Serpent, snake. The first thing we notice about serpent symbolism in the Bible is that, although there is much linking it to evil and Satan, there is also a great deal biblically that led the ancients to consider it as something good.
There are several principal words used in the Bible for serpent: ophis, tanniyn, seraph, and nachash.
Ophis, ὄφις. The Greek word.
The Hebrew has these:
Tanniyn, תַּנִּין
The word is first used in Genesis 1:21, then in Job 7:12 and Ezekiel 32:2 for what the KJV translates as “whales.” It is frequently used in the KJV for the word “dragon,” meaning generally a large and fearsome creature. As for “serpent,” this application comes primarily from the context of Exodus 7, where we find Moses and Aaron proving the power of God over the power of the Egyptian gods by his staff transforming into a tanniyn and swallowing the magicians’ serpents—thus Moses’ good serpent destroyed paganism’s evil serpents.
Some commentators think that the tanniyn was more like a crocodile in this scene, but Moses probably had more “fearsome” than “large” In mind. The translation of this as “serpent” seems much more reasonable since the staff that became a serpent has a form close to that of a serpent, there is a frequent association in Egyptian mythology and art of the staff with the serpent, and there is a clear association with another form of the staff used with a serpent, the ensign pole, used by Moses to hang the brazen serpent in Numbers 21.
Most importantly for our study is the fact that when we pay careful attention to the contest of Moses and the magicians in Genesis, we see that Moses describes not one animal devouring another, but one “rod” devouring another: “For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods.” Most commentators fail to note anything remarkable here, but obviously Moses observes the serpent symbolism in parallel with the rod symbolism. Rods swallowing other rods? Does “serpent” symbolize “rod,” or “authority,” or does “rod” symbolize “serpent,” or “evil”? Remember, we are going through this under the assumption that a concept like “power” as the symbolic meaning of the rod is too general; it says nothing about what particular kind of power we might assume God was most interested in representing Himself in the faith of the children of Israel. We will resolve this riddle when I comment on the meaning of the rod symbol.
Seraph (שָׂרָף)
Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary says its primary meanings are serpent, fiery, burning, and poison. It is used in Genesis 11:3 for the word “burn” in reference to baking bricks. In Genesis 38:24, Judah used it in his description of Tamar as harlotry, when he ordered her to be “burnt.” Throughout the Pentateuch, it is used frequently for “burnt” and “burn” in reference to the preparation of the sacrifice. Also, the ministering angels around God’s throne in Isaiah 6:2, 6 are called the plural seraphim. This might indicate the bright appearance of the angels, but I believe it suggests the particular ministerial function of these angels to purge uncleanness from prophets by fire, so that the prophet may speak clearly God’s word, as the seraph is described as taking a coal from the altar and touching Isaiah’s lips.
In Isaiah 14:29 and 30:6, seraph is used twice to indicate a fiery (seraph) flying serpent (seraph).
For our particular interest, seraph is used interchangeably in Numbers 21 with the other word meaning snake
Nachash, נָחָשׁ, from the root Nhsh.
There are several words that are derivatives of this primitive root word used in the OT:
Nehushtan, phonetically nehushtān. The only instance that occurs in the Bible is in 2 Kings 18:4[1]
Ne hōshet and ne hūshā mean brazen, brass, bronze. Ne hōshet and ne hūshā occur 140 times. This is the word for copper, bronze, brass or brazen, fiery or bright. This is used for a thing and the appearance of a thing and a corresponding moral quality.
The metaphorical use of the word is our concern here. We can sum this up wonderfully by quoting James A. Patch in the ISBE:
“Brass,” naturally, is used in Scripture as the symbol of what is firm, strong, lasting; hence, “gates of brass” (Ps 107:16) [negative. Probably referring to Babylon’s pagan strength, God has broken it], “hoofs of brass” (Mic 4:13) [positive, Holy strength], “walls of brass” (Jeremiah is made as a “brazen wall,” Jer 1:18; 15:20) [positive, righteous steadfastness], “mountains of brass” (Da 2:35, the Macedonian empire; the arms of ancient times were mostly of bronze) [neutral, descriptive of power]. It becomes a symbol, therefore, of hardness, obstinacy, insensibility, in sin, as “brow of brass” (Isa 48:4) [sin, negative]; “they are brass and iron” (Jer 6:28, of the wicked) [negative, sinful stubbornness]; “all of them are brass” (Eze 22:18, of Israel)[ negative, sin].
Nāhash, divination
We must keep in mind that the original Hebrew had only 22 consonants and no vowels. The Massorites in the Middle Ages added vowels and vowel pointing to distinguish between Hebrew words that were identical but used for completely different things.
This is probably nowhere more true when we realize that among the four words above the Hebrew word nhsh, the root of them all, is identical for “snake” as it is for “divination.” When they uttered “snake” they also uttered “diviner” or “divination,” only the context determining its meaning. In English we do the same thing. The word “poke” means both to jab someone with something and to travel slowly. We know the difference by the context in which it is used. If we were studying English 2,000 years later, after it passed out of existence, and without any dictionaries to tell us what words mean, we don’t conclude a vital connection between the two concepts just because they are represented by the same word. However, because they are the same word we must assume it is a good possibility. It can be shown by context that “poke” has a completely different meaning according to context. But for a word like “rabbit,” which means a certain animal and its quick running speed, the vital connection is apparent by context and apparent connections: “You are a rabbit!” obviously means speed, not an animal, because everyone knows that people are not animals but can possess the quickness of a rabbit.
Now, as for snake and divination, we are not so fortunate to rely either upon context or apparent connections. If there is a vital connection between snake and divination, which we hold as a distinct possibility because of the identical word, we know that there is going to be some vital connections between two dissimilar things that were perhaps clear to an ancient culture that are not obvious to us. If the Hebrews were able to study twenty-first-century English, “pig” might be known easily to mean “filthy” because that would resonate with them as well. Also by context, they would know one thing is like the other if the context is about sexual impertinence. But if “pig” were used to be equivalent to male “chauvinism,” this would not jump out at you in the context, and would be extremely difficult for them to grasp given that culture’s respect for males and without some knowledge of the historical setting of the women’s movement.
Therefore, if there is a vital connection between snake and divination to the Hebrews that the same word might suggest, we use context and history, and set aside our cultural and theological biases.
This leads us into a discussion of divination and its relation to the serpent. We find that, like the serpent, it is a good thing and a bad thing.
We know full well about the evil side. 1 Kings 11:7 says that Solomon built a high place before Jerusalem for the worship of Molech (presumably on the Mount of Olives). In reference to King Manasseh, 2 Kings 21:6 says he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: “He wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.”
But there is another, good form of divination, just as we find a concept of the good serpent in Scripture:
Arrows [A3] (belomancy, rhabdomancy) were apparently widespread in Mesopotamia and used by the ancient Arabs to divine hidden wisdom, a practice that Mohammed allegedly prohibited.
The cup (scyphomancy) and water (hydromantia). This refers to water gazing (Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Egyptians). Kittos mentions that this was more prevalent in the east. Examples are the Persian cup of Jimshid, and Nestor’s cup (from Homer), and many accounts and legends, as late as Tippo Saib in India against the British, who is said to have consulted the cup during the heat of battle, and then suddenly rush out into the fray to meet his death.
Dreams (esp. Egypt) and their interpretations are rife in ancient literature. I mention Tummuz, Gilgamesh and Enkidu, Kessi the Hunter in Hittite literature, the dream of Xerxes, and Gudea.
The staff (rhabdomancy: the Egyptian sorcerers,) I will detail shortly.
Foretelling and forthtelling, called prophecy. Among the pagans there are too many examples to mention. It was present in Canaan and shown by Balaam before the Hebrews entered the land.
The pagans added many others, including hepatoscopy[A4] , divination by the liver, by smoke, clouds, and birds (augury). This is hardly an attempt at a comprehensive list.
The AV has enchanter for Nāhash among a fairly comprehensive list of sins of the same kind, as described in Deuteronomy 18:10–11:
“There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination (qecem), or an observer of times (`anan), or an enchanter (nachash), or a witch (kashaph), Or a charmer (khaw-bar), or a consulter with familiar spirits (‘owb), or a wizard (yiddehonee‘), or a necromancer (combination of daw-rash‘, consulter, and mooth, kill or die).”
Some scholars believe that this is a technical list of specialized methods of divination. Others believe that these are synonyms.[2] I am certain, however, that there is a lot of obscurity to these terms.
Causing one’s children to pass through the fire is Molech worship, probably to induce the god to answer an important prayer. Scholars are divided as to the etymology of the name “Molech.”[3] Some give it the meaning “king”; others say it refers to a certain god or religion of Canaan. Many scholars make it synonymous with Chemosh, Ba’al, and many other names among the Moabites, Edomites, and Amorites. What is important here is that there is no conception of ancient pagan religion without divination, and, is often accompanied by sexual sin or blood sacrifice.
The “observer of times” literally means “to cover,” or use covert arts. “Witch” might be “one who pretended to cure diseases or to procure some desired result, by means of nostrums and philtres” (quackery). “Charmer” is one who casts spells. “Wizard” means “knowing one” or “wise one.” Necromancers are those who call up the dead.[4]
The two I left out are the enchanter and the consulter of familiar spirits.
Enchanter is literally those consonants nhsh, the word used for the “general term descriptive of the various illusionary arts anciently practiced for the discovery of things secret or future.”[5] It does not seem likely that this is not used here as a technical term for ophiomancy of some sort, which is divination by serpents, since the word is literally “serpent.” Ophiomancy was snake charming and divination by snakes through watching their movements and otherwise using them as oracles. It is well known that the serpent was regarded as a divine source of wisdom.
Interesting about this word owb is that it is an Egyptian derivation for the word for female serpent.[6] In fact, the very mainstream Pulpit Commentary notes that the word means “one who asks or inquires of an Ob,” that is, a python or divining spirit. The witch of Endor that Saul consulted in 1 Samuel 28:7 is literally a “serpent woman.”
I point these out only to stress the prominence that the Hebrews gave the snake in their conception of divination. It might be reasonable to assume that if one animal emblem were used to signify divination, it would have been the serpent. Given that divination definitely has a bad side to the Hebrews, is there any evidence that divination, and therefore the serpent as a symbol of divination, has a good side to them?
To the conservative biblical reader, this idea of divination being a good thing may already be off-limits because of the above information. But we must remember that divination the idea is different from divination the usual practice. The purest form of divination is prophecy through the prophet, and this office and method of communication with God are not biblically presented as optional to the life of faith for the nation of Israel. The idea of prophecy is at the root of all these divinatory practices—something man does and is done to Man in the discovery and promulgation of the secret knowledge of God. We know that false prophecy and the prophetic were part of a divinatory sin, but certainly not prophecy and the prophets of Israel.
Having established that the Hebrews were probably not using the words divination and serpent in mutually exclusive ways, but that when they thought “serpent” they thought divination and when they said “divination” they were likely to think of the serpent, this would so far only suggest that they might have thought of them as metonymies of something negative, and then something negative only in a general sense of divination. But did they consider an aspect of divination as something good, and would it be reasonable for us to assume that when they thought of divination they thought of it in its purest representational form, such as the prophetic?
To see if they perhaps thought of the serpent concept as also having a good divinatory application in its purest form, we now must see if divination contains a good side for the Hebrews.
The TWOT[7] has divination as: “Lean by experience, diligently observe, divine, practice divination or fortunetelling, take as an omen.”
The Webster’s of 1828 seems to have a good definition of divination: “Foretelling future events, or discovering things secret by the aid of superior beings, or other than human means.”
David. E. Aune makes the crucial distinction between magic and divination here. Magic does not necessarily presuppose God or a pantheon of deities. Divination does. Divination seeks to discover the future, while magic seeks to influence the future or manipulate it. Divinations “presuppose a form of cosmic harmony whereby the divine elements and aspects of the material and spiritual universe form an interrelated whole.” The divination approved by that Bible is accepted because of the doctrine of God that sees Him as sovereign in the affairs of men and nature.[8]
In fact, we find biblical characters using several forms of divination without any hint of sin.
In Genesis 30:27, Laban tells Jacob that she has “learned by experience” (נִחַ֕שְׁתִּי ) that God has blessed her for his sake. “Learned by experience” is a way for the translator to avoid the obvious meaning of Nāhash here, (the same word used for the serpent of Genesis 3;1), which would in context mean that she learned by a form of divination, probably omens.
In Genesis 44:5, Jacob tells his steward to accuse his brothers of stealing his silver cup by saying, “Is not this it in which my lord drinketh, and whereby indeed he divineth (nāhash)?” In v. 15, Jacob addressed the men who have been brought back: “What deed is this that ye have done? wot ye not that such a man as I can certainly divine (nāhash)?” He speaks as a diviner of hidden truths by the cup. This is hydromancy, the art of divining by gazing into water.
Of all the places in the Hebrew text where we find Nāhash, these are the only ones where examples are given of it being practiced by certain individuals. All other occurrences mention it in a list of divining sins or use it in a neutral way.
The lot was used as a sanctioned form of divination. In fact, the Ummim and Thummin, which mean “lights and perfections,” and as far as we can tell, two stones on the breastplate of the High Priest. To know the will of God through either of them was done through posing questions, with one or the other stone presumably changing color in answer. This is mentioned as one of three ways Saul was expected to be answered by God in 1 Samuel 28:6—dreams, prophets, or Urim. It is obvious that in Judges 1:2 and 20:18 the Thummin and Urim were being consulted.
The lot was used outside the Urim and Thummin as well. In Joshua 14:12 the lot was used to divide the Promised Land by tribe.
In Proverbs 16:33, Solomon says, “The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.” Solomon had ample opportunity to condemn this form of divination, yet he obviously thought that it was not the form of divination that was most important, but what God spoke through it.
Elisha told Joash to shoot arrows as a sign of his faith in victory over the Syrians in 2 Kings 13:17. He shot three arrows, and Elisha rebuked him for not shooting more, as now he would only have three victories.
In Deuteronomy 18, we have the famous passage where God declares His list of divination sins and immediately gives Israel His approved replacement for them: prophecy and His appointed prophet:
Deuteronomy 18:14–16: “For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so to do. The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.”
If divination is a method of discerning the will of the divine, God is converting a false form of divination, for false deities, to a good form of divination, ending in the ultimate revelation of God in the Messiah.
It is also interesting that Daniel, for his skill in dream interpretation, was put in charge of all the sorcerers and magicians of Babylon. A strange thing if God did not intend to convert pagan divination into divine divination.
We also see this connection taking place with Balaam, the pagan prophet for hire.
In Deuteronomy 24:1, the Bible says that Balaam saw that God was going to bless the children of Israel, and he, therefore, did not go to seek enchantments concerning them, but “set his face toward the wilderness” to view their encampment. The spirit of the Lord then came upon him. In v. 3, his “eyes are opened” and he prophesied.
In 23:3, Balaam says to Balak: “Surely there is no enchantment against Jacob, neither is there any divination against Israel: according to this time it shall be said of Jacob and of Israel, What hath God wrought!” This is good divination, a prophecy from God, from the mouth of a converted pagan prophet. It is therefore not divination that God condemns, but unsanctioned divination and prophecy.
We see the same in God’s command to prohibit the making of images in Exodus 20:4–5. God commanded the making of the cherubim over the Ark of the Covenant. He commanded the making and erecting of the brazen serpent. In fact, all the furniture of the ceremonial law was accounted for in Exodus 25:40: And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount. The word for “pattern” is the same word (tab-neeth) used in Deuteronomy 14:16–18 for idols (male or female, bird, fish).
In Deuteronomy 18:10, God wards against the sin of false divination. In 1 Samuel 15:23, Samuel rebukes Saul for disobeying the Word of the Lord, and calls this the same as the sin not of divination, but of false and prohibited divination. Given that Samuel was God’s diviner, his ministry as a prophet was, therefore, delivering good, true prophetic utterances to Israel, and the “Word of the Lord” is always a divine command with a foretelling of events. This sin of divination is a sin equivalent to false prophecy. Jeremiah 14:4 uses the word again as a lying prophetic vision but does not, of course, condemn prophetic vision in general. The same is in Ezekiel 13:6,23 and 21:21, which is a condemnation of false divination or prophecy by various means.
It is God’s prophetic form of divination that is our focus, which is quite different from pagan prophecy.
Prophecy and prophetism were not new to the Hebrews. “All of the extra-biblical evidence indicates that prophetic activity existence elsewhere in the ancient near east both before and during the biblical period, and some scholars have therefore suggested that prophecy originated on the periphery of the Mesopotamia, in Canaan, or even in Egypt…” [9]
Whether or not it was a cultural inheritance from other nations is unimportant. We find God constantly using culture, as much as He would use the present language and not speak in a difficult or unintelligible one, as a means of communicating eternal things, things that are crucial. There are, however, sharp distinctions to be made.
“In contrast to foreign prophecies, divination was not an approved method of prophetic communication in Israel, and the prophet’s function was not focused on preserving or supporting cultic and royal institutions. Foreign prophecies did not use God’s holiness and justice as their criteria for measuring society; nor was Israel’s privileged covenant relationship with God paralleled in other Nations.”[10]
Henry Wace adds that “the experience of the Jews is in this respect unique. Other nations had great hopes in the future and have indulged in visions of a great destiny, at least for a time. But no other nation had its whole existence and its whole career based upon a specific promise, which enabled in compelled it to look forward to a definite destiny.”[11] Most importantly, “Jewish and Christian prophecies carry with it the evident marks of its validity.”[12] One boils down to incidental fluff, the other reaching far past its own time, its many and all too evident fulfillments changing the world.
Of the many forms of divination, we must keep in mind that the prophetic-type prophecy and the prophet lies at the heart of the basic concept. The prophet is the one who divines, and the information obtained is prophetic. The purest form of prophet is ordained by God alone, where his ordination or the ordination of the founding prophet in his line of prophetism accompanies miraculous signs. The purest method of the prophet is that without the aid of a device or an outward sign or talisman, but divine information is placed directly into the mind of man or man is directly visited by God Himself or His messenger. The purest form of prophecy as information are those which are not of a practical or selfish application, pertain to spiritual mysteries, become historically, verifiably fulfilled, and especially those which become fulfilled hundreds of years after its pronouncement in a miraculous way.[13]
I must also point out that not only is the prophetic the root concept in divination, but knowledge (of the divine). Knowledge is neither good nor bad, and neither of these judgments come immediately to mind when we think of the concept. If we were to think of “knowledge” in a specific context, such as in a religious one, we are obliged to think of good and bad religious knowledge. If we spend any time thinking about it further, it can then split again into, for example, good or bad religious knowledge represented by a certain type or fact. The word symbol “knowledge” and its general concept do not change, but its signification has split.
Given that “serpent” may have denoted a general conception of divination, much like the word itself, we have reason to believe so far that “serpent” may have indicated in the minds of the Hebrews both good and bad divination, particularly of knowledge through the prophetic type. What seals the deal is if the serpent might have had not only the denotation of good or bad prophetic divination but good or bad knowledge or wisdom. Then we have a symbol that is more three-dimensional, that can be used to represent not only wrong and right practice and office of religious knowledge, but a precise bad or good fact of religious knowledge.
What did the animal “serpent” denote?
The word Nāhāsh for serpent is first simply a general one for snake, venomous or non-venomous.
This word occurs 31 times in the Bible and is prominent theologically; the church has given it much more attention than the other two words. Much of our moral discernment, however, is probably influenced more by a personal, visceral revulsion at the sight or thought of a snake, not its plain biblical symbolism, which is something bad as well as good. The reality of the serpent is often not in accord with the reality of the serpent in biblical symbolism either. In reality, there are far more harmless species of snake than there are poisonous. It is also a fact that serpents, in general, do far more good for humanity than they do bad, as snakes eat all kinds of vermin that would overrun us without their help. I make the point in a previous book that the indiscriminate killing of any snake on sight actually increases the chance of someone being bitten by a poisonous snake in regions where the two are present. Since many non-poisonous snakes prey upon poisonous ones, and there are far more species and numbers of non-poisonous snakes, chances are you are killing a harmless one, meaning that a major predator of the dangerous species is being removed[A5].
Genesis 3 is the first mention of a serpent with a corresponding sentient and moral character. This is our first clue to its symbolism as knowledge to the Hebrews, making it apparent that they had a more realistic idea of the serpent than we do, as well as a more realistic and theologically accurate view of knowledge than we do.
“Serpent” in Genesis is a symbol for Satan[14] in disguise, or simply a representation for a lying beast that is like Satan. That is, the serpent is the symbol of a person who acts with intelligence but immorally applied knowledge. In Genesis, this serpent is conventionally a negative image to remain throughout the Bible for both the serpent and its moral signification, especially in any respect to knowledge, but it does not work out that way.
This Serpent in Genesis 3:1, the Nāhash, is taken among some scholars an upright, intelligent being similar to a human, such as with Dr. Michale Heiser. He points out that the word merely describes the being as a “shining one.” In Isaiah 14: 12-15, Satan is called “the shining one, Son of the Dawn.” Divine beings are described elsewhere in the OT as shining, as in Daniel 10.[15]
Of course, this is just another example of how difficult it is to deny all of the plain meanings of the appearance of the Nāhash that are at play in the Hebrew conception of the serpent, at least for innuendo and wordplay. More certainly, it stresses the convertibility of good and bad for “shining” as applied to divine beings. This takes care of the appearance of the Nāhash. What can we also gather about a possibly exchangeable idea of knowledge that occupies the spirit of the Nāhash?
The Nāhash is described as also “subtil” (aw-room). The word is used in the KJV for “crafty” in the negative sense in Job 5:12 and 15:5. It is also translated as the effect of prudence, in Proverbs 12:16, for example: “A fool’s wrath is presently known: but a prudent man covereth shame.” The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way, but the folly of fools is deceit. In 13:6, Solomon says the prudent man is one who deals in knowledge of the good kind, but the foolish one deals in deceit. In 14:18, he says again the prudent are “crowned with knowledge.” The idea of this cunning and prudence, or subtlety, is an intelligence in the use of knowledge for the purpose of obtaining by some form of stealth the desired end.
We, therefore, have many more verses in the positive than in the negative for aw-room. It is the word for intelligence, knowledgeableness, and wisdom. Why Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary says it is usually in the bad sense we can only wonder. Of course, in the context of Genesis 3:1, it certainly refers to the bad kind as associated with the serpent, but is this consistent throughout the Bible?
The “prudent” thing for us to do is expect the serpent to be portrayed both negatively and positively in Scripture as a symbol of a minister of good knowledge or bad knowledge—good knowledge being that transcendent and from God, bad knowledge from Satan or only of the natural reason or world.
We all know that nāhāsh, as a certain animal, is overwhelmingly a bad thing biblically and we don’t have to prove this point. It is only necessary to show the times when this does not always apply to the serpent when its character is mentioned.
In Genesis 49:17, Jacob prophesies that Dan will be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward. Matthew Poole represents most expositors on this as ascribing a positive characteristic of Dan in the future. He notes the subtlety of that tribe, which should conquer their enemies more by craft and cunning than by strength or force of arms.
In Exodus 4:3 and 7:15, Nāhāsh is the serpent that God made of Moses’ staff.
Job 26:13 has it as one of the animals God made, the “crooked serpent.” The Hebrew word for crooked is bariyach, which means “fugitive” or “fleeing.” It is here just another swift animal that God created.
In Isaiah 14:4 we have: “Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.” This serpent is almost unanimously said to refer to King Uzziah.
Christ explicitly ascribes a good sense to the serpent in respect to knowledge when He says in Matthew 10:16 to be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” This is a strange expression for a people who considered the serpent the emblem only of evil or bad religious knowledge.
Most importantly, in Numbers 21 nāhāsh were biting the people and nāhāsh was the image that Moses made that the people were to look to for healing. This is here both for evil and Christ, as Jesus explicitly says in John 3:14, “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.”
In antiquity, the serpent was regarded as a general symbol for divine wisdom. We have to understand that although is hard for us to separate the object from the law, or the serpent from a certain theologically advantageous signification, it is not hard to see that the Jews, and God, borrowed the serpent imagery from the local culture, which stood for the good and the bad, and applied it to their own use.
We see this first with the Egyptians, which was Moses’ heritage. Acts 7:22 says that Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. The word Sophia is used for higher or lower, natural or spiritual wisdom. In context, we can assume that Phillip was referring to Egyptian religious/spiritual wisdom.
All of the pharaohs of Egypt wore the Ureaus, the crown of the unification of upper and lower Egypt. On the crown was the serpent goddess Wadjet, literally “the green one.” She represented resurrection, life, and health, particularly of plant life. Also called “the eye of Re,” Wadjet spat fire at attackers and guarded the crops and the tombs.[16]
Apap was the evil serpent, the devourer of souls. Apap (Apophis) daily attacks the boat of Re, which he seeks to overturn as the sun passes over the heavens. Re’s companion was the good serpent Mehen, who attacks and slays Apap daily.
The serpent is the symbol of the Knowledge of Good and Evil at the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in Genesis. Rene Guenon and Angus Macnab make these comments:
“The serpent is most commonly associated with the ‘Tree of Knowledge,’ in which case it is regarded under its maleficent aspect: in fact symbols often have two opposed meanings, as had been shown elsewhere. The serpent that represents life must not be confused with the one representing death, nor the serpent that is a symbol of Christ with the one symbolizing Satan. It may be added that the relationship of these two contrary aspects is not without a certain likeness to that of the ‘tree of Life’ and the Tree of Knowledge.”’[17]
Animals when used in a moral sense are always symbols for people, both good and bad.
Any animal symbol that will be chosen to stand for a sentient trait will be chosen because of its behaviorally or morphological qualities that resemble a sentient or divine trait. The serpent sheds its skin, which is analogous to resurrection. It flies gracefully along the ground without legs, like the heavenly host. It waits patiently and intelligently in a strategic location for its prey. Most snake species need only eat once per year, appearing more independent of its body as the angels On the other hand, the poisonous species bite and can kill people. It appears reclusive and secretive, like Satan. It signifies both quite easily. Our focus is to uncover the biblical context in each instance.
[1] (Harris, Archer and Waltke 1980)
[2]“The variety of OT words used for “divination,” together with the inconsistent ways in which modern versions translate these terms, indicates that the Hebrew terms are essentially synonyms and not descriptive forms or aspects of the practice of divination in ancient Israel.” IIBE, Bromley.
[3] The rabbis (Rashi) tell that Molech was represented as a brazen calf with outstretched arms. A fire would be lit under it and the worshipers gave their children as offerings to the god by placing it in the red-hot arms. Many have surmised that Molech was the equivalent of Saturn, who devoured his children. Tertullian (Chapter 9, Apology) says that there was a cult of Saturn in Africa that the Roman army put down. It seems that this type of religion was too much even for the Romans.
[4] (Spence and Excell 1950)
[5] (Kitto, A Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature 1870) See the original, two-volume edition under “divination.”
[6] (Howey 1900)
[7] (Harris, Archer and Waltke 1980)
[8] (D. Aune 1983)
[9] (Wilson 1996)
[10] (G. V. Smith 1986)
[11] (Wace 1911)
[12] (Buck 1851, 491)
[13] I might also add that the difference between pagan and Hebrew religions is that the pagan religions built divination and the diviner on their religion and the Hebrew religion built their religion on prophecy and the prophet. Not simply the claim of the miraculous, but that which is dependent upon its historical presence; not of the pagan divinatory type but of the pure Hebrew prophetic type. Lord Bolingbrooke made the point that “the miracles of the Bible are not like those in Livy [the Roman historian], dethatched pieces, that do not disturb the civil history, which goes on very well without them. But the miracles of the Jewish Historian are intimately connected with all the civil affairs, and make a necessary and inseparable part. The whole history is founded on them; it consists of little else; and if it were not a history of them, it would be a history of nothing” (brackets mine). The argument was that only civil evidence of history of Israel can be brought in as evidence for the truth of the whole revelation because it is impossible for us to bring in a witness of Moses’ possible impostures in these miracles. Wharburton counters that Israel, as opposed to the pagans, built their religion on the divination of prophecy, not their divination on their religion. Since the pagans built only on rubbish, the only thing that was left of it to the world’s posterity was now and then only a shire or temple. (Wharburton 1811, 19, 48)
[14] Hastings’ Religion and Ethics says the following on the serpent’s connection with Satan: “The connection of the serpent with the devil is nowhere hinted at in the OT, but appears first in the Wis 2:24, and was a rabbinic conception, with profound influence upon Christian and Gnostic thought. The idea of a chaotic force, personified – e.g., as a dragon (Tiamat) – hostile to creative divinities, was more or less combined with this.” (Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 1955)
[15] See his PDF file The Nachash and his Seed at http://www.scribd.com/doc/3972311/Serpent-Seed-Dr-Michael-S-Heiser.
[16] (Lurker, Cummings and Clayton 1986)
[17] (Macnab and Guénon 2001, 57)
This website uses cookies.