© James Steidl | 123rf.com

The third chapter of Genesis begins the story of the Fall by asserting that the serpent was craftier than any other beast that the Lord God had made (Genesis 3:1). The term used for crafty—arum—has a fairly wide lexical sense, that includes “shrewd” or “cunning” and “wise” or “prudent.” Positively, it is in Proverbs 14:15, where the prudent one (arum) gives thought to his steps. Negatively, it is in 1 Samul 23:22, when Saul urged the Ziphites to confirm David was still where they last saw him, for he is very cunning (arum). In his commentary on Genesis, Gordon Wenham said while early Jewish and Christian commentators identified the serpent with Satan, there was no other mention of a personal devil in the early parts of the Old Testament; and modern writers don’t think this was the view of the author of Genesis. So why did he say that a snake tempted the woman?

Some scholars look to the creation myths of the ancient Near East. In the ancient Oriental cultures, serpents were symbolic of life, wisdom as well as chaos and death—which are all themes that connect with the narrative of the Fall. The Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish, describes serpents and dragons participating in a violent battle between Tiamat, a primordial goddess, and Marduk Babylon’s deity. Among the gods fighting alongside Tiamat were “monster-serpents, sharp of tooth, unspring of fang … roaring dragons she clothed with terror.” The Lexham Bible Dictionary said, “In the end, Marduk crushes Tiamat’s skull and splits her body in two, in order to form the cosmos.”

In Egyptian texts, serpents have both benevolent and evil powers. Apophis, the mythical serpent and enemy of the sun-god Re, attacked the ritual sailing ship that transported Re across the heavens each night, while Mehen, another serpent, protected Re. Apophis existed in the waters of primeval chaos before creation. He continued to resurface as chaos was repeatedly confronted. The cobra Wadjet was closely linked with the king, defending him from his enemies with its fiery breath.

The Canaanite combat myth of Baal and Anat suggested that Anat and Baal were victorious over the crooked serpent (Lotan, Litan or Leviathan). The defeat of Litan allowed Baal to continue his dominance in the heavens. This in turn resulted in the on-going welfare of Shapash (the sun) and the daily continuation of the sunrise. “Cosmic order was maintained with both the sun (Shapash) and Baal, god of storm and rain, in balance. On the other hand, Litan and Mot were determined to disrupt the cosmic order.” However, this isn’t a sufficient explanation of the serpent’s presence.

In the New Bible Dictionary, Biblical scholar K.A. Kitchen noted after reviewing specific Biblical references to serpents, none of the passages referred to a creation-struggle of deity and monster. “All the serpent-slaying in them is done within an already created world.” Citing Alexander Heidel in The Babylonian Genesis, Kitchen said Tiamat, who Marduk cut in two, has been wrongly said to be a serpent or dragon and therefore gives no support for assuming a struggle of deity and serpent/dragon at creation.

No conclusive proof has yet been found for the idea that Tiamat was a dragon, or a similar being, while against it can be cited the testimony of Berossus and of Enuma Elish to the effect that Tiamat was a woman, the wife of Apsu, and the mother of the gods. Jensen is therefore unquestionably right in his declaration that the supposed dragon-form of Tiamat is “a pure figment of the imagination.” (The Babylonian Genesis, p. 88)

Heidel went on to say Apsu and Tiamat represented not only ancestors of the gods, they represented living, uncreated world-matter. “Apsu was the primeval sweet-water ocean, and Tiamat the primeval salt-water ocean. They were matter and divine spirit united and coexistent, like body and soul.” They contained all the elements from which the universe was made; and from them all the gods and goddesses of the Babylonian-Assyrian pantheon were descended. “In sharp contrast to this, the Book of Genesis speaks of only one divine principle, existing apart from and independently of all cosmic matter.”

Nevertheless, Wenham suggested The Gilgamesh Epic may have played a role. Towards the end of the epic, Gilgamesh is told of a thorny plant at the bottom of the sea that has wonderous powers. He was told by Utnapishtim that if he ate this plant when he reached old age, he would be rejuvenated and become immortal. Gilgamesh descended to the bottom of the sea and obtained the plant. On his return journey, he stopped at a pool of fresh, cold water to bathe. While he was bathing, a serpent came up out of the water, snatched the plant from him and ate it. Thus the serpent gained the power to shed its old skin, and thereby renew its life.

But the serpent of the Hebrew Bible is not the chaos monster of other Near Eastern myths. Further, the biblical serpent lacks a definitive identification as the adversary and devil that appears in the extrabiblical literature of the first centuries BC and AD. According to the Lexham Bible Dictionary, “When readers confront those terms specifically articulated in the context of the apocalyptic, seven-headed ‘dragon’ of Revelation 12, it is evident that further development has occurred.” In the Apocalypse of Moses (1^st century, AD), Eve tells her children how the enemy, the devil, spoke to the serpent and deceived her and Adam. In the Wisdom of Solomon (1^st century, BC) it says while God created us for incorruption, “Through the devil’s envy death entered the world.”

“Through the matrix of Old Testament texts and extrabiblical contexts, the serpent gradually came to function as a metaphor or symbol for Satan.” Wenham noted how within the worldview of the Old Testament, a snake was an obvious candidate as an anti-God symbol. “For any Israelite familiar with the symbolic values of different animals, a creature more likely than a serpent to lead man away from his creator could not be imagined.”

Given the above discussion on the serpent, it should not be a surprise that the Old Testament says very little about Satan. The Hebrew noun sāṭān is often used to describe the character of an action or the role of the person performing it, rather than as a proper name for the character performing the act. “Where it is used to refer to a celestial being, the actions of that being are usually ambiguous and open to interpretation.” In Job, the satanic figure is referred to as “the satan,” with the definite article, indicating the term is understood as a title or office held by the individual, rather than a proper name. According to the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, the satanic figure “clearly works within the parameters established by God.”

The role of the satan is that of an investigator, tester or prosecuting attorney who seeks to probe the character of human beings. In Job the satan describes his activity as “going to and fro on the earth.” When God raises the specter of Job’s blameless character and unblemished devotion to God, the satan responds with doubt about Job’s integrity and the motive for his piety. Then he proposes that Job’s character be tested. An affirmative response from God sets Job’s trial in motion as he is afflicted with a multitude of disasters. When Job maintains his piety after the first onslaught, the satan proposes for him yet another trial, more grievous than the first. After this second trial, which leads into the series of speeches that occupy the center of Job, the satan recedes into the background for the rest of the book.

In Zechariah 3:1-2 the satan is the accuser of the high priest Joshua. Yahweh does rebuke the satan, but it is not clear whether the rebuke is a rejection of the satan himself or of the satan’s accusation of Joshua. As with Job, the character of the satan is ambiguous. But in 1 Chronicles 21:1, Satan (without the definite article) appears as an individual who incites David to conduct a census of Israel. Of the three considered texts, this was the only one where the term satan was used without the definite article to refer to a celestial being. While this may indicate we should understand the term as a proper name, there is not a clear indication the satanic figure is an archrival of God.

To summarize, in the OT there is little indication that early Israel thought in terms of a personalized evil individual, Satan, who stood diametrically opposed to God as an archenemy. What we do find in the OT is an ambiguous figure, a member of the divine council, whose role appears to be that of testing and probing the character of human beings. However, it must be emphasized that this satanic figure works within the parameters established by God.

Within the New Testament there is a distinctly different symbolic world, one where a personal Satan could function. Building on the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings of the intertestamental period, early Christianity adopted a dualism that saw the world as a battlefield between God and Satan. Satan became the epitome of evil, working at cross-purposes with God and humanity at every opportunity. “The range of names given to Satan in the NT—the devil, the tempter, the evil one, the prince of demons, the dragon, the ancient serpent, Beelzebul, the accuser, the enemy—is testimony to the richness of the early Christian experience and portrayal of evil.” The ambiguity of the satanic figure in the Old Testament is gone and Satan is let loose to prowl like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour (1 Peter 5:8).