Cart 0
Which serpent did God curse in the Garden of Eden––snake or Satan? It is a millennia-old question that has only intensified since the upsurge of Young Earth Creationism (YEC). It is universally orthodox, of course, that God was truly speaking to a serpent of some kind, but the difficulty many Christians have today is on the nature of the serpent itself: Is God cursing the entire biological species of snakes, or is God cursing the celestial serpent later known as Satan? Or both? Genesis 3:14-15 is the point contention:
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. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
The mainstream consensus and interpretation by Young Earth Creationism is that verse 14, explicitly and solely addresses snake biology. In other words, the first half of God’s curse was intended and directed toward the snake, and the second half was intended and directed toward Satan who possessed the snake. Granted, this view is far from novel. It is rooted in the majority view among Jewish tradition and early Christian thought from Philo of Alexandria, book of Jubilees, and Midrashic literature to Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ephrem the Syrian[1], with one big exception: YEC teaches that the explicit interpretation and orthodox view of “on your belly you shall go” is that the serpent had legs prior to the Fall, and that God’s curse was to remove such anatomical advantages as due punishment, potentially present today as vestigial organs[2]. This interpretation is regarded so highly by many YECs that to doubt it is to doubt God’s Word. Even so far as to throw emotive, belittling rhetoric at differing conservative and Biblical interpretations of Genesis 3, calling themselves the only “Biblical Creationists” while all other views remain heretical, or compromised at best. Bodie Hodge, for instance, argues that the belief in a snake not having legs before the Fall was a “pagan” idea and a “meaningless status” of “philosophy” imposed on Scripture[3]. Such dogmatism has also led to the belief that the prelapsarian snake species must have had vocal cords to speak with Adam and Eve. As of late however, some YECs, including Answers in Genesis (AiG), have backtracked this rather bold claim, acknowledging that their view “remains a point of theological speculation rather than a definitive fact”, but still respectively hold fast to their legged position: God cursed the snake’s “mode of movement from potentially upright or legged locomotion to crawling on its belly”[4].
But did God really say that the serpent lost his legs?
No.
The serpent didn’t have legs––he had wings.
Purpose of the Two-Verse Curse
Before we tackle the interpretation of verse 14, we ought to know why we are reading verse 14 in the first place. What is the telos of this passage, paragraph, chapter, and book? To know that, then, we ought to also know the chief telos of Scripture––its overarching thematic purpose. In that, there is composite of themes woven and glued together by the central theme: Christ’s propitiatory self-sacrifice to defeat the devil and death once for all (1 John 3:8; Revelation 21:4). Fastened to the central theme is our covenantal participation in it, which is integral to the metanarrative of Scripture and the meaning of life: our vocation to spiritual warfare against rulers, authorities, cosmic powers of darkness, and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places (Ephesians 6:11-12; cf. 1 Peter 2:11-12). That through the lifegiving power of Christ’s Holy Spirit we mysteriously partake in the defeat of Satan and sin (Romans 16:20). That is, our participation in spiritual warfare against the flesh, the world, and the demonic is integral for proper Scriptural interpretation. All Scripture is God-breathed to teach, reproof, correct, train in righteousness, and equip the saints for every good work unto salvation against the powers of darkness (2 Timothy 3:14-16). Scripture’s primary purpose is to teach us how to fight the good fight.
So––with that in mind, our first question ought to be: What is Genesis 3 teaching first and foremost? Is God teaching us about snake anatomy, as creatures that once had legs but lost biological functions, or is God trying to teach us something deeper about reality itself? The nature and purpose of our adversary, the devil, perhaps?
Simply put, I have several concerns with the household dogma that the serpent must have had legs (and vocal cords) before the Fall. Even if it is true that God did, indeed, genetically modify snake anatomy and locomotion as a consequence of the Fall, the evidence that the direct recipient of God’s two-verse curse was explicitly Satan is much stronger.
Storytelling with a Forked Tongue
Genesis 1–11 is extremely brief. It frames out much more than it frames in––and that is an understatement. Thousands of years of history is left out of the narrative. Only big picture items made the cut. Genesis 2–4, for instance, slows down and zooms in for a very special and climactic moment: It sets up the main conflict, enemy, and solution for the Scriptures. It contains a sub-narrative structure positioning Genesis 3 as the main event: exposition (2:1-14), rising action (2:15–3:7), climax (3:8-24), falling action (4:1-16), and denouement (4:17-26). This is further demonstrated by two time-skips that sandwich the climactic fall: Genesis 2:25–3:1 jump cuts to a new scene with a sly serpent presumably named by Adam not too long before (Gen.2:20), and then at the end Genesis 3:24–4:1 also jump cuts to a new scene outside of Eden, with Adam and Eve as one flesh (cf. Gen.2:24). This centralizes and pedestals Genesis 3 as the climactic turning point event of the sub-narrative, which serves as a catalyst for Scripture’s thematic unity. Genesis 3 moving from descriptive brevity to normal narrative pacing is intentional[5]. It directs the reader’s attention to Scripture’s central themes, which amplifies their cognitive and emotive impact and underpinning significance.
All details in these preliminary chapters are essential and imperative for laying the meaningful, historical, moral, covenantal, narratival, spiritual, thematic, and prophetic groundwork for the rest of Scripture—literally everything. Every jot and tittle in these prelapsarian passages is thematically anchored, especially when the narrative pacing slows down to stimulate emphasis. Therefore, to include a detail about the snake species losing its legs means, necessarily, that it must be really, verily, and vitally important for us to know. Especially when the characters’ specific involvement in the story leads to the fall of mankind and is thus entwined with Scripture’s overarching central theme. But if verse 14 is primarily teaching that the snake is biologically and anatomically superior because it had legs, and was more cunning than all the livestock and beasts of the field because it had vocal cords (Gen.3:1), then what does this even mean? How is this profitable for salvation or spiritual warfare? It is a random (scientistic) fact that is never mentioned or referred to ever again in Scripture. Consider it; if Genesis 1–11 and most of Scripture is prophetic and historical narrative, then what prophetic or historical or narratival purpose does the snake losing its legs serve? It has no effect on the overarching narrative and themes of Scripture, nor does it have any effect on the redemptive history of mankind; it is never addressed or mentioned anywhere else again, and it is never wrapped up at the end in Revelation (Rev.12:9,20:2)[6]. Why would God include a dramatically useless detail that would be of no meaningful, practical, historical, moral, covenantal, narratival, thematic, prophetic, or spiritual value to anyone, ever, especially at the most crucial and climactic point in the pre-Fall account?
Again, Scripture focuses on a spiritual metanarrative, God’s redemptive plan to save the world from sin, death, and the works of the devil, as well as our participation in that process with Christ’s sanctifying grace and divine power working in and through us. Paul says to the bride of Christ, “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (Romans 16:20). The serpent’s curse in Genesis 3:15 applies to the whole body of Christ––the new Eve. Verse 15 concerns a central theme of Scripture, our call to spiritual warfare against our ultimate spiritual enemies: Satan and the celestial armies of darkness (Ephesians 6). So––why would God shift from such a useless, trivial detail about a snake losing its legs in verse 14 to such a vital and necessary detail about spiritual warfare in verse 15 in one fell swoop? Surely, such a detail can be framed out. Unless, of course, the curse is not about snake anatomy but merely hints at it as a visible reference regarding something much more profound.
Be that as it may, this interpretation as the primary meaning of the curse offers no insight or understanding as to why God cursed the serpent to go on its belly and eat dust. It is simply stating a brute fact. By imposing the primary meaning of verse 14 to be about the snake species losing its legs, say, for optimal biological functioning, it dilutes the spiritual significance of the themes and, subsequently, detracts the reader from digging deeper into the meaning of God’s Word and the reason why Scripture was written. It converts one of the focal points of Genesis 3 into an obscure materialistic fact, which not only adversely affects how we, the reader, are supposed to read and understand thematic unity in Scripture but it also propagates earthly-minded and unspiritual hermeneutics, say, using scientific facts as a basis of exposition, which further deteriorates the proper method of interpretation. For example, since vestigial organs of ancestral legs are (seemingly) observable in the snake species today, then the meaning of verse 14 must be that the prelapsarian snake species had legs and lost them. This interpretation seems to be polemic against Charles Darwin who first observed and referenced this adaptation as potential evidence of evolution[7]. It is not Scripture interpreting Scripture; it is a scientistic imposition on Scripture. Genesis 3:14 is not documenting a biological fact that is unprofitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training up in righteousness; to teach otherwise strives against the very telos and purpose of all Scripture.
A Lie Has No Legs
Lastly, consider a practical concern. Much of Scripture is written for us, but not to us. Such is the case when God cursed Satan. God did not speak directly to us when He cursed the serpent, but He was speaking for our edification. This principle is even more potent in the early pages of Genesis. So, if we take verse 14 to be strictly intended for the snake biology, as YEC argues, then the curse would either pertain to (a) the purpose of snake legs or what the snake would use its legs for, such as movement or hunting prey, or (b) its symbology, such that possessing legs is a symbol of superiority in some sense.
To the former, if verse 14 applies to the anatomical and locomotive function of snakes, then in what sense is the snake species “cursed”? God said, “cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field,” but this is not even true of the snake species alive today. Snakes are cunning and menacing predators that can eat livestock such as birds, sheep, dogs, goats, cattle, and so on. Anaconda, anyone? If this is a biological curse only, it certainly shed its skin. To the latter, if verse 14 indicates that legs are symbolically superior to no legs, then I suppose being bipedal is the superior image, given that we are bipedal and made in the image of the Christ. But does that mean, then, that kangaroos and ostriches are superior animals because they, too, are bipedal? Or is it just that legs in general indicate biological superiority? To that, given that ordinary snakes survive, hunt, and function very well without legs, and are hardly inferior to livestock with legs, I do not see how this could be the case.
Furthermore, when the serpent was cast down to the ground to eat dust, God did not genetically or ecologically force snakes to stay on the ground or even live underground forever, as God says, “dust you shall eat all the days of your life”. Many a snake, such as the Green Tree Python, live in trees and spend virtually their whole lives up there, and rarely, if ever, slither on the ground and eat dust. So, if this curse is interpreted too woodenly, or primarily pertains to snake anatomy or locomotion or biology in any respect, it mandates that snakes eat dust every single day of their life. And if we are being consistent with YEC theology, too, that the Hebrew word for day, yom, refers to an ordinary 24-hour day, this interpretation whittles the wood even more. Insofar that if we press the argument further that such-and-such part of the curse was only intended for that prelapsarian snake, then why would all snakes lose their legs? It was only one snake, after all, not male and female snakes.
Again, I don’t think this interpretation works very well practically. A snake cursed to lose its limbs has no legs. However, if verse 14 is primarily directed toward Satan and is not teaching that the snake was biologically superior with legs and is now cursed to be anatomically inferior to all other animals without legs, so that the snake of the curse was an ordinary snake we see today or simply Satan himself, then there is hopeful resolve.
Shed Your Thin-Skin
To be clearer, because I think my arguments can be twisted or misconstrued at certain points: I am not arguing against Satan possessing a real, ordinary snake. It is an orthodox position. The strongest hint of physical snake possession is established in verse 1, “Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made” followed by the first part of verse 14, “cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field”. The Hebrew word translated as “crafty” in verse 1 is ʿārûm and can also mean “subtle” or “sly”. However, given that Jesus and John both identify the main subject of the Edenic serpent as Satan (John 8:44; Rev.12:9,20:2), and the only hint of the serpent being an ordinary snake is in Genesis 3 alone (vv.1,14,15), and that it is unorthodox to assume that the serpent in verse 1 is being described as a wise snake with a rational soul (though the Hebrew is gently alluding to the serpent possessing secret wisdom), then we are only left with one option: the narrator is using a rhetorical device, such as anthropomorphism in verse 1, to draw a parallel or analogy between the subtle, shifty movement behaviour of a predatorial snake and the shrewd character traits of forbidden wisdom possessed by Satan, where the serpent’s clear intention is to deceive humanity: Adam, Eve, and you, the reader. In a sense, then, given that we are still having this debate, he’s done a bang-up job. The passages referring to the snake’s intelligence/behaviour, creaturely rank, anatomy, locomotion, and dietary habits (vv.1,14) are simply poetic expressions of biological facts, a hallmark of ancient symbolism. Therefore, this certainly does not contradict, say, Origen’s view that Satan did not possess but assumed the form of a snake to deceive Adam and Eve. In fact, there is evidence that suggests he may not have had to assume a new form at all; more on this next entry.
In summary, my concerns with the YEC view are with its (1) dichotomous interpretational methodology, (2) detrimental theological implications, and (3) prophetic impracticality. That God’s curse in verse 14 was primarily directed toward snake anatomy and locomotion, and verse 15 was primarily directed toward the celestial serpent, Satan, does not work––the entire curse applies to Satan first and foremost. The curse demands a spiritual lens with a theological aperture. The clearest subtextual intention of the curse is against a divine beast who is cloaked as a mere animal, and so God cursed the serpent as if it was the creature it was pretending to be––it is an instance of divine irony, a common form of divine judgment throughout Scripture. Satan was in a higher position of authority than Adam and Eve (i.e., he knew better), but was cast down below humanity to nip at his heels and be crushed by Him. The snake symbol is emblematic of Satan’s fall and fallen nature. God’s curse is not about maiming the snake species, it is about Satan being cast down from his elevated status in the heavenly realm––he lost his wings.
Continue Reading >
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] Origen seems to be the sole exception. Early Alexandrian theologians such as Clement, Origen, and Didymus typically leaned toward spiritual and allegorical interpretations. Origen, in particular, believed that the snake was not a mere biological animal but a rational and celestial creature, Satan himself in disguise: “For the present let it suffice to say that the serpent is to be understood as the devil himself, not a mere animal, and that he assumed the form of a serpent because it was suitable to his purpose of deception…. And this interpretation is supported by the fact that the Scriptures nowhere attribute speech to animals in a literal sense, except in cases where it is clearly a figure, as in the story of Balaam’s ass; but even there it is said that the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, which implies that the power of speech was miraculously given for that occasion. In the case of the serpent, however, no such explanation is offered, and it is simply stated that he spoke to the woman, which indicates that we are dealing with a rational being, not a brute beast. Thus, the serpent must be understood as the devil, who, being a fallen rational creature, used this disguise to accomplish his purpose.” Origen. De Principiis (On First Principles). Translated by G.W. Butterworth. London: SPCK, 1936. Reprint, Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973, p. 51.
[2] Vestigial organs, or rudimentary organs, are ancestral organs, tissues, or cells in a body that no longer function, either at all or in the same way. Many Young and Old Earth Creationists have concluded that these ancestral organs are the remnants of the primordial serpent.
Jerry Bergman, Snake “Vestigial Legs” Debunked: Do Evolutionists Do their Homework? Not in this Case. Creation Evolution Headlines. Published on September 1, 2019. https://crev.info/2019/09/snake-vestigial-legs/
See also Fazale Rana, Genetics Discovery in Snakes Adds Legs to the Case for Creation. Reasons to Believe. Published on November 9, 2015. https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/genetics-discovery-in-snakes-adds-legs-to-the-case-for-creation
[3] The word “philosophy” in a YEC social framework is predominately a negative description word used to distance pagan ideas from Christian theology. https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/garden-of-eden/did-the-serpent-originally-have-legs/
[4] Answers in Genesis, “Garden of Eden”. https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/garden-of-eden/
For AiG, this interpretation has important practical and theological implications: “Theologically, it signifies the direct impact of sin on creation, illustrating how the fall of man affected not just humanity but all nature. Practically, it raises questions about the physical characteristics of animals before and after the curse. While the idea of a legged serpent might seem speculative, it fits within a broader framework where animals could have been different in form or behavior before sin entered the world.”
[5] This is a very common storytelling technique. We see this same pacing technique employed later in the Joseph narrative (Genesis 37–50) when he encounters his betraying brothers. It slows down and zoom in key parts to humanize and deepen the reader’s emotional connection to the characters.
[6] Furthermore, regarding its thematic and narratival significance, if the snake could not have resisted Satan but it is also not irredeemable like Satan, and it was so integral to the theme and narrative of Genesis and the rest of Scripture to mention such an event at the very beginning, then why would God not restore the serpent’s legs in the new heavens and the new earth (Rev.21–22), and why not mention it ever again, especially if the snake was––presumably––manipulated, controlled, and used by Satan in the first place?
[7] Charles Darwin observed spurs in snakes as “rudiments of the pelvis and hind limbs” and concluded that it was evidence of evolution: Snakes evolved from limbed ancestors.
Darwin, Charles. 1859. The Origin of Species. London, UK: John Murray, p. 450.
[8] The image of God is a status possessing normative faculties that which represent the image it reflects, namely, Christ. Only humanity is made in God’s image; no other creature possesses such a status or attributes; it is uniquely part of human personhood. Thomas Aquinas argued, in the vein of Aristotle, that humanity possessed a “rational soul” distinct from animals. For Aquinas, the rational soul (also known as the “logistikon” or “nous” in Greek) refers to the unique, immaterial, and immortal part of a person, which is capable of disembodied existence or life after death independent of the body. Unlike sensory experience and the passions of the flesh, bound by the body, the rational soul is a person’s intellect, understanding, consciousness, abstract reasoning, moral agency, and volition or the power of the will. In theological and philosophical contexts, then, the rational soul is a necessary constituent of God’s image.
[9] That said, God closing animals from their cognitive and verbal capabilities is possibly hinted at in Numbers 22:28-30 when Balaam’s donkey miraculously rebuts his three strikes, as well as in Genesis 9:5-6 when God institutes the Noahic covenant so that all living creatures who shed human blood are culpable and will suffer due punishment––this judgment implies that God can speak to animals, and that animals understand Him at some cognitive or emotive level. But this does not primarily imply that snakes and donkeys, or all animals for that matter, had vocal cords before the Fall, it just means that God can communicate with animals. Either way, this is not the point of contention. YEC argues that verse 14 is about the snake species losing its limbs, not its vocal cords, verbal capabilities, and cognitive faculties. God closing the mouth and mind of all animals, however, is far more significant than God maiming snakes, which is inconsequential to the narrative.
[10] Paul even unwittingly testifies against this concept of an animal voluntarily sinning of their own volition when he disjoints humanity from other creatures and says that “creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it.” (Romans 8:20, emphasis added). Albeit, this is not the primary intention of the verse, but a snake possessing a rational soul and volition like humans made in God’s image strikes against creation eagerly “longing for the revealing of the sons of God.” (v.19) and that all sinned through Adam. Creation awaits our redemption from sin and their subjection to futility. Creation falling before Adam/Eve is just not biblical.
[11] God became the Son of Man to make men the sons of God. The same does not apply, nor can it apply, to animalia. Of course, the propitiation of animal sin and the glorification of animal-kind is foreign to the pages of Scripture; the subsequent restoration of creation in the new heavens and the new earth is not the same thing as human deification (theosis), “the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom.8:21). All creatures differ in glory (1 Cor. 15:39-41). God’s creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God in hopes of its redemption, not the other way around (Romans 8:19-25).
