The Good and Evil Serpent (79 page)

How does one explain the observations that God has cursed the serpent to eat dust forever and snakes do not eat dust? The Rabbis knew and observed that snakes drank milk and ate food left for them, but the power of Genesis 3:14 is significant. The compilers of the Babylonian Talmud preserved the tradition that although a snake can eat “the delicacies of the world [
],” it will only have “the taste of dust [
)]” (b.
Yoma
75a).

Ironically, the serpent—the quintessential and pervasive symbol of immortal life, especially in antiquity (Pos. 27)—becomes in the Bible the one who symbolizes the humans’ loss of immortality. The author or compiler of the account in Genesis 3 knew some of the Near Eastern myths and legends, such as the Gilgamesh story.

The Yahwist seems obsessed with etiological issues when he compiled the Eden Story. He wanted to explain the following:

• Why a woman and a man are so similar, in contrast to the animals (“she was taken from a man” [2:23])
  
• Why a man leaves his parents and clings to his wife (2:24)
  ²³⁰
  
• Why there was no shame about nakedness at the beginning (2:25, 3:7, 10)
  
• Why the serpent seems isolated and is often a loner (3:14)
  
• Why the serpent must crawl on its belly (3:24)
  
• Why there is enmity among serpents and humans (3:24)
  
• Why women have such pain in giving birth (3:15)
  
• Why women are passionate about their husbands (3:16)
  
• Why women must have their husbands as a master (3:16)
  
• Why men must till the soil sometimes fruitlessly (3:17)
  
• Why humans return to dust (3:19)
  
• Why the humans were banished from Eden and cannot return there (3:22–24)
  
• Why the paradisiacal life was once experienced but now lost (3:22–24)
  

The Eden Story is centered on etiological concerns, more so than any other biblical story. In so casting the story, the Yahwist miscasts not only the serpent but also God. For example, God is the cause of a woman’s birth pangs and man’s often-fruitless labor. God is responsible for the earth’s lack of fruitfulness. God is responsible for the “enmity” on the earth. Yet God is not omnipotent; God fears his creations and expresses the fear that they might “become like one of us” (3:22). God does not want the human to live forever. As Gunkel saw: “The narrative
[Erzählung]
does not report that Yahweh knows all, sees all; but much more, that he likes to saunter in the garden, by chance to discover a violation. An (absolute) all-knowing Yahweh is thereby not presented.”
²³¹

In the Eden Story, the Yahwist explains too much. He explains why men have to work so hard for sustenance and why women suffer so in childbirth. He also explains the origin of the fear that defines the human-snake relationship, and why the serpent crawls on its belly (a description that brings to mind the ways the serpent symbolizes the earth and the chthonic world [Pos. 15]).

What did the Nachash do to deserve such long-lasting punishment?
²³²
In some ways, the Yahwist leaves the impression, to those who indwell the story (i.e., those who so imagine the story that they become part of it), that the serpent comes off as more attractive than God Yahweh. In so doing, he reflects the pervasive depictions of the serpent as a good symbol in his time, but perhaps not in his theology in Jerusalem at that time. Some of the tension in his story of Eden derives from the tension between Israelite and Canaanite culture. Much of this tension may be caused by serpent symbology, a too multivalent symbolism. We have seen, inter alia, that it is misleading to conclude that, in Genesis 3, the “mention of the snake here is almost incidental.”
²³³
This opinion of G. von Rad misled Westermann (p. 238), who then goes on and perceives that the “masterly dialogue holds the center of the scene.” Who are the main actors? Westermann rightly answers: “The serpent and the woman are the sole actors.”
²³⁴

In the narrative of Genesis 3, the Nachash appears suddenly and mysteriously. He is defined as one of the beasts of the field created by God Yah-weh, except he is distinguished by his cleverness or wise character (Gen 3:1). He is the first interlocutor to speak and asks a question (3:1). Then, he launches out with a declaration that discloses unusual knowledge of what will, and does, happen after the woman eats of the forbidden fruit (Gen 3:4–4). The Nachash reveals that he knows what “God knows” (Gen 3:5). The Nachash does not push, force, or even suggest that the woman eat of the forbidden fruit, but the Nachash does play a major role. He provides the stimulus that is essential for the initiative of the human. The Yahwist eventually discloses—through the woman’s defense—that the serpent is one who “deceived” the woman (Gen 3:13). Then God Yahweh curses the serpent, condemns him to henceforth crawl on the earth and to eat dust; the serpent is not condemned to death (to dust), however, and is not expelled from the Garden of Eden.
²³⁵
The serpent is the source of enmity (Gen 3:15). In this narrative, we see refracted ancient myths and serpent symbology: the serpent represents knowledge, cleverness, and wisdom (Pos. 18), but also power (Pos. 3) and some divinity (Pos. 11), and seems to possess continuous or immortal life (Pos. 27). The symbolic meanings of the ancient Ouroboros, caduceus, and uraeus may be seen to cast shadows on the Eden Story. In summation, the Nachash remains in the shadows and is never clearly described; he remains, as it were, a mysterious character (Pos. 17). He is not so much presented incognito, as God’s creature who elicits fascinating attention. Such is the nature of the snake in real life.

Most important, we have perceived the marvelous literary skills of the Yahwist. He is a master in developing the characters of his dramatis personae. The Nachash is a beast of the field, according to Genesis 3:1. He becomes a serpent who crawls, according to Genesis 3:14. The “woman” is presented in Genesis 3:1, but she becomes “Eve” only in Genesis 3:20. The Nachash does not tempt “Eve;” he asks her a question. Thus, there are three errors in the oft-repeated claim that “the serpent” talked to “Eve” and he “tempted” her.

THE UPRAISED SERPENT OF MOSES: NUMBERS 21:4–9

Initial Observations

It is necessary to study Numbers 21:4–9 and then 2 Kings 18:4 in conjunction with it. The first passage is a narrative about the serpent Moses made in the wilderness; the second one refers to the worship of a serpent called Nechushtan in the Temple and Hezekiah’s banishment of this serpent cult from the Temple, Jerusalem, and the Land. Both passages refer to a similar phenomenon—the upraised serpent. Commentators on Numbers find it necessary to include 2 Kings 18:4 in their search for the meaning of Numbers 21:4–9, and commentators on 2 Kings 18:4 must include some evaluation of the meaning of Numbers 21:4–9.

One of the well-known features of the narrative of the Hebrews wandering in the wilderness, after the Exodus, is their grumbling about their present condition. Their final complaint occurs after the death of Aaron and before the blessing of Balaam. The people’s complaint over the bread and water was egregious; it was not primarily a yearning for the comforts of Egypt, albeit in slavery. This lament was an open defiance of Yahweh and his chosen one, Moses
(contra Deum et Mosen
21:5).
²³⁶
They had forgotten the wonders performed by God, sometimes through Moses, as when he was able to turn his staff into a serpent.
²³⁷

Text and Translation

Here is the translation of Numbers 21:4–9 in J. Milgrom’s masterful commentary on Numbers:

They set out from Mount Hor by way of the Sea of Reeds to skirt the land of Edom. But the people grew restive on the journey, and the people spoke against God and against Moses, “Why did you make us leave Egypt to die in the wilderness? There is no bread and no water, and we have come to loathe this miserable food.” The LORD sent
seraph
against the people. They bit the people and many of the Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned by speaking against the Lord and against you. Intercede with the LORD to take away the serpents from us!” And Moses interceded for the people. Then the LORD said to Moses, “Make a
seraph
figure and mount it on a standard. And if anyone who is bitten looks at it, he shall recover.” Moses made a copper serpent and mounted it on a standard; and when anyone was bitten by a serpent, he would look at the copper serpent and recover.
²³⁸

In Hebrew, the “the
seraph”
(
) are literally “the fiery serpents.” In Hebrew, “the serpents” is the collective meaning of the singular “the serpent” (
). The Lord commanded Moses to make “a
seraph
figure,” which is “burning serpent” (IIW; see
Appendix I
).

Questions

The questions regarding serpent imagery and symbolism that are raised by Numbers 21:4–9 and that we shall address are the following:

1. What is meant by
   seraph;
   that is, what kind of a snake does the author have in mind?
   
2. When the poisonous snakes bite the people, why do not all die?
   
3. Why does the Lord command Moses to make a
   seraph
   and place it on a standard?
   
4. What did the copper serpent look like or resemble?
   
5. What symbolic meaning would be conveyed by a metal serpent on a standard?
   
6. Does the Lord’s command not break the commandment that the human must not make any image?
   
7. Why are those who look up to the copper serpent healed?
   
8. How does the study of ophidian iconography in Near Eastern culture, and especially in ancient Palestine, help us understand this passage in Numbers?
   
9. Our central question is “What does ‘the serpent’ symbolize in Numbers 21:4–9?”