the serpent was cursed, but not the man or the woman. There were consequences for what they had done, but only the serpent and the ground were cursed.

As for the "crawling on the ground," this doesn't imply that before this serpents had not been reptiles, but that crawling is here symbolic (compare with Isa. 65.25), just as in Gn. 9.13 a new significance, not a new existence, was decreed for the rainbow. Another possible interpretation is that serpents raise up their heads to strike. The serpent on its belly is nonthreatening. The curse combats its aggressive nature, and the serpent is left to slither away. This being is robbed of his ability to attack. Instead, he is going to be docile. This understanding coincides with several ancient Egyptian texts (Egyptian Pyramid Texts and some Egyptian spells).

"Eating dust" is obviously figurative. It's not his diet. "Dust" was mortality (Cf. Gn. 2.7, where man is mortal). The description of dust or dirt for food is typical of descriptions of the netherworld in ancient literature. In the Gilgamesh Epic, Enkidu on his deathbed dreams of the netherworld and describes it as a place with no light and where "dust is their food, clay their bread," a description also known from the Descent of Ishtar. These are most likely considered characteristic of the netherworld because they describe the grave. Dust fills the mouth of the corpse, but dust will also fill the mouth of the serpent as it crawls along the ground.

[Fake Philosophy]

> Notice that only the serpent and ground are cursed. The man and the woman are not.

If I remember correctly, the woman's punishment was that child birth would become much more painful. That sort of sounds like a curse. Then again, my idea of a "curse" mostly comes from video games. How exactly do you define "curse"? You do state later on that a "curse" can also be a ban, but that doesn't seem to relate to the ground being "cursed" or the punishment for the woman.

Thank you for the detailed reply. It was very interesting to read. I don't really have much to say about it though, because I'm not very well read when it comes to ancient Hebrew traditions and other such things.

[jimwalton]

> If I remember correctly, the woman's punishment was that child birth would become much more painful. That sort of sounds like a curse.

Notice that the specific terminology of the serpent and the ground is "cursed" (Gn. 3.14, 17). God's words to the woman and man are distinctively different. Notice that Gn. 3.16 says that her pain would increase, implying that she experienced pain prior to this event. In other words, it has changed instead of being originated. "Pains" (itsabon, Gn. 3.16) can include physical pain, hardship, distress, sorrow, agony, worry, nuisance, or anxiety. We shouldn't be quick to assume her physical pain will be any different. The context would lead us to believe she has reason to be worried in a world that will now be different. God’s initial blessing of fruitfulness and multiplication would have anxiety hanging over it because of sin in the world.

Carol Myers (“ ‘Eves’ of Everyday Ancient Israel,” Biblical Archaeology Review, Nov/Dec 2014, pp. 51-52) comments, "This word typically translated 'pain' is actually the word for 'work,' the same Hebrew word God uses in Gn. 3.17 in telling the man what his life will be like after Eden: 'In toil you shall eat of [the ground].' Eve’s life after Eden wouldn’t be characterized by childbirth pain; rather it would involve hard work and many pregnancies, two prominent features in the lives of most Israelite women. Moreover, the word usually translated 'childbearing' is actually the word of 'pregnancy.' Thus God says, 'I will make great your toil and [many] your pregnancies.' ”

> Then again, my idea of a "curse" mostly comes from video games.

Um, let's not understand the Bible in the concepts of video games.

> How exactly do you define "curse"?

The word "curse" in both Gn. 3.15 & 17 is 'arur. It comes from the root for "banned." In v. 15, the serpent is to be separated from the livestock and other animals. It connotes alienation. In v. 17, the ground is banned from the protection and favor of God. He didn't put a hex on it or change its character by magical means. In the Garden, food had been provided for them. Now they will have to work for it. They will experience a far-less-ordered experience.

> I don't really have much to say about it though, because I'm not very well read when it comes to ancient Hebrew traditions and other such things.

Well, we can talk about any of it that you wish. I'm always glad to converse.