Unlocking Genesis 3:1

[Hiddenthings]

The serpent in Genesis 3 was one of the animals of the field created by the Lord God, and like all the others, was pronounced “very good” according to its kind. However, for centuries, it has been mistakenly claimed that this particular serpent was far more than just a beast, that it was actually the incarnation of an immortal evil spirit. This idea, born from a distorted theology, assigns the serpent the biblical titles “Satan” and “Devil,” treating these names as proper nouns referring to an immortal individual, something quite foreign to how the Spirit of God uses these terms in Scripture.

A recent example of this popular misunderstanding is found in Appendix No. 19 of the first part of The Companion Bible, titled “The Serpent of Genesis 3.” The anonymous author attempts to defend the common view with flawed arguments spanning about two pages of small print. He first assumes the existence of an immortal Devil and Satan, then retrofits Revelation 20 back to Genesis 3 to argue that the serpent there is the same being. @Aunty Jane

Examining the word independently, we find it does not support this theory. Nachash is the common Hebrew term for “serpent,” appearing 31 times in the Old Testament, and it relates not to shining but to hissing, a snake’s defining characteristic. Jeremiah 46:22 speaks of a voice like a serpent (nachash), and Isaiah 29:4 makes a similar comparison. Gesenius’ Hebrew Lexicon explains that nachash is an onomatopoetic root, imitating the low hissing sound of a serpent and also connected with whispering or muttering, often associated with sorcery and divination. This aligns naturally with the serpent in Genesis 3: a cunning deceiver who misleads through subtle lies, embodying the true meaning of “satan” (adversary) and “devil” (false accuser).

Looking further at the serpent imagery in the Old Testament, besides the hissing sound, serpents are characterized by their length, venomous (burning and deadly) bite, and twisting or coiling motion. The Hebrew language reflects this with several words for serpent, including:

• Tannin: Meaning “stretching out” or “extended,” referring to the serpent’s long shape. It also means “whale,” “dragon,” or “sea monster,” appearing 14 times and being the most common after nachash.
• Saraph: Meaning “burning one,” applied to venomous serpents because of their burning bite, probably referring to the cerastes species mentioned in Numbers 21. The bronze serpent Moses made was a nachash (serpent) of brass, symbolizing Christ lifted up on the cross, a sinless human who suffered in place of humanity. However, the seraphim in Isaiah 6 are angelic beings and not to be confused with fiery serpents or the mythic “devil” figure of Christianity. These are symbols of righteous judgment, not immortal devils.
• Other words like pethen (asp, adder), shephiphon, tziphoni, tzepha, and epheh all relate to serpents and derive from roots meaning “to hiss” or “to blow.”

None of these words hint at the serpent being a supernatural devil in serpent form, or explain why human opposition is called “the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan.” Such meanings must be discerned from the broader Scriptures themselves.

To the objection that Eve could not have conversed with a snake, the reply is: neither could we easily conceive of Balaam speaking with his donkey, yet Scripture records it. Paul references Genesis 3 in 2 Corinthians 11:3, warning that just as the serpent beguiled Eve with subtlety, so too can false teachers corrupt believers. He attributes the serpent’s cunning not to an immortal, superhuman devil, but to deceitful men who imitate the original serpent’s subtle lies.

Let everyone be cautious about the serious consequences of misidentifying this figure.

 

[Hiddenthings]

“The serpent was more cunning than any other beast of the field that Yahweh Elohim had made.”

This quality of cunning, shrewdness, or wisdom is even praised by the Lord Jesus, who instructed His disciples to be “as wise as serpents” (Matt. 10:16). Thus, at this point, like all other parts of creation, the serpent was considered “very good” (Gen 1:31).

ʻârûwm, aw-room'; passive participle of H6191; cunning (usually in a bad sense):—crafty, prudent, subtil.

Why create such an animal in the first place?

And why do those who believe in fallen angels feel the need to impose the idea of evil spirit possession onto a creature that was clearly capable, on its own of presenting an alternative, carnal way of thinking to Eve?

I believe the answers to these questions may lead the believer toward conclusions that could feel quite uncomfortable.

“And you shall remember the whole way that the Lord your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, that he might humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not.” Deut 8:2

I wonder if you have eyes to see and ears to hear?

 

[dak]

The serpent in Genesis 3 was one of the animals of the field created by the Lord God, and like all the others, was pronounced “very good” according to its kind.

The beasts of the field are found in the natural creation story, Genesis 2, not Genesis 1, specifically Genesis 2:19-20. The field is never mentioned in Genesis 1. That which is natural comes first: then that which is spiritual, Paul expounds in 1 Cor 15 the fact that you have the the actual order of the first two chapters of Genesis in the wrong order, (and it's written that way intentionally for critically important reasons).

1 Corinthians 15:42-47 ASV
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
45 So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. [Gen 2:7] The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: [Gen 2:7] the second man is of heaven. [Gen 1:26-28]

The Psalm of David which is quoted from in multiple paces in the N/T proves this fact.

Psalm 86:4-8 ASV
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him? [Heb 2:6]
5 For thou hast made him but little lower than God, [Elohim-Angels] And crownest him with glory and honor. [Heb 2:7]
6 Thou makest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; [Gen 1:26-28] Thou hast put all things under his feet: [1Cor 15:25-27, Eph 1:22, Heb 2:8]
7 All sheep and oxen, Yea, and the beasts of the field, [Gen 1:26-28]
8 The birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, Whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. [Gen 1:26-28]

So no, the serpent was never called good, and certainly not very good. Moreover the Son of Man is right there in Gen 1, which means that the natural man, (Gen 2:7), died and was re-created into the image of Elohim.

H1254 ברא bara' ~ literally to cut down as in the sense of cutting down trees to make a house, (Joshua 17:15-18).

Isaiah 45:7-8
7 I form the light, and cut-down darkness: I make peace, and cut-down evil: I YHWH do all these things.
8 Drop down, O heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open up, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I YHWH have cut-down-created it.

This is important for what follows:

Isaiah 45:13 OG-LXX
13 εγω ηγειρα αυτον μετα δικαιοσυνης βασιλεα και πασαι αι οδοι αυτου ευθειαι ουτος οικοδομησει την πολιν μου και την αιχμαλωσιαν του λαου μου επιστρεψει ου μετα λυτρων ουδε μετα δωρων ειπεν κυριος σαβαωθ

εγω ηγειρα αυτον μετα δικαιοσυνης βασιλεα ~ I raised him up with the King of Righteousness

Isaiah 45:12-13
12 I have made the earth, and cut-down Adam upon it: I, even My hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
13 I have raised him up with the King of Righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build My city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, says YHWH Tzabaoth.

The Most High raised up Adam with the King of Righteousness, His Son, and indeed: it was and is very good, and because of this we know that the holy seed-line in Genesis 5 is spiritual, (and probably the beginning of the Lamb's Book of Life).

 

[Hiddenthings]

So no, the serpent was never called good, and certainly not very good. Moreover the Son of Man is right there in Gen 1, which means that the natural man, (Gen 2:7), died and was re-created into the image of Elohim.

I had to sift through quite a bit to reach your main point.

Yes, God created the serpent, and it was part of the creation narrative. Just like the first man and woman, the serpent was included in what God called "very good" (Gen 1:31).

However, the introduction of sin changed that. It stripped all created things of their "very good" status.

As Paul writes in Romans 8:22: “For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.”

 

[Hiddenthings]

So no, the serpent was never called good, and certainly not very good. Moreover the Son of Man is right there in Gen 1, which means that the natural man, (Gen 2:7), died and was re-created into the image of Elohim.

I’d be genuinely interested to understand your motives for holding this position, especially since it clearly doesn’t align with Scripture. Are you simply trying to defend a particular belief or bias? If so, just be upfront about it.

 

[dak]

I had to sift through quite a bit to reach your main point.

Yes, God created the serpent, and it was part of the creation narrative. Just like the first man and woman, the serpent was included in what God called "very good" (Gen 1:31).

However, the introduction of sin changed that. It stripped all created things of their "very good" status.

As Paul writes in Romans 8:22: “For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.”

Yes, of course, your word overrules the scripture: why am I not surprised?

 

[dak]

I’d be genuinely interested to understand your motives for holding this position, especially since it clearly doesn’t align with Scripture. Are you simply trying to defend a particular belief or bias? If so, just be upfront about it.

You already have the scripture I quoted and my commentary to refute: pretending like you sifted through it all and then showing the whole board that you didn't isn't much baffling to me either at this point. Moreover, knowing pretty much what your response would be, who says my reply was only for you?

The scripture proves you to be in error until you prove that the things I've already posted and commented on are incorrect. Like it or lump it that is the way it is and how it stands.

 

[XtraPercept]

The serpent in Genesis 3 was one of the animals of the field created by the Lord God...

If I told you "The man in red with a 'stache of glory will defeat the terror turtle," you will have little hope of clarity if you have not played a Mario game. This is akin to Scripture. Without the guiding light of the Master and His Spirit within, the meaning of words cannot be fully and accurately defined. That is, in the absence of His holy experience, the words remain opaque and interpretations are guesses.

But this is as the Master desires. His obscurity is His design. The propensity of men to wrest their own meaning from the words of God is as He intended. Only delusion would suggest that the God of all creation is somehow limited in His capacities in any regard. He is the Master of all things and everything and nothing can stand in opposition to Him.

The serpent is a metaphor in Genesis 3. The information is there, the story is there, even the details are there, but for how the truth is construed among the wicked, it remains concealed just below the surface for His elect to uncover by His guiding sensations. Upon these revelations, He instructs His elect, and as He said to Peter, 'if you love Me, feed My sheep.'

The details of the fall are as they are for the shame of the perversion involved. The metaphor obscures gross iniquity and preserves a degree of the dignity of the first man and his wife. These elements are not the milk of the word. They are for something else.

Those who would seek forbidden knowledge will never have it because they reject the knowledge freely offered for salvation. Upon salvation, the Holy Spirit brings all knowledge as needed. Seek His promises, learn each one, and then pursue them with every fiber of your being. They are all true and more glorious than the fallen mind can begin to imagine.

 

[Exegesis]

Moreover the Son of Man is right there in Gen 1, which means that the natural man, (Gen 2:7), died and was re-created into the image of Elohim.

Interesting. Do you interpret first man that dies as being created on the third day and recreated on the sixth?

 

[CTK]

The serpent in Genesis 3 was one of the animals of the field created by the Lord God, and like all the others, was pronounced “very good” according to its kind. However, for centuries, it has been mistakenly claimed that this particular serpent was far more than just a beast, that it was actually the incarnation of an immortal evil spirit. This idea, born from a distorted theology, assigns the serpent the biblical titles “Satan” and “Devil,” treating these names as proper nouns referring to an immortal individual, something quite foreign to how the Spirit of God uses these terms in Scripture.

A recent example of this popular misunderstanding is found in Appendix No. 19 of the first part of The Companion Bible, titled “The Serpent of Genesis 3.” The anonymous author attempts to defend the common view with flawed arguments spanning about two pages of small print. He first assumes the existence of an immortal Devil and Satan, then retrofits Revelation 20 back to Genesis 3 to argue that the serpent there is the same being. @Aunty Jane

Examining the word independently, we find it does not support this theory. Nachash is the common Hebrew term for “serpent,” appearing 31 times in the Old Testament, and it relates not to shining but to hissing, a snake’s defining characteristic. Jeremiah 46:22 speaks of a voice like a serpent (nachash), and Isaiah 29:4 makes a similar comparison. Gesenius’ Hebrew Lexicon explains that nachash is an onomatopoetic root, imitating the low hissing sound of a serpent and also connected with whispering or muttering, often associated with sorcery and divination. This aligns naturally with the serpent in Genesis 3: a cunning deceiver who misleads through subtle lies, embodying the true meaning of “satan” (adversary) and “devil” (false accuser).

Looking further at the serpent imagery in the Old Testament, besides the hissing sound, serpents are characterized by their length, venomous (burning and deadly) bite, and twisting or coiling motion. The Hebrew language reflects this with several words for serpent, including:

• Tannin: Meaning “stretching out” or “extended,” referring to the serpent’s long shape. It also means “whale,” “dragon,” or “sea monster,” appearing 14 times and being the most common after nachash.
• Saraph: Meaning “burning one,” applied to venomous serpents because of their burning bite, probably referring to the cerastes species mentioned in Numbers 21. The bronze serpent Moses made was a nachash (serpent) of brass, symbolizing Christ lifted up on the cross, a sinless human who suffered in place of humanity. However, the seraphim in Isaiah 6 are angelic beings and not to be confused with fiery serpents or the mythic “devil” figure of Christianity. These are symbols of righteous judgment, not immortal devils.
• Other words like pethen (asp, adder), shephiphon, tziphoni, tzepha, and epheh all relate to serpents and derive from roots meaning “to hiss” or “to blow.”

None of these words hint at the serpent being a supernatural devil in serpent form, or explain why human opposition is called “the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan.” Such meanings must be discerned from the broader Scriptures themselves.

To the objection that Eve could not have conversed with a snake, the reply is: neither could we easily conceive of Balaam speaking with his donkey, yet Scripture records it. Paul references Genesis 3 in 2 Corinthians 11:3, warning that just as the serpent beguiled Eve with subtlety, so too can false teachers corrupt believers. He attributes the serpent’s cunning not to an immortal, superhuman devil, but to deceitful men who imitate the original serpent’s subtle lies.

Let everyone be cautious about the serious consequences of misidentifying this figure.

God created all things good. But Scripture makes clear that evil entered the creation through choice—not God's design. The serpent, as a symbol of Satan’s intrusion into God's world, is a reminder that even the garden was vulnerable when truth is questioned. Genesis 3 is not about an animal gone rogue. It's about a deeper spiritual rebellion—one that began before Eden andch reached into it. The real danger was not the creature’s form, but the voice it carried. This is not just an animal acting by instinct. Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 later identify the serpent as a manifestation of Satan.

“The great dragon... that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan…”

So while the animal form of the serpent was created good, what spoke through it in Genesis 3 was not part of God’s “very good” creation. Evil had already entered the spiritual realm (likely through the fall of Satan, as inferred in passages like Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14), and now that evil was manifesting in God’s earthly garden.

 

[dak]

Interesting. Do you interpret first man that dies as being created on the third day and recreated on the sixth?

Yom is Light according to the name given to it by Elohim, (Gen 1:5a, "Elohim called the light, Yom", (not Day)). Therefore Yom is the base pattern for every biblical increment of time including an hour. We read in various places different meanings of yom because it is indeed all based on the initial pattern laid out in Gen 1. For example a yom for a day, (most common), but then also a yom-day for a year, and a year for a yom-day, also we find that a thousand years are as one yom, (day), and one yom (day) is as a thousand years with the Master, also, in Psalm 90, (a Psalm of Mosheh), a thousand years are as yesterday when it is past, but also, moreover it follows with, "and as a watch in the night", which is only three hours.

If a yom can be a day, and can also be a year, and can also be a thousand years, and can also be three hours, (a watch in the night), then surely a yom can also be an hour. Gen 1 is the sacred calendar day of the Kohanim, that is, seven yamim-hours in a single yom-day, (and this constitutes the shabuim-yamim week in the time prophecies of Daniel the Prophet, particularly fulfilled in the ministry of the Meshiah, especially in the Gospel of John).

Now, with this background out of the way, as to your question: the seven yamim of Gen 1:1-2:3 may also be understood as seven thousand years, (thousand-year great days), and that is not just going forward, but also quite possibly going backwards, and in that case the fall of Adam would have been in the third yom gadol. In other words, (not viewing the opening Genesis account as being a physical creation of the physical universe but rather something much more important), the man is both formed and falls in the third day, and yes, raised in the preparation for the great Shabbat, which preparation is according to the pattern, the sixth day. Thus, six thousand years from Genesis 1:1 to the re-creation of Adam into the image of Elohim, and about six thousand more years unto the advent of the Meshiah, (LXX genealogical chronology), twelve thousand years from Genesis 1:1 to the advent of the Meshiah in the early first century, (hey, wattaya know, that's the approximate age of Gobekli Tepe).

 

[Hiddenthings]

So no, the serpent was never called good, and certainly not very good. Moreover the Son of Man is right there in Gen 1, which means that the natural man, (Gen 2:7), died and was re-created into the image of Elohim.

Evidence

 

[Hiddenthings]

God created all things good. But Scripture makes clear that evil entered the creation through choice—not God's design. The serpent, as a symbol of Satan’s intrusion into God's world,

You're right, it is symbolic, but the application above is a miss.

Now, as for the debate that’s been ongoing in this forum for the past six weeks: it’s become quite clear that there is no scriptural support for a fallen angel or an evil supernatural being. That idea simply hasn’t stood up to the evidence.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Why create such an animal in the first place?

It's a simple question with a simple answer.

 

[Hiddenthings]

You already have the scripture I quoted and my commentary to refute: pretending like you sifted through it all and then showing the whole board that you didn't isn't much baffling to me either at this point. Moreover, knowing pretty much what your response would be, who says my reply was only for you?

The scripture proves you to be in error until you prove that the things I've already posted and commented on are incorrect. Like it or lump it that is the way it is and how it stands.

dak explain to me in a few words how your post relates to Genesis 3:1 - this shouldn't be too hard.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Yes, of course, your word overrules the scripture: why am I not surprised?

The text is super clear that the Serpent is a created animal - how can this be my word?

 

[XtraPercept]

Evidence

It is in the expression of faith, it's joy, it's exuberance, it's effusiveness for the glory of the truth the resurrected are privy to experience. It's in every word spoken in the certainty of His truth and His promises. It's in the meaning that is understood by those to whom He presents Himself. It is in one's alignment with the Truth Himself, Jesus Christ, and it will show in every regard despite going unrecognized for His power over awareness and perception for His purpose and intent.

 

[Hiddenthings]

The beasts of the field are found in the natural creation story, Genesis 2, not Genesis 1, specifically Genesis 2:19-20. The field is never mentioned in Genesis 1. That which is natural comes first: then that which is spiritual, Paul expounds in 1 Cor 15 the fact that you have the the actual order of the first two chapters of Genesis in the wrong order, (and it's written that way intentionally for critically important reasons).

1 Corinthians 15:42-47 ASV
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
45 So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. [Gen 2:7] The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: [Gen 2:7] the second man is of heaven. [Gen 1:26-28]

The Psalm of David which is quoted from in multiple paces in the N/T proves this fact.

Psalm 86:4-8 ASV
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him? [Heb 2:6]
5 For thou hast made him but little lower than God, [Elohim-Angels] And crownest him with glory and honor. [Heb 2:7]
6 Thou makest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; [Gen 1:26-28] Thou hast put all things under his feet: [1Cor 15:25-27, Eph 1:22, Heb 2:8]
7 All sheep and oxen, Yea, and the beasts of the field, [Gen 1:26-28]
8 The birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, Whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. [Gen 1:26-28]

So no, the serpent was never called good, and certainly not very good. Moreover the Son of Man is right there in Gen 1, which means that the natural man, (Gen 2:7), died and was re-created into the image of Elohim.

H1254 ברא bara' ~ literally to cut down as in the sense of cutting down trees to make a house, (Joshua 17:15-18).

Isaiah 45:7-8
7 I form the light, and cut-down darkness: I make peace, and cut-down evil: I YHWH do all these things.
8 Drop down, O heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open up, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I YHWH have cut-down-created it.

This is important for what follows:

Isaiah 45:13 OG-LXX
13 εγω ηγειρα αυτον μετα δικαιοσυνης βασιλεα και πασαι αι οδοι αυτου ευθειαι ουτος οικοδομησει την πολιν μου και την αιχμαλωσιαν του λαου μου επιστρεψει ου μετα λυτρων ουδε μετα δωρων ειπεν κυριος σαβαωθ

εγω ηγειρα αυτον μετα δικαιοσυνης βασιλεα ~ I raised him up with the King of Righteousness

Isaiah 45:12-13
12 I have made the earth, and cut-down Adam upon it: I, even My hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
13 I have raised him up with the King of Righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build My city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, says YHWH Tzabaoth.

The Most High raised up Adam with the King of Righteousness, His Son, and indeed: it was and is very good, and because of this we know that the holy seed-line in Genesis 5 is spiritual, (and probably the beginning of the Lamb's Book of Life).

Hi @Wick Stick, perhaps you could help clarify Dak's response.

For some reason, we seem to keep clashing, and I’m finding his reply here a bit disconnected from the original post. Am I misunderstanding something, or is his response unrelated?

Thanks

 

[XtraPercept]

Why create such an animal in the first place?

It's a simple question with a simple answer.

In the apocryphal book, the Wisdom of Solomon, we are informed of God creating entirely new creatures in the woods for His purposes, creatures full of rage. Indeed, from this book we get the notion of the basilisk, a creature that kills by the sight of it. Do you really believe we are permitted to know all His ways with such clarity?

 

[Aunty Jane]

Why create such an animal in the first place?

Did God create dangerous animals?....and then use one to ambush the human race?

There were no dangerous animals when God created them....all were vegetarians, so no predators.
Very few creatures will kill for sport....the majority kill only for food.....so when did God change the diet in the animal kingdom? Or did he?
He gave humans permission to eat animal flesh only after Noah exited from the ark. He also instilled a fear of man into them as well. What was the situation before that? Does the Bible tell us?

As a spirit being, an angel can take on human form as the Bible tells us that angels did in the past. If they can take on human form, what is to stop them taking on the form of any other earthly creature?

When a legion of demons were expelled from a man they asked Jesus to send them into a herd of swine....why would they want to do that if the swine hurled themselves off a precipice and were killed?
Can you answer? Who are the demons if the devil is not their leader? It clearly states that the devil has his angels....and all will end up in the lake of fire, which is eternal annihilation.

It's a simple question with a simple answer.

Sometimes an answer is so simple that even a simple mind cannot comprehend what is stated quite clearly.

The Bible is an amazing book and one that can be skewed every which way, but it doesn’t alter the fact that it contains only one truth. God is the only one who can lead us to that truth, sometimes in spite of ourselves.