The Snake in the Garden of Eden

What I find fascinating about this story is the way evangelical Christianity has stamped its own narrative on the text. And this is bizarre when we are studying creationism, because creationists use - or supposedly use - a literal reading of Genesis to support their nonsense claims.

For example, Answer in Genesis:

We focus on providing answers to questions about the Bible—particularly the book of Genesis—regarding key issues such as creation, evolution, science, and the age of the earth.

So let us look at the "plain meaning of the text", and compare that to what evangelical Christianity tells us happened.

"In the day"

For once, the King James translates the verse faithfully:

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Here is a Hebrew Bible, translated to English, which again says on that day:

But of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die."

The Hebrew word here is בְּי֛וֹם, or "beyom" when transliterated. It is derived from "yom", but not actually "yom". It occurs 197 time in the Bible, as you can see in this list, and as far as I can see from a quick scan, each usage means that day, and indeed the vast majority of examples get translated as "in the day" or "on the day" (often with a qualifier before "day", such as "on the sabbath day"; in the Hebrew the qualifier goes after "beyom", see for example Numbers 15:32).

Here are the first ten instances of the word in the Bible:

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Genesis 21:8 And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned.

Genesis 30:33 So shall my righteousness answer for me in time to come, when it shall come for my hire before thy face: every one that is not speckled and spotted among the goats, and brown among the sheep, that shall be counted stolen with me.

I.e., So shall my righteousness answer for me on a day to come ...

Genesis 35:3 And let us arise, and go up to Bethel; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went.

Exodus 6:28 And it came to pass on the day when the Lord spake unto Moses in the land of Egypt,

Exodus 10:28 And Pharaoh said unto him, Get thee from me, take heed to thyself, see my face no more; for in that day thou seest my face thou shalt die.

Each time the word is used to indicate an event happening on that day. Thus, when the text uses that word in Genesis 2:17, it is indicating that death will occur that day.

Looking at the exceptions, we can see, for example, "beyom" is translated as "when" in Leviticus 14:57. However, that does not help the evangelic Christian's case; that would mean God said they would die when they ate the fruit. Indeed in 1 Samuel 20:19, KJV uses "when" and NAS uses "on that day", which shows that even "when" is really the same meaning.

Were Adam and Eve Immortal?

No. They were never going to live for ever. This verse makes that clear:

Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

The verse states that if they ate from the Tree of Life, then they would become immortal. It must therefore be the case that they were not already immortal.

If they were created immortal, then why would God be worried that Adam would "reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever"?

Nevertheless evangelical Christianity has declared otherwise, and wants us to believe that before the Fall there was no death. This is not merely contrary to science (and common sense), but is in fact contrary to the sacred book that they use to support the claim!

This is important because the usual evangelical Christianity claim is that God said Adam and Eve would die some time in the future, some centuries hence, if they ate the fruit, and this is why the modern translations skip in "in the day that thou eatest thereof" bit. Evangelical Christianity would have us believe Adam and Eve were created immortal, but became mortal when they ate the fruit.

But Genesis 3:22 makes clear that they were never immortal.

Note that this is contradicted by Paul:

1 Cor 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

At best, this shows a contradiction in the Bible. Paul was writing many centuries later, of course, and ideas change.

Dying you shall die

There is a curious construct in the Hebrew in Genesis 2:17, which is perhaps more literally translated as "dying you shall die". People knowledgeable enough to be translating Bibles professionally consider that to be for emphasis, and hence it is usually translated as "surely you will die" or similar.

If we look at 1 Samuel 14:44, it has the same construct, מ֥וֹת followed by תָּמ֖וּת. KJV translates it thus:

1 Samuel 14:44 And Saul answered, God do so and more also: for thou shalt surely die, Jonathan.

Should we think Jonathan was immortal, and from when he ate the honey, that was the beginning of his death, and the text means he would eventually, having raised a family twice, and getting to old age, pass away, as you claim it means for Adam and Eve? No wonder the people of Israel were so concerned!

See also 1 Kings 2, where it is used twice:

1 Kings 2:37 For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thine own head.

1 Kings 2:42 And the king sent and called for Shimei, and said unto him, Did I not make thee to swear by the Lord, and protested unto thee, saying, Know for a certain, on the day thou goest out, and walkest abroad any whither, that thou shalt surely die? and thou saidst unto me, The word that I have heard is good.

Looks to me like in all these cases the double use of "dying" is for emphasis - just as the translators of most Bibles think. There is no support for the claim that this was the beginning of a long and lingering death, and Adam and Eve would eventually pass away many centuries later.

It was no lie!

Therefore the snake did not lie. It claimed that Eve would not die that day, it claimed Eve would know good from evil. It was right on both counts.

I do not feel this is too clear. The snake is introduced as the craftiest of the beasts in the field, suggesting it is acting in an underhand manner, and we should also note that Eve says the snake deceived her (though she could be lying to save herself). There is an impression that the snake is dishonest here, despite the fact that what it says is true.

Was it "spiritual death"?

As a fall back, some Christians say that God meant "spiritual death". What does even that means? Did their spirits die that day? Of course not. In fact, the claim seems to be that when God said they would die that very day, what he meant was that their souls would be separated from God - which is not death at all, not unless you are desperate to twist Genesis 2:17 to mean something it does not (but again, this idea does have support from Paul).

However, even if that is true, it does not follow that the snake was lying. It is only a lie if it was deliberate, and there is no reason to suppose the snake understood it to mean their souls would be separated from God, given God choose to say "die".

Was the snake actually Satan?

No. Satan is not mentioned in the account at all. Christianity is once again ignoring what the text says, and forcing its own narrative on the text.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

It does not say Satan. It says serpent, a beast of the field.

Think about who was cursed:

Genesis 3:14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

The serpent was not cursed above all the other angels - as you would expect if it was Satan. Rather, it was cursed above the rest of the beasts of the field, because it was itself a beast of the field.

And that curse was to walk on its belly. Look at images of Satan, and then look at images of snakes; which one crawls on its belly?

It is snakes every time!

The curse continues:

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

God has put an enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the snake. That is to say, the descendants of the first woman and the descendants of the first snake. Thus, mankind strikes snakes on the head to subdue them, whilst snakes bit mankind on the foot.

Who or what is the seed of Satan?

Why would God curse all snakes for what Satan did?

That Old Serpent

At this point Christians will head to the very other end of the Bible.

Revelation 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
...
15 And the serpent hurled water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, so that he might cause her to be swept away with the flood. 

 

Revelation 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

These verses are - as far as I know - the only justification for thinking the snake in the Garden of Eden was Satan. Pretty flimsy.

Indeed, it is far more likely, Revelation is referring to the Leviathan. Look at this verse:

Isaiah 27:1 In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

This is also prophesising a great battle with a serpent... But it makes clear that that serpent is the Leviathan, not the snake in the Garden of Eden. Note that it is also referred to as a dragon. This was a huge monster, with seven heads (and Job 41 makes clear just how fierce-some this creature is). Seems pretty likely this is what John of Patmos was referencing, not a talking snake.

When you see images of the serpent in the Garden of Eden, or picture it in your head, do you see a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns? Or do you see a snake?

Also see Ezekiel 29:3-5 and 32:2, which use the imagery of the Leviathan (drawing an analogy with Pharaoh); this was a creature of their mythology.

As an aside, the Old Serpent, or Leviathan, may shared its roots with Tiamat, the primordial Babylonia goddess of the sea, and with Lotan in Ugaritic texts. All three are depicted as dragons, living in the sea, battling a god. This fits better with a struggle in heaven, as depicted in Isaiah and Revelation.

Ezekiel 28

Some might point to this verse and claim it is about Satan:

Ezekiel 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

However, the start of the chapter makes clear this is addressed to the prince of Tyrus (or Tyre):

28:1 The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,
2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord God; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:
It is not about Satan at all (see also verse 12). The prince of Tyre lived in luxury, and a comparison is drawn to the Garden of Eden. This is about God telling the prince that his fall from grace is near. This is why he verse mentions the precious stones. Topaz and diamond were features of a man-made palace, not the garden of Eden.

A snake possessed by Satan?

This also applies to the claim that Satan adopted the form of a snake to trick Eve.

This is getting desperate, because there is no scriptural support for it at all. Revelation 20:2 says "serpent", not "serpent possessed by Satan"; no support there. Nothing in Genesis about the snake being possessed or about Satan at all.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Revelation 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

There really is nothing in scripture to suggest the snake was possessed.

And the curse again indicates that this was not the case. Why would God curse the snake - an innocent victim of possession - for what Satan did? Either Satan tricked God, and God did not realise the snake was possessed, or God would have driven Satan from the snake, just as Jesus drive demons (Matthew 12:28). Note that Jesus did not punish those who had been possessed for what they had done under possession.