We meet the serpent in the Garden of Eden where God says of him that he was more subtle than any beast of the field (Genesis 3:1). The scene opens with the serpent speaking with the woman. Ever since I was a little boy, I had always visualized Eve speaking with a snake, and I would wonder how a snake could speak, and didn’t Eve wonder that too? Nevertheless, I had no doubt that this story of our first parents was true. However, now I am an adult and as Paul said, I need to put away childish things (1Corinthians 13:11). Snakes don’t speak. They never have and never will unless God causes it to take place (Numbers 22:21-30)! If I agree that God’s word is always true, then it is my preconceptions of the Bible, not the Bible, itself, that needs to be adjusted to discover and understand the truth.
When we scoff at or disbelieve the scriptures, the word of God says of us that our hearts “are waxed gross, (our) ears are dull of hearing, and (our) eyes have been closed.” Therefore, we cannot “see with (our) eyes, or hear with (our) ears, or understand with (our) heart and be converted,” because doing so would bring spiritual healing from the Lord, our God (cp. Acts 28:27).
So, if the serpent of Genesis 3 isn’t Satan, who or what is the serpent? The serpent is used as a metaphor to express a deeper truth than what a simple narrative normally expresses. God is unveiling an evil kind of wisdom. A cunning plan and behavior are described here. The serpent is used to reveal a kind of wisdom that wishes to remain hidden, like that of a hunter or a fisherman (cp. Genesis 10:8-9). The serpent’s qualities personify the character of another individual in the Garden with Eve. Notice what the serpent did. He spoke of a way to be like God, knowing good and evil (cp. Genesis 1:26, 28; 3:22-24). Indeed, mankind was commanded to be like God (Genesis 1:27), but the way to be an image of God is revealed as Christ (John 14:6), vis-à-vis the Tree of Life (Genesis 2:9; cp. 1John 1:1-2)
The sin or rather the rebellion was to try to become like God without partaking of the Tree of Life or Christ (Genesis 3:3). In other words, they attempted to fulfill the purpose, for which they had been created (Genesis 1:27) by rebelling and expunging God from the process of gaining knowledge (Genesis 3:6; cp. Romans 1:28). The command in Genesis 1:27 was to seek God’s Way (Ephesians 4:13-15), which would change us into that image through the power of his Spirit (2Corinthians 3:18).
Nevertheless, man has struggled to bring good out of evil ever since Eden. He tries to build a better life through war, government, education, science, art, sports, commerce etc., but always with inconsistent results. He has no authority over this tree of knowledge of good and evil. He never did. God does have authority over it and is able to bring good out of evil, making all things work together for our good. His Way of knowing God and becoming like God has always been through Jesus (John 14:6; Matthew 5:48; 19:21; John 17:23). The serpent’s way has always been opposed to Christ.
Wicked men are compared with serpents in Psalm 58:1-4. Their plans (v.2) are like the poison of the adder (v.4). In Psalm 140:1-5 it is said that their plans (v.5) are like the forked tongue of the adder (v.3). In Micah 7:14-17, the enemies of Israel are called serpents. Christ, himself, described the religious leaders who opposed him as serpents (Matthew 23:33).
The serpent in Eden is described as subtle (Genesis 3:1), and he beguiled Eve (2Corinthians 11:3; Genesis 3:13) by getting her to mistrust God and defend error (Genesis 3:1-3; neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die). The serpent formed a cunning plan and “beguiled” Eve. Nevertheless, God, is greater in power and wisdom (Exodus 4:3; 7:9-12), and his plan cannot be undermined by the subtle and evil tactics of anyone he created. Notice what James says:
James 3:7-11 KJV For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind: (8) But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. (9) Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. (10) Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. (11) Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
All kinds of beasts, including the serpent, can be tamed (v.7), but a man’s tongue is full of deadly poison (like a serpent, cp. v.8). James compared our tongues with a fountain that sends forth waters, both bitter and sweet. This is impossible in nature. It must be one or the other. The serpent of Genesis 3 can only be Adam, for only he was with the woman (Genesis 3:6). He was the first Satan. Others appear later, but all are evil authorities, seeking to hide the truth by opposing the Gospel.
In Revelation 8:10-11, a star identified as wormwood (bitter), fell to the earth (cp. Revelation 12:7-12 and Luke 10:18) causing water (people) to become bitter. Ultimately, Satan/Adam is the fountain from which we have all sprung. Man is unable to change himself. He is unable to bring good out of evil or to make the bitter taste sweet. Yet, God is able to make the bitter waters sweet (Exodus 15:22-25). He has authority over good and evil, bitter and sweet, and he has a thorough understanding of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God created it and is not hindered in the least by its fruit.[1]
_________________________________________________________
[1] This study represents a major rewrite of the original. The theme is the same, but much of the content is different, and different scriptures are used to prove the conclusion. The rewrite occurred in December of 2024.
Smoodock's Blog 
11 responses to “Was Satan the Serpent?”
Greetings Robert, please don’t concern yourself with the link to your website. It is there in the same manner as a link is there if you write out your email address and send it to someone. We’re good on this.
You and I interpret Genesis from two different vantage points. This is not necessarily a bad thing, nor must one conclusion be true, making the other false. The creation story isn’t very definitive for a reason. I like to think it is so rich in meaning that one could see it several different ways and draw truth from it. While I don’t mean to say “anything” can be true, I do believe more than one conclusion could be drawn without being contradictory.
Concerning the word / name Adam, I am aware that mankind is “adam” in the Hebrew, but I believe it is also a name. After all, one cannot understand Genesis 5:4-5 and conclude this means “mankind”. If it did, mankind would have perished 930 years after God created us. The word / name is not that simple to define.
My understanding is that God made Adam (THE man) male and female, but it was not good for him to be alone. Adam existed as male and female (whatever that looked like, I don’t know, but God has created some creatures ‘male and female’) so that he would understand he “needed” a mate. It was not good for him to be alone—probably because he would emphasize only one side of his identity (just guessing). Eve was formed (not created) later, probably a few years later, after all, one cannot understand the character of the different species of animals and then name them in a few hours. Science is complicated. Adam studied the animals and then named them to define their individual natures. In doing this, he came to understand he **needed** a mate, so God removed something from Adam and formed Eve. It wasn’t a rib. The same Hebrew word is used later to point to a “chamber” in the Temple, so what God removed from Adam to form the female is a mystery to me, but both male and female were present in Adam from at the moment of creation.
Adam, the individual, was made ruler over all creation. This must be so to reflect that Jesus is the ruler over the Kingdom of God into which all creation must come and be reborn. If Adam (the single man) wasn’t the ruler and the definer of all that came out from him, then being “in” Christ and being born again would have little meaning for us today. While being “in” Christ may mean something for us, it certainly wouldn’t have the rich meaning it has in light of the creation story.
We agree in that the story of creation reflects the reality of Christ and the Church. Adam was created first, so the One who became Jesus was alone in God’s Kingdom. Moreover, as Adam was male and female, so was Christ. God caused a deep sleep to come over Adam, reflecting Jesus’ crucifixion and death. Out of Adam God formed Eve to be his mate, and out of Christ will come his Bride, the Church, but we are yet **in** him. However, the day comes when we shall be presented to him, just as God presented Eve to her husband, Adam. The picture is beautiful, but if it wasn’t real in the beginning, I doubt one could draw any concrete hope from this picture of Christ and the Church.
I believe that Adam as the first sinner, and not just a sinner but a rebel, speaks to the idea of responsibility. I am personally responsible for my sins. Adam was personally responsible for his. I believe, if we try to make the Adam of the Garden a community, we lose the sense of personal responsibility. America can go to war, but I can dissent, demonstrate my disagreement and seek to change to course of the nation. Certainly, many folks would simply go along with the crowd, but dissenters can change their minds, making them conscious of right and wrong. If enough agree with the dissenters, the nation must turn around. If Adam is a community, where are the dissenters?
Concerning “exegesis” and “eisegesis”, I see “eisegesis” in making the whore of Revelation 17 into the Vatican, while “exegesis” is saying she is Jerusalem. I don’t see Adam = Satan as “eisegesis”, because a logical conclusion can be drawn from Scripture to say that very thing. I am not bringing something **into** Scripture that cannot be seen there. There is no mention of the Vatican, America or a modern resurrection of the Roman Empire. All these things would be “eisegesis” and would reflect only my personal opinion. Adam = Satan is not that way.
Lord bless you, Robert, and again I apologize for the long reply
Eddie, you stated Adam was originally both male and female. In addition, so was Christ. All I can say is WOW!
There is no way to come up with Adam and Jesus as both male and female without a whole lot of eisegesis. I read your other topics and I can follow your logic, even if I don’t agree with it. But, this is so far out there, it seems like science fiction. Logic should never trump sound biblical proofs and honestly there is nothing logical about the first man being both sexes. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this topic.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.
As far as “eisegesis” is concerned, Genesis 1:27 clearly states that God created Adam / mankind male and female. Yet, according to Genesis 2 Eve wasn’t formed until later, after Adam’s study of animal behavior and giving each of them names. This couldn’t have been done in a mere few hours of the 6th day. So, yes we disagree.
That there is tension between Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:22 seems evident in the fact that Jewish folklore claims a woman preceded Eve and was created from the same dirt Adam was. Her name was Lilith. That would be eisegesis. I chose to simply read the text as is and draw my conclusion from there. If Eve wasn’t formed until after the 6th day, and there was no woman before Eve, God created Adam male and female. I used to fear what people thought of what I saw in the Bible, but then I realized that there would be no point in my thinking at all, if I was ruled by what other people thought. I may be wrong about some things, and when I see my error, I change, but I shouldn’t be so afraid of error that I reject the truth simply because it looks odd.
As for Jesus, of course we are speaking spiritually, not physically. The Church or Bride of Christ is a spiritual matter and she was **in** Christ and shall be presented to him later, just as Eve was to Adam. If the NT fulfills the Old, things have to agree. I anticipated disagreement from you, but the “WOW!” was unexpected.
Concerning “sound Biblical proofs”, are you just writing a phrase without thinking or do you have “sound Biblical proofs” in mind. If the latter is true, I would appreciate you pointing them out to me, because I would willingly reject my current understanding in favor of “sound Biblical proofs”, because I always meet with rejection, belittling remarks, and the usual brunt of jokes etc. whenever this subject is brought up in conversation or discussion. If I had my choice, I’d much rather believe as everyone else, provided there are “sound Biblical proofs” for whatever everyone else believes.
Be blessed in your studies, Robert.
Eddie, if you are sincere about another point of view, I do point out biblical proofs in the book. It is not a long read. The work only covers the first four chapters of Genesis. I promise you it is not merely a rehashing of what others have said previously. It is my own analysis from studying the text.
I put in the WOW because I was attempting to show I was floored. It was not meant as an insult. The theory seemed so different from everything else I’ve read, I have trouble believing this is from you. We may not agree on everything, but I like seeing your thought process. Some people hold opinions that they have never really pondered, they have just accepted someone else’s opinion.
I have pondered this. Folks seem to believe that because the idea is so different, I really haven’t given it a lot of thought. I’ve discussed this with folks on the internet when Belief Net was a discussion board. Some folks thought it was ridiculous, but couldn’t offer a proper reply. Some replied back only to say they would no longer discuss the Bible with me. I don’t remember a single agreement, so, yes, I really thought about what I was saying, because I hardly think I am that wise that I can see something absolutely **no one** else sees. If I had a single agreement from a brother or sister in the Lord, I’d be content, but I’ve looked for a better answer and couldn’t find any. Like it or not, this is what I believe. It is mine or the Lord gave it to me (if, indeed, it is true). I often debated atheists when I frequented that board. It was because of the contradiction atheists pointed out to me between Genesis 1:27 and 2:22, that I came to this conclusion. People who put down the word of God tried to exploit a contradiction, but I wouldn’t let them. No one considers my point of view trustworthy, but neither is anyone able to show how or where I am wrong. I find that telling.
I ordered your book from Amazon. I’m not holding out much hope for agreement, however. This is not because I am so entrenched in my idea that I won’t consider another point of view. Rather, it is because I sense from reading your cover that you spiritualize Adam and Eve away, that they really weren’t real people. I don’t see how you can reconcile that with Jesus and Paul, but I’ll give it a read and see your “biblical proofs” for myself.