. . . even when one
acknowledges that the author is referring here to a genuine serpent, it is
clearly a most unusual example, possessing some extraordinary characteristics.
[7] The most striking such feature is its communicative ability—this creature can
verbalize its thoughts and converse rationally with human beings. [8] Moreover,
it has astonishing knowledge—as well as being aware of God’s prohibition
concerning the tree in the center of the garden, this snake knows what will
happen when its forbidden fruit is consumed. [9] The uncanny intelligence of this
serpent, along with the fact that both God and the woman speak to it, [10] thus
suggests that—as with Balaam’s talking donkey—something extraordinary and
unnatural is depicted here. Moreover, as the narrative progresses, the snake’s “cleverness”
(ערום) is portrayed in an unambiguously
sinister and negative light: not only does this creature impugn Yahweh’s
motives and trustworthiness (3:5); he flatly contradicts what God has said, intentionally
“deceives” (Hiphil נשא) the woman (3:13),
[11] and is consequently cursed by God (3:14).
Accordingly, many interpreters
reasonably conclude that the author is describing more than an encounter between
the woman and an ordinary creature—even though a natural wild animal is
undeniably involved. [12] For example, Delitzsch infers that “An animal is
intended, but an animal not speaking of its own accord, but as made the
instrument of itself by the evil principle . . . subsequently spoken of as
Satan and his angels.” [13] Others likewise conclude that some “Dark Power,”
[14] operating “behind the scene,” is manipulating each of the other characters
(i.e., the woman, the man, and the snake) for its own malevolent purposes. Thus
understood, “the Father of lies” (John 8:44) is here communicating with humans
through the agency of a physical serpent, much as God subsequently communicated
with Balaam through the mouth of the seer’s donkey. Admittedly, no such
identification of the serpent with the devil is expressly made either here or elsewhere
in Genesis, nor is this snake associated or equated with Satan anywhere else in
the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, such explicit identification of the serpent with
an evil power seems to transcend the boundaries of OT exegesis. Nevertheless,
as already noted, there are several exegetical grounds for deducing that there
is more to this creature than a naturalistic reading permits. The snake is not
only surprisingly articulate, but also vilifies God and is deceitful with
respect to the woman. Rather than simply explaining these extraordinary aspects
in terms of ancient Near Eastern mythology, [15] we should arguably find in
them a legitimate basis for subsequent Jewish and Christian interpretation.
That is to say, while ancient readers might initially have thought in terms of
a physical or even a mythological snake, by its deviant behavior the biblical
author is at least implicitly portraying it as something quite sinister. Thus,
however much we should avoid reading the later, more developed understanding of
Satan back into the text of Genesis, we must nevertheless pick up the textual
cues that direct us beyond a naturalistic interpretation. Accordingly, while it
is correct to understand the strange creature depicted here in terms of a
genuine, physical serpent, it is apparently one that is being manipulated or
controlled by an unidentified supernatural intelligence.
Thus understood, the
ensuing enmity referred to in v. 15 almost certainly alludes to something more significant
than the mutual dread or animosity that exists between humans and snakes. While
such a concept is undeniably present in the text, it arguably serves as a
metaphor or symbol for something less mundane: the conflict between the woman
and the serpent’s diabolical “puppet-master” that would evolve and reach its
climax in their respective “seed.” Such a climatic understanding of
verse 15b is indisputably controversial, but “it must be remembered that this
is a curse on the serpent, not on mankind, and something less than a draw would
be expected” [16] Construing the reference to the woman’s “seed” here as noting
more than a collective more than a collective noun, many fail to discern any
hint of a Protoevangelium in this text. However, the use of singular
pronouns in association with זרע (“seed”) in Genesis arguably alludes to a single descendant. [17] Moreover,
the fact that the singular “seed” of the woman will crush the head of the
serpent (הוא ישופך ראש)—rather than the
heads of the serpent’s seed—may be a further indication than a climactic
engagement is in view. [18] Once again, it would be exegetically mistaken to
infer from this more than the text of Genesis specifically suggests but even
here there seems to be at least some hint of the climactic battle that is
subsequently and most graphically recounted in Rev 12.
Notes for the Above
[7] One of the
serpent’s extraordinary features that has traditionally been inferred from God’s
curse in v. 14 (cf. Josephus, Antiquities 1.1.4; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on
Gen 3:14; Midrash Genesis Rabbah 20;5) is the presence of limbs, an inference
drawn also by some modern scholars (e.g. James Charlesworth, The Good and
Evil Serpent, AYBRL [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010], 87-88).
However, as Day (“The Serpent in the Garden,” n.p.) more cautiously observes, “since
nothing explicitly is said of the serpent’s having feet and legs and being
deprived of them here it is perhaps preferable to think of the serpent as
originally having a good sense of balance so that it could move upright without
legs.”
[8] The fact that the
woman expresses no shock or surprise does not imply that talking animals were
considered normal by her; such is clear from Balaam’s equally unstartled
response to his speaking donkey—which the biblical narrator clearly attributes
to supernatural intervention (Num 23:28a). As Collins insightfully points out, “This
is what the notion that we have here a ‘mythological world’ in which animals
talk . . . misses the point badly.” C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic,
Literature, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian &
Reformed, 2006), 171.
[9] It is clear from
vv. 7 and 22 that the snake’s claim—that their eyes would be opened, and that
they would become like God, knowing good and evil—was not entirely inaccurate.
Rather, it was his positive spin on this—along with maligning God’s motivations
and denying that they would die—that was deceptive, as the woman subsequently
recognizes (v. 13).
[10] Significantly,
in the case of Balaam’s donkey, with which this account is often compared, it
is only after Balaam is addressed by his donkey that he actually speaks to it.
Conversing with dumb animals was evidently not considered normal in either
biblical account.
[11] God does not
disregard the woman’s excuse, but immediately responds by cursing the snake.
[12] I.e., rather
than a figurative depiction of a supernatural being who may or may not have
appeared to the woman in serpentine form, a real snake is involved.
[13] Franz Delitzsch,
A New Commentary on Genesis (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock 1978 [orig.
T&T Clark, 1888]), 1:149. Such an interpretation can be traced back as far
as the intertestamental era (see below).
[14] Collins, Genesis
1-4, 171.
[15]For the possible echoes
of such ancient Near Eastern thought in Gen 3, see John H. Walton, The Lost
World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2015), 128-39; idem, Demons and Spirits,
128-29.
[16] Gordon J. Wenham,
Genesis 1-15, WBC 1 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987, 80. Wenham further notes that
“the serpent is in a tactically weaker situation, being able only to strike at
man’s heel, while man can crush its head.” Moreover, while the same root (שוף “batter, crush,
bruise”) is probably used in each line, “[o]nce admitted that the serpent symbolizes
sin, death, and the power of evil, it becomes much more likely that the curse
[on the serpent] envisages . . . mankind eventually triumphing” (Wenham, Genesis
1-15, 80).
[17] So Jack Collins,
“A Syntactical Note on Genesis 3:15: Is the Woman’s Seed Singular or Plural?” TynBul
48.1 (1997):141-48. See also T. Desmond Alexander, “Further Observations on the
Term ‘Seed’ in Genesis,” TynBul 48.2 (1997):363-67, and James M.
Hamilton, ch. 1 above (a slightly revised version of “The Skull Crushing Seed
of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15,” The Southern
Baptist Journal of Theology 10:2 [2006]: 30-54 [32]).
[18] If the reference
to the serpent’s collective “seed,” the second person pronominal suffix
on the verb here is arguably confusing and unnecessary (cf. Gen 49:10).
Source: Paul R. Williamson, “Snakes and
Dragons: A Neglected Theological Trajectory of Genesis 3:15 in Scripture?” in Paul
R. Williamson and Rita F. Cefalu, eds., The Seed of Promise: The Sufferings
and Glory of the Messiah (GlossaHouse Festschrift 3; Wilmore, Ky.:
GlossaHouse, 2020), 332-52, here, pp. 334-37
Further Reading
Robert Sungenis on Favouring "He" instead of "She" in Genesis 3:15
