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

[Kata Plasma]

The New Testament shows no interest in equating Eden's serpent with Satan

Thesis: There is too little evidence to posit that the earliest Christians understood the serpent who deceived Eve to have been Satan. Much of what is said about Satan in the New Testament that has been traditionally understood in reference to the Edenic serpent can be better explained by other intertexts.

1. The serpent of the Apocalypse

The author of Revelation refers to Satan as "the dragon... that ancient serpent... the deceiver of the whole world" (12:9). While Christians have traditionally taken this in reference to Eden's snake, the data can be satisfactorily explained with reference to Leviathan. Like the Satan of Revelation, Leviathan is called a dragon, a serpent, many-headed, and violent (LXX Psalm 74:13-14, Isaiah 27:1). Leviathan is likewise a monster of old, defeated by God long ago (Isaiah 51:9).

That Revelation's Satan "deceives" is not necessarily in reference to the Edenic serpent either. The serpent of Eden "deceives" (ἀπατάω, LXX Genesis 3:13) while the Satan of Revelation "leads astray" (πλανάω). In spite of English translations, different words are in fact used.

These acts of deception also serve different purposes. The former act of deception brings Adam and Eve to ruin, the latter, on the other hand, conscripts the nations of the world (through pagan worship) to persecute God's people, the churches (Revelation 20:3-8, cf. 12:9-12, 13:13-15, 18:21-24). It is therefore probably the visionary passages of the book of Daniel, not the Genesis 3 narrative, that provides the background for the beastly deception in Revelation: through the agency of idolatrous kings and kingdoms, monstrous beasts wage war upon the saints of the most high (cf. Daniel 7-11, Revelation 13).

2. Satan as murderer and liar

In John 8:44 Jesus accuses the Devil (aka Satan) of being a "murderer from the beginning" and "the father of lies." Christians have traditionally seen this as a reference to the serpent in Eden who lied to Eve and thus brought about her death.

While the serpent may have in fact lied to Eve in some sense, the Genesis 3 story does not characterize him as a murderer. It is God who punishes man, woman, and snake for their transgressions. Further, neither God nor the snake cut short Adam's life through violence. God rather limits man's life.

A better literary background for Jesus' words can be found in the popular Jewish myth of the rebellious angels. The idea that Satan was a fallen angel, a commander of evil angels and spirits, prevails in the New Testament (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:14, Matthew 25:41, Mark 3:22, Luke 10:18, 13:10-17, Revelation 12:7-9, 16:13, Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:4, etc.) while no explicit equation of Satan with the Edenic serpent is made. The most important source for the myth of the rebellious comes in 1 Enoch. There, the leader of the rebel angels, Azazel, teaches mankind how to make the weapons of war. The result is widespread bloodshed (1 Enoch 8:1-9, 9:1-10, 10:12). There is so much bloodshed, in fact, that God decides to annihilate Creation via the Flood. In this story Azazel is surely a murderer from the beginning—having introduced murder to humanity on a systematic scale. His deceit, giving man the wisdom and power he so desires, leads to the destruction of God's creation. In this sense he is also a father of lies.

Since Jesus was well-aware of this myth for the origin of Satan, it makes sense that he would refer to the Devil in these ways. There is simply no need then to posit a belief in the Satan-serpent connection in earliest Christianity.

[jimwalton]

First of all, the Old Testament shows no correlation of the serpent with Satan. It is never mentioned or associated.

In the NT, the only place a serpent is connected with Satan is Rev. 12.9. In this verse and Rev. 20.2, the dragon is identified with Satan. Jewish people had many stories about Leviathan, and that he would be killed and served for food at the Messianic banquet. Those are not biblical thoughts, nor are they endorsed. Rev. 12.9 & 20.2 identify the dragon of Rev. 12 as the serpent of Gn. 3 and the devil. There is no textual justification to connect Revelation's dragon with a mythological Leviathan. The only justification is the biblical and cultural view that Leviathan was a chaos creature. But Revelation makes no connection to Leviathan.

The perspective that Revelation is borrowing from Mesopotamian or Jewish myths doesn't hold. According to Kittel's multi-volume studies (Vol. 2 p. 282):

1. There are differences in the conception of the role of Michael.
2. The image of the dragon occurs not only here in Revelation but as the key image for Satan in the whole book.
3. It is more likely that the serpent has become, because of the radical depreciation of the demonic in the NT, a demonic animal representing Satan.
4. It links in with Gn. 3.1-7.

Both Διάβολος and Σατανᾶν are common in the NT for the great dragon, the old serpent, the deceiver: the devil who is Satan.

> There is too little evidence to posit

It isn't an issue of much or little. We have two connections—Rev. 12.9 & 20.2, which is sufficient to build a bridge in the understanding of NT writers.

> That Revelation's Satan "deceives" is not necessarily in reference to the Edenic serpent either.

I disagree. Deception is Satan's primary characteristic in the Bible. This is specifically the exact connection John is making. One of the themes of Revelation is deception upon the world.

> The serpent of Eden "deceives" (ἀπατάω, LXX Genesis 3:13) while the Satan of Revelation "leads astray" (πλανάω). In spite of English translations, different words are in fact used.

So what. This is meaningless. They function as synonyms, a common feature of language, including the Bible.

> It is therefore probably the visionary passages of the book of Daniel, not the Genesis 3 narrative, that provides the background for the beastly deception in Revelation: through the agency of idolatrous kings and kingdoms, monstrous beasts wage war upon the saints of the most high (cf. Daniel 7-11, Revelation 13).

This is possible, yes.

> In John 8:44 Jesus accuses the Devil (aka Satan) of being a "murderer from the beginning" and "the father of lies." Christians have traditionally seen this as a reference to the serpent in Eden who lied to Eve and thus brought about her death.

The connection of Satan with the serpent of Gn. 3 is partially justified from Jn. 8.44 (the two books [Rev. & Jn] may be the same author). It's true that the serpent was complicit in spiritual death that came to all humanity. Jesus calls Satan a perpetrator of immorality and godlessness who motivates others to do the same (Jesus calls the Pharisees a "brood of snakes"). The devil is the adversary of all good.

> A better literary background for Jesus' words can be found in the popular Jewish myth of the rebellious angels.

I disagree with this. There are no reasons or clues in the text to make this connection. As a matter of fact, the text of Rev. 12.9 leads us in other directions.

> The idea that Satan was a fallen angel ... prevails in the New Testament

It does not. There is no connection in the NT of Satan as having been an angel. He masquerades as an angel; he has angels (messengers). Even in all the verses you gave, Satan is NEVER regarded as having been an angel.

> while no explicit equation of Satan with the Edenic serpent is made.

An explicit connection is made in Rev. 12.9.

> The most important source for the myth of the rebellious comes in 1 Enoch

There is no evidence of the NT referencing this work in connection with Satan/serpent. Your conjecture is pure guesswork.

> There, the leader of the rebel angels, Azazel, teaches mankind how to make the weapons of war. The result is widespread bloodshed (1 Enoch 8:1-9, 9:1-10, 10:12). There is so much bloodshed, in fact, that God decides to annihilate Creation via the Flood. In this story Azazel is surely a murderer from the beginning—having introduced murder to humanity on a systematic scale. His deceit, giving man the wisdom and power he so desires, leads to the destruction of God's creation.

1 Enoch is a fictional work that is not God-breathed. We give it no authority.

> Since Jesus was well-aware of this myth for the origin of Satan

Parts of the book preceded Jesus, and other parts came after him. It was not recognized as authoritative.

> it makes sense that he would refer to the Devil in these ways.

Neither the Jews, Jesus, or the early Christians recognized 1 Enoch as authoritative, therefore this doesn't make sense. It has no ground for authority.

> There is simply no need then to posit a belief in the Satan-serpent connection in earliest Christianity.

Rev. 12.9 is the only particular and explicit reference, but this one reference negates your case.

[Kata Plasma]

> Jewish people had many stories about Leviathan, and that he would be killed and served for food at the Messianic banquet. Those are not biblical thoughts, nor are they endorsed.

The Old Testament speaks of Leviathan quite a lot, so I'm not sure what you are saying.

You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.

Psalm 74:14, cf. Ezekiel 29:5

> There is no textual justification to connect Revelation's dragon with a mythological Leviathan. The only justification is the biblical and cultural view that Leviathan was a chaos creature. But Revelation makes no connection to Leviathan.

The LXX translators commonly translate "Leviathan" to "dragon." Isaiah 27:1 refers to the being as both a dragon and a serpent—and as in Revelation, it will be killed on the day of the Lord.

In that day the LORD will take His sharp, great, and mighty sword, and bring judgment on Leviathan, the fleeing serpent--Leviathan, the coiling serpent--and He will slay the dragon of the sea.

1 Enoch, particularly the book of the Watchers, was highly influential in the second temple period, whether it was deemed "authoritative" or not. The New Testament quotes from it on a few occasions and alludes to it more. The idea that Satan leads a retinue of rebellious angels and demons originates in 1 Enoch, or at least in the story that gave rise to 1 Enoch.

[jimwalton]

> The Old Testament speaks of Leviathan quite a lot,

The OT mentions Leviathan 6 times, so I wouldn't call that "quite a lot." Levtiathan appears in the Bible as a symbol of chaos (Job 3.8; Ps. 74.14; Isa. 271.1). (The world of the Bible was all about order, disorder, and non-order.) Leviathan represents cosmic evil. Leviathan in these contexts is not considered real, but a symbol: God defeated chaos by ordering the cosmos. The point is that God is the Lord of moral order, and the forces of chaos have no control over Him.

Sometimes Leviathan symbolizes evil political powers (Ps. 74.12-14; Isa. 27.1).

These aren't the Jewish stories to which I was referring. The biblical approach to Leviathan is different than that of other Jewish works (1 Enoch, for instance).

> Ps. 74.14

Psalm 74 is a lament over the destruction of the Temple by Babylon in 586 BC. The writer (Asaph) laments that God, who is able to crush the forces of chaos & evil (symbolized by Leviathan) allowed Israel to fall to the evil oppressors.

> Ezekiel 29.5

There is no mention of Leviathan in Ezk. 29.5. You need to check the source material you're cutting-and-pasting from more carefully.

> The LXX translators commonly translate "Leviathan" to "dragon."

Of course they do, but that doesn't necessarily have any connection to the New Testament. The term לִוְיָתָֽן (llviyatan) means "twist; coil; curl; wreath; be circular." It is used of serpent-like creatures. We use "snake" in the same way, when a river snakes its way through the valleys, or a road snakes through the countryside.

The only way to translate לִוְיָתָֽן with relation to an animal is to refer it to a dragon, serpent, or snake.

> Isaiah 27:1 refers to the being as both a dragon and a serpent—and as in Revelation, it will be killed on the day of the Lord.

You just have to be more academic and more thorough than you are being. in Isa. 27.1, Leviathan is a metaphor for a human enemy. God will have His day of vengeance against those who oppress His people, and He will put them in their proper place. Here, more specifically, leviathan symbolized the final evil power in the end time. The point is that God is the sole sovereign of the universe, and while evil and destruction now seem to threaten the principles of justice upon which His order is founded, they will not prevail.

Whereas the rest of the ancient Near East uses such elements to represent the battle of the gods against the perpetrators of chaos (the sea, the wilderness, the mountains), the OT describes such motifs in terms of the covenant (as distinct from anything else in the ANE, where chaos creatures are outside the divine plan and generally serve as obstacles to it). In the OT, such forces are described as being used by God to serve His purposes. Here, as I mentioned, it represents a political enemy, not a literal mythographic figure or a personified abstraction.

> 1 Enoch, particularly the book of the Watchers, was highly influential in the second temple period,

It was, and even shows up in brief references in the NT.

> whether it was deemed "authoritative" or not.

Oh, this makes all the difference in the world. I may quote a movie when I write a commentary about the Bible, but it's a mere illustration—a cultural connection—that has no authority. It REALLY matters whether or not it has authority.

> The New Testament quotes from it on a few occasions and alludes to it more.

Correct. Just a handful of times. They were obviously aware of it and knew it had a cultural connection to their audience.

> The idea that Satan leads a retinue of rebellious angels and demons originates in 1 Enoch, or at least in the story that gave rise to 1 Enoch.

It's also a biblical idea: It shows up in Matt. 25.41 ("the devil and his messengers [angels]") and Matt. 9.32-34; 12.24 ("the prince of demons").

But this has nothing to do with your point that the NT doesn't recognize the serpent of Gn. 3 with Satan, which the NT explicitly does in Rev. 12.9 & 20.2.

[Kata Plasma]

The symbolic import of Leviathan is neither here nor there. What's important is whether the image of the dragon in Revelation appropriates the Biblical portrayal of Leviathan/Rahab/the sea serpent. I think it is clear that the author of Revelation does in fact do that and gave the various parallels in my OP. That Isaiah 27:1 refers to an eschatological/primordial monster as Leviathan, serpent, and dragon, is decisive in my mind.

> It's also a biblical idea: It shows up in Matt. 25.41 ("the devil and his messengers [angels]") and Matt. 9.32-34; 12.24 ("the prince of demons").

All you've done is quote its appearances in the New Testament. But where did Christians get the idea from? Clearly it was prevalent in second temple Judaism—the book of Watchers having been written well before the birth of Christianity.

So to better understand your argument, you 1) hold that Revelation makes no use of the Biblical Leviathan image in its depiction of the Satan-dragon, and 2) believe that Jesus came to the idea that Satan was the master of rebellious angels and spirits apart from his cultural-religious milieu

[jimwalton]

> The symbolic import of Leviathan is neither here nor there.

Actually the OT treats Leviathan solely as symbolic, so it's everything.

> What's important is whether the image of the dragon in Revelation appropriates the Biblical portrayal of Leviathan/Rahab/the sea serpent. I think it is clear that the author of Revelation does in fact do that and gave the various parallels in my OP. That Isaiah 27:1 refers to an eschatological/primordial monster as Leviathan, serpent, and dragon, is decisive in my mind.

As usual, in my conversations with you, I've shown you otherwise and given you the biblical evidence, but you always hold to your position despite the evidence.

Isaiah 27.1, as I showed you, is a metaphor of a human enemy in the eschaton.

1. Isaiah 25 ends with the Lord coming to punish the Earth for its sins.

2. "In that day" is a common Isaianic expression for the End times, and particularly an expression of judgment.

3. "The Lord will punish with his sword" is obviously metaphor. God doesn't have hands and He doesn't have a sword. "Sword" is a metaphor for judgement. It's a metaphor of the Divine Warrior in the End Times coming to judge the world.

4. I've already explained to you thoroughly about Leviathan. Here in Isaiah 27.1 it symbolizes the final evil power in the End Times where chaos will be once and for all decisively defeated.

> All you've done is quote its appearances in the New Testament.

Please remember and observe your thesis: "The New Testament shows no interest..." Of course I've quoted from the NT, because that's where the evidence is that you are incorrect. It does no good to quote from the OT to refute your case.

> But where did Christians get the idea from?

2 Peter 1.20-21: "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

> Clearly it was prevalent in second temple Judaism—the book of Watchers having been written well before the birth of Christianity.

Clearly it was. This is true. But that's no proof that's where they got it. Christian content is never from non-authoritative sources. Occasionally they use 1 Enoch as an example, as I might use a quote from Yoda in Star Wars, but that has nothing to do with anything. Just because 1 Enoch was popular in the culture doesn't mean that's where the Christians got their ideas.

> you 1) hold that Revelation makes no use of the Biblical Leviathan image in its depiction of the Satan-dragon

Possibly it uses the biblical Leviathan image, which is a metaphor of God conquering evil. It's not the cultural Leviathan image of a mythological beast.

> and 2) believe that Jesus came to the idea that Satan was the master of rebellious angels and spirits apart from his cultural-religious milieu?

Absolutely. Jesus knows the truth about spiritual beings and powers. Now, if the culture also has some access to that truth, I would expect the nature of truth in the culture to align with the nature of truth in reality. For instance, if I claim "Jesus is Lord," that doesn't mean I'm getting that from Roman emperor worship, even though yes I know about emperor worship and yes such things did come before my writing in time. I say it because it's truth, not because I'm getting it from somewhere.

Angels, as I'm sure you know, is just the common word for "messenger." Helpers. Gofers. It wouldn't surprise me a bit that (1) Satan is not the only God-opposing spirit being, and (2) that Satan has others who work with him (Jude 6).

We don't have to perceive that Jesus got this from somewhere. You know, it just might be the truth and Jesus knew that.