Cart 0
In my last article, A One-Legged Snake, I wrote about what the serpentine curse of Genesis 3 was not about. I argued against the interpretation that the primary meaning of the curse was about the prelapsarian snake species having legs and vocal cords and consequentially lost those anatomical features because of its participation in deceiving mankind. In this entry, I hope to show what it is about. That the intended recipient of the two-verse curse was primarily directed toward Satan, and secondarily about snakes either as a symbolic reminder or rhetorical device, meaning that either (a) the curse bestowed upon Satan was subsequently applied to the snake as a symbolic reminder to us of Satan’s fall but not a direct curse of snake-kind per se, or (b) the narrative was drawing parallelism between snake behaviour, creaturely rank, anatomy, locomotion, and dietary habits with Satan’s irredeemable fall and new spiritual nature as humanity’s chief adversary. Meaning, the subtle nod to snake biology is deliberately emblematic and dimly symbolic of Satan being cast down from his heavenly status to eat dust, the image bearers of God.
Regarding the Edenic serpent, then, we are left with three options: (a) possession, (b) assumption, or (c) concealment. In other words, Satan either entered and possessed a snake, assumed the form of a snake, or was already a snake but concealed his full form. This last option has fallen through the cracks of theological history but has gained traction in recent years and may very well be the bridge between Alexandrian and Antiochian schools of thought, given that Satan is visually described as a great serpentine dragon (Rev.12:9,20:2; Is.27:1) and also anthropomorphized as “walking” (hālaḵ) to and fro in Job 1:7, 2:2. Genesis teaching a literal concealment is a stronger version of Origen’s assumption argument without grasping or synchronizing concepts from other religions, say, its Greek counterpart (i.e., Zeus shapeshifting into a goose). Scripture depicts numerous celestial hybrid beings, such as cherubim and seraphim, with guardian cherubs even possessing and resembling human features like faces and hands (Ezekiel 1:5-14; Isaiah 6:1-6). Satan as a celestial serpentine dragon-man and guardian cherub correlates well with the biblical data, from the first cherub mentioned in Eden to later accounts of fallen heavenly beings (Genesis 3:24; Ezekiel 28:12-17), without morphing his physiology before or after the Fall. It’s simple, yet insightful.
For this reason, and for reasons I will get into in just a moment, a literal and literary concealment seems to be the proper interpretation of Genesis 3, but not at the complete exclusion of possession––both could be true. Concealment is simply the primary focus of the passage by default, not because possession is wrong or implausible but because concealment is the strongest, immediate implication of the curse when Satan is the direct recipient of verses 14 and 15. One simple typological parallel in favour of possession is that Satan entered and possessed a snake just as Satan entered and possessed Judas (Luke 22:3, John 13:27). Besides that, there is not much more to go on biblically. Possession could very well be symptomatic of the Fall, insofar that Genesis 3 was stylistically written by Moses, through the Spirit, to achieve thematic unity between historical narrative and dimly lit prophecy for the greatest spiritual impact, “to make you wise for salvation” (2 Tim.3:15; 1 Cor.13:12). So––let’s examine the key passages and breakdown my proposal verse-by-verse.
Genesis 3:1 – A Serpentine Dragon
“Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.” The Hebrew word for serpent, here, is nāḥāš. It is the same word used in Exodus 4:3 when God instructs Moses to throw his staff on the ground so that it would transform into a serpent. But this word nahas does not translate 1:1 into ‘ordinary snake’. In fact, when God instructs Aaron to throw Moses’ staff on the ground against Pharaoh’s two magicians, Jannes and Jambres, the text clarifies that the serpent did not turn into an ordinary snake, it turned into a tannîn, meaning “dragon” (Exodus 7:8-10). God first said the staff would transform into a nahas (4:3), then He said the staff would transform into a tannin (7:9). Jannes and Jambres also throw down two tannins, but Moses’ dragon swallowed the other two whole (v.12). Immediately after this, God instructs Moses to meet Pharaoh on the bank of the Nile River, and to “take in your hand the staff that turned into a nahas” (7:15). The word nahas and the word tannin are interchangeable in this context––serpent and dragon are synonyms. We see this again when tannin is used in conjunction with peṯen (often translated “asp” or “adder”), it connotes “serpent” or “serpentine” (Deut.32:33; Ps.91:13). Tannin seems to primarily denote ‘serpentine dragon’.
Most notable for our discussion is in Genesis 1, when “God created the great sea creatures” (v.21; cf. Jb.7:12, Ps.148:7). The translation of the phrase “great sea creatures” is tannin, which later in the text refers to sea dragons such as Leviathan (Psalm 74:13-14; Isaiah 27:1; cf. Ps.104:26; Jb.3:8, 41:1) and Rahab (Isaiah 51:9; cf. Jb.9:13, 26:12; Ps.89:10). The sea and waters of the deep are ancient Near Eastern and Scriptural symbols of death, chaos, and the abyss (Rv.20:13,21:1; cf. 1 Pt.3:18-22; Rm.6:3-4)[1]. That is why Leviathan and Rahab frequently represent chaos monsters and demonic strongholds and even Satan throughout Scripture[2].
Another word that is interchangeable with nahas is śārāp̄. Seraph is first used in the bronze serpent account (Numbers 21:4-9), when Israel’s impertinence strikes against God and Moses (nothing new here) and the Lord sends “fiery serpents” (nahas seraph) against the rebellion (v.6). Many die and they repent, asking Moses to intercede on their behalf before God to rid the nahas. No, his staff did not turn into a flute or Bachal Isu, rather God instructs Moses to forge a bronze seraph (v.8), so that anyone who looks upon it will live. The word seraph primarily means “fiery” but it also denotes “serpent” especially when used in conjunction with nahas or ṣep̄aʿ (meaning “venomous snake”, often translated as “viper” or “adder”[3]) and can be used interchangeably with such synonyms as seen in Numbers 21:8 as well as in Isaiah 14:29 and 30:6. Furthermore, the plural form seraphim is used to describe angelic ‘fiery ones’ flying before the throne of God in Isaiah 6:2-4, which parallels the phrase “flying fiery serpent” (Is.14:29; 30:6). One need not stretch their wingspan too far to see that a flying fiery serpent is, indeed, a dragon.
In short, the Hebrew word we translate as serpent in English does not denote or connote an ordinary snake necessarily: nahas, tannin, and seraph are contextually interchangeable and conceptually fluid, with no speciation or taxanomic ranks implied, and can refer to ordinary snakes like vipers and great flying serpents and sea dragons like Leviathan as well as celestial serpentine beings like seraphim and, presumably, Satan––the great celestial serpentine dragon-man who deceives the world (Rv.12:9,20:2).
Furthermore, the Hebrew implies that the serpent is a celestial creature. Biblical Hebrew contains only consonants. Therefore, in order to preserve the traditional pronunciation of the original Hebrew, there were diacritical marks, or niqqud, added to the Masoretic manuscripts to indicate vowels and other phonetic vocalizations. This system was called “pointing”. The word ‘serpent’ ( נחשׁ ) in Genesis 3:1 “contains three consonants that can be pointed to be read as the adjective ‘shining’ or the verb ‘to divine’; but the context of Genesis 3:1 indicates that a serpent is being referenced and נחשׁ has been pointed this way in the Hebrew Masoretic Text that most English Bibles use.”[4] In other words, ancient Hebrew listeners would hear the wordplay; the Hebrew hints that the serpent was a celestial being without overstating the fact.
Verse 1a, then, is parallelism (or double entendre if possession is true): the word ʿārûm, often translated as “crafty” or “sly” is anthropomorphism, rhetorically referring to the subtle, shifty movement behaviour of a predatorial snake in order to draw a parallel to the serpent possessing secret wisdom, hinting that this serpent appears ordinary like any other “beast of the field” but is not. In terms of raw storytelling, then, verse 1a deliberately keeps the serpent’s true identity and intentions a secret for greater impact: when the climax of God judgment comes. The brevity of verse 1a best cloaks this imperative, forcing the reader to speculate about the nature of this serpent’s wisdom (as ancient symbols of wisdom, Mt.10:16) as well as the nature and spiritual state of prelapsarian animals in general (given that it speaks)[5]. Verse 1b, then, forwards the serpent’s deceptive intentions to deceive humanity, “Did God really say”, which gradually reveals his true intentions (vv.1b-13) but maintains parallelism until verse 14. Cloaking the serpent’s identity in parallelism until verse 15 preserves for us, the readers, the same illusive experience Adam and Eve underwent, keeping the moral impact for the Genesis story intact, which is vitally relevant and spiritually integral for us to know––Satan will continue to threaten our lives in the same way he did in Eden, so beware of hidden deception and secret wisdom; Satan and his demonic offspring will “secretly bring in destructive heresies” (2 Peter 2:1; Genesis 3:15a; John 8:44; Matthew 12:34-35). Genesis is retold in the way it was received. That the serpent was not an ordinary prelapsarian talking snake is finally settled in verse 15––the serpent was a heavenly creature all along cloaked as a mere snake in the grass. Verse 24, then, seals the deal when it mentions a guardian cherub blocked the pathway to the Tree of Life. Angelic beings were present and visible all along.
Conclusion
For these reasons, a literal and literary concealment is the strongest interpretation of Genesis 3, but not at the exclusion of possession necessarily––again, both could and can be true. Concealment is simply the primary focus of the passage by default when Satan is the direct recipient of the curse. In this typological framework, too, my initial concerns are resolved––no longer is there a dichotomous interpretational methodology, detrimental judicial and theological implications, and prophetic impracticality. It binds back the full scope of Scripture that is lost otherwise––the breadth and depth of its meaningful, practical, historical, moral, covenantal, narratival, thematic, prophetic, typological, ontological and spiritual relevance. That the serpentine curse is a direct prophecy against Satan and his wings, so to speak, establishes Scripture’s overarching thematic purpose at the very beginning and our participation in a cosmic, spiritual war against the dark powers that be, which anchors the necessity and relevance of the living gospel. The snake species, then, whether cursed or not, is a living symbol of Satan’s eternal curse and a reminder of our vocation to spiritual arms. All Scripture is God-breathed to teach us how to fight the good fight, for doctrine, correction, and salvation against the powers the flesh, the world, and the devil.
Matlock Bobechko is the Chief Operating/Creative Officer of Bible Discovery. He is an eclectic Christian thinker and writer, award-winning screenwriter and short filmmaker. He writes a blog on theology, apologetics, and philosophy called Meet Me at the Oak. He is also an Elder at his local church.
[1] Jonathan Pageau, The Pattern of Water as Death and Chaos. The Symbolic World. Published on October 16, 2020. https://www.thesymbolicworld.com/content/the-pattern-of-water-as-death-and-chaos
[2] Genesis 1:21 may not be referring to sea creatures alone. A verse prior, God makes all sea and sky creatures on the same day (Gn.1:20). In the greater context of the passage as well as, say, typological foreshadowing of Scripture, it suggests that tannin can refer to dragons of the sea and of the sky, of the waters below and the heavens above (cf. Ex.20:4; Is.24:21).
[3] The King James Version also translates sepa into “cockatrice” (Isaiah 11:8, 14:29, 59:5; Jeremiah 8:17), which is a mythical hybrid creature, often depicted with the head of a rooster and the body of a serpent.
[4] Colin Hamer, NCV2 Two Trees in Eden: The Serpent. April 2025. “This explains why Eve was seemingly not surprised when a ‘serpent’ spoke to her — not a reptile, but a dazzling cherub who deceived her about the mind of God (2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:14).” See an expounded analysis in: Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham, 2015), 87–91.
[5]In ancient Near Eastern cultures, there was a commonly held belief that animals could communicate with prophets, seers, or diviners. These messages spoken from or through animals were considered divine revelations or signs from the gods or spirits, as suggested in Numbers 22-24 with the pagan prophet Balaam, son of Beor.
[6] The fact that the serpent is cursed below all land creatures, and not creatures of the sky or sea, is also a good indication that the curse is not referring to a biological snake. Is the prelapsarian snake species only cursed lower than land animals? If it were a biological curse, how would sea serpents and water snakes be included in this curse? The implication is that the subject of the curse is the lower than all creatures. But the fact that it references only livestock and wild animals is very telling, in my opinion. It also may be faintly hinting at a subtle typological and hierarchical order: dragons of the sea and sky represent demonic strongholds, which came about immediately after the stars, the heavenly host and those elected for salvation.
[7] That Satan and Adam’s food, food production, and dietary habits are explicitly referenced in God’s curse is deliberate irony (vv.15,17-19); plainly emphasizing man’s disobedience to the Adamic one-law covenant, “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” (Gen.2:16-17) Adam is the direct recipient for breaking the covenant, not Eve (3:17). God commanded Adam, and Adam told Eve the command. Therefore, Adam receives due punishment fitting of his crime: The consequence for Adam’s sin of eating the forbidden tree was to curse the plants and ground that produce food until he dies, wherefore eating bread is a direct typological symbol of the Fall and sin’s persistent effect on the human condition that still prevails till this day. Christ reverses the Edenic curse with his flesh as “the bread of life” (John 6:35,48-51,58), and his blood as the fruit of the vine, dying cursed on a tree that is now the new tree of life, with thorns piercing his temple (Gen.3:18; Mt.27:29). Adam would “sweat” to put bread (food) on his table to temporal, physical survival. In Christ, bread is now the way to spiritual eternal life through the restoration of our resurrected bodies, as grain sprouts a harvest (1 Cor.15:36-50). Adam, a natural man, suffers natural punishment (1 Cor.15:44-49), whereas Satan, a spiritual being, suffers a spiritual punishment.
[8] This interpretation does imply, however, that Satan fell with Adam and Eve, not before. Frankly, I believe this is verified in Ezekiel 28; I have no time to address it in this entry, but you read about that here: When Did Satan Fall? Admittedly, there is also another complication with this view, but it is a much smaller complication than the alternative of a biological curse against the snake species. Is Satan a seraph of the highest order, or is Satan a guardian cherub who fell from his post? It seems to be either/or and cannot be both. I will address that concern another time. For now, I am more so convinced that Satan was a throne guardian cherub and was the spirit behind the King of Tyre in Ezekiel 28. Ezekiel’s prophesy strongly indicates a good cherub who falls in Eden and cherub hybrid physiology permits a serpentine dragon-man (cf. Ez.1; 10; 28; Ex.25).
