Scripture Study

Introduction: A Relatively Recent Re-Interpretation

We all know the story of the serpent in the Garden of Eden persuading Mother Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit, but how do we see that serpent? In contrast to the reptile that the Saints and other Christians used to visualize, it has become popular in the Church in the past few decades to teach that the devil was the only “serpent” dialoguing with Eve at the Tree of Knowledge.

The adversary is now usually imagined as appearing in his own spirit form or “disguised” as a snake. The theory is that the image of the serpent is used symbolically to remind the reader that the devil is sly and cunning, as he sneaks up on us to infect us with his venom of deception. This is a reasonable view, and there are many writers and speakers who hold it. But is it accurate? The bolding and italicizing in the quotations I have selected is invariably my own.

Satan is Undeniably “a Snake”

This fairly new idea of excluding an actual animal from the dialogue has come about largely because of the published personal interpretations of commentators on the scriptures, based on their research and best guesses. The scriptures are not crystal clear on every matter, and if an authorized revelator has not discoursed upon an unsettled issue, then we may be significantly left to our own devices.

Of course, there are various reptilian titles for the devil in the scriptures, such as “that old serpent” and “the great dragon” (Revelation 12:9). Also, like the devil, snakes have always been fearful objects in myths, fairy tales, legends, and folklore – because they are aesthetically nasty-looking (to some), many bite, and quite a few are poisonous. Similarly, dragons are traditionally regarded as mean and dangerous in the extreme (although there are also cultural exceptions to this rule). Interestingly, the serpent on the staff that Moses held up represented Christ (we will take a look at why later).

Clearly, There are Two Sides to This Fence

The idea, however, that there was no serpent but Satan, as we shall see, is not shared by all LDS scriptorians, and it runs counter to opinions of a number of past General Authorities. We would submit that this may be another matter that we would do well not to dogmatize upon, or perhaps it is one that we should measure by the more authorized sources of information that are available to us, until more definitive revelation is received. There is ultimately a truth and a not-truth in this question, and all truth, of course, has intrinsic importance.

The object of this paper will be to provide evidence that the serpents were actual animals in Eden, and that Satan employed one of them to tempt Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. The serpents seem to have been among the smarter animals with a cunning and tricky side (possibly because of their intellect) (Genesis 3:1).

The Moses Account Seems to Some to be Fairly Clear on the Matter of There Being a Serpent Involved

Moses 4:5 tells us, ‘And now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which I, the Lord God, had made.’ The serpent is called a “beast of the field,” referring to the “beasts of the earth” made on the “sixth day” of Creation (Moses 2:24-25).

Other Translations Also Say the Serpent was an Animal

The King James Version of Genesis 3:1 says: ‘Now the serpent was more subtil (fn. crafty, sly) than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.’

Note that some other translations than the KJV are even clearer on the matter of the serpent being a created animal:

The Jerusalem Bible: ‘The serpent was the most subtle of all the wild beasts that Yahweh God had made.’

The Smith & Goodspeed American Translation: ‘Now the serpent was the most clever of the wild beasts that the Lord God had made.’

The Knox Catholic Bible: ‘Of all the beasts which the Lord God had made, there was none that could match the serpent in cunning.’

Billy Graham’s Bible: ‘The serpent was the craftiest of all the creatures the Lord God had made…(Eve tells him:) God says we mustn’t eat it (the fruit), or even touch it, or we will die. That’s a lie!, the serpent hissed.’

Who did Satan Seduce – Serpents or Spirits?

The matter of the parenthetical statement in Moses 4:6 is widely debated, as we shall now see.

Moses 4:6 informs us: ‘And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent (for he had drawn away many after him), and he sought also to beguile Eve…’ Here may be an explicit statement that the devil influenced what the serpent would say to Eve; and it may be saying that he had seduced many of the serpents living in Eden. It is the serpent who speaks to Eve (vs. 10), though Satan has given him the message.

Some commentators who do not believe that there was a reptile suggest that Satan “speaking by the mouth of the serpent” meant that “he spoke by his own mouth,” he being the serpent by metaphor. This could be stretching things a bit. Many commentators feel that he more likely put words in the serpent’s mouth – by coaching ahead of time, or possibly even possessing the animal (which the New Testament’s account of the evil spirits taking over the bodies of swine [Matthew 8:28-34] certainly could validate).

Commentators Cleon Skousen and Monte Nyman taught, or thought it more probable, that the “many drawn away” were serpents (quoted later).

Prof. Hyrum Andrus taught that the serpent was real enough, but that the seduction of “many” was not of serpents: ‘It seems evident that a serpent was involved in the temptation of Eve. But the clarification in parentheses that Satan “had drawn away many after him” evidently has reference to his success in the War in Heaven, not that he had drawn away many serpents after him in the garden’ (Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price, p. 186).

There is thus not a clear consensus on the matter of whether serpents or pre-mortal followers were drawn away. It may furthermore be that the serpents were substantially divided on allegiance to Satan. This brings us to the matter of Moses and the Brass Staff.

Was the Serpent an Unsung Hero in the Fall?

When the Children of Israel were being bitten by poisonous “fiery flying serpents” in the wilderness (Numbers 21:6; cf. 1 Nephi 17:41), Moses raised a staff atop which was the brass symbol of a serpent. All who looked upon it were protected or healed (Numbers 21:7-9). This was symbolic of looking upon the cross of Christ in faith and being healed of sins. The serpent on the staff was a type of Christ (Alma 33:18-22).

When did the symbol of Satan and evil become a symbol of the saving Messiah? Hebrew tradition may contain the answer (from a private conversation that I had with an LDS student of Judaism). As the story goes: Eve was not going to partake of the fruit. The words Satan had given the serpent to speak were not enough to convince her. Like Adam, Eve had serious reservations about going against God’s commandment and thought it far safer to wait for the Lord to bring the Fall upon them, himself, and teach them how to have children.

However, the serpent was a “mole” (secret agent, as it were) for God. When the Father had explained to Adam and Eve in the Garden that a fall would be necessary (Satan had not been privy to this conversation), apparently the serpent (who had been among those of his species not swayed by the devil’s seductions) had been allowed to listen and had understood the absolute need for the Fall and its importance to all living things. More, it seems that he discerned the fact that neither the Father nor the Son could get involved; it all depended on Adam and Eve.

When the adversary called for a representative to tempt Eve, the enlightened serpent volunteered. He was the perfect choice, because the devil knew that he and Eve had enjoyed some intriguing conversations about life before. The serpent realized the Lord was counting on him to convince Eve that her partaking was the only possible way to bring in mortality. For this opportunity, the serpent was grateful. But when he used Satan’s arguments, they didn’t work! Thus, the serpent, drawing upon his own knowledge and inspiration, reasoned with Eve in ways she had not considered before and finally tipped her in the direction of the needful decision. Satan did not hear the additional information; otherwise he probably would have cut off the conversation and himself sought to prevent the Fall.

Ever after that, the serpent who convinced Eve of the right choice was hailed by the children of God as being a wise and beneficent servant of the Almighty. The serpent on the staff was thus the serpent in Eden, and serpents in general were honored by many cultures (such as Egypt) as ministers of healing.

This view is legend and thus speculation, of course. But this connection of the serpent with Christ, if true in even a few particulars, makes a great deal of sense. If Satan, or even an evil serpent acting as his messenger, had been the only serpent(s) involved in the Fall, then putting such a symbol upon the staff of Moses would have neither made sense nor been appropriate.

Dummelow Asserts the Literal Nature of the Serpent and the Antiquity of that View in the Hebrew Mind 

J.R. Dummelow, not LDS, but certainly one of the world’s greatest Bible commentators, had this to say: ‘Man was tempted by some evil power, whose personality remains in the background. But this power must have made use of a medium, which could not have been another human being. That it was an animal was therefore a natural assumption. There can be no doubt that the author of Genesis intended to teach that an actual serpent was the tempter.

St. Paul, we must remember, adhered to it: “The serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness” (2 Corinthians 11:3). An ancient Jewish legend represents all the animals as having had the gift of speech and using one language until the day when Adam was expelled from Eden. The serpent, being the tempter and prime mover in Eve’s transgression, is judged first. It would appear that the writer conceived of the serpent as originally walking on feet. Its crawling in the dust and taking dust into its mouth with its food (Isaiah 65:25; Micah 7:17; and the figurative expression “to lick the dust,” Psalms 72:9; Isaiah 49:23) are marks of its degradation’ (A Commentary on the Holy Bible, pp. 9-10).

What the Institute Manuals Have to Say

Let’s now see what the official manuals for the BYU religion courses have to say. ‘In the Genesis account, the serpent speaks to Eve and tempts her to partake of the fruit. The more complete account in the Book of Moses points out that Satan is the one speaking, although he does so through the serpent (Mos. 4:6-7). Also, Satan is symbolized elsewhere by the image of a serpent’ (Old Testament Student Manual (Religion 301): Genesis – 2 Samuel (3^rd Edition, CES, 2003, p. 40).

‘The adversary, Lucifer, through the serpent, beguiled Eve and deceived her and induced her to eat of the forbidden fruit’ (Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual (Religion 430), Ch. 8: The Fall (2^nd Edition, CES, 2004, p. 20).

As with so many of the Creation questions, the Church does not have an official position on whether or not the devil tempted Eve through a living serpent. But, as with all such questions, there are statements which can be found with due diligence supporting an “unofficial position.” Read on.

Satan Would Logically Choose to Speak to Eve through a Serpent, Rather than Appear to Her in Person

Satan had already tried to “reason” with Adam in person and it had failed miserably. ‘The accounts in both Moses and Genesis state only that Satan approached Eve, but latter-day revelation records that he first approached Adam and was refused’ (Old Testament Institute Manual, p. 40). Satan would not try the same tactic twice.

Cleon Skousen wrote: ‘The first step in Lucifer’s plan to beguile Adam and Eve was to cultivate the confidence of certain animals in the Garden of Eden who were of subtle intellects. For this purpose he concentrated on many of the serpents. The scripture specifically states that “he had drawn away many after him” (Moses 4:6). Why Lucifer wished to approach Adam and Eve indirectly through one of these creatures is not entirely clear, but he must have felt that his deceitful arguments, if delivered in person, would have been completely unacceptable to these two beings who had both participated in his expulsion from the mansions of the Father. In any event, we know that he either did not dare or did not desire to approach Adam and Eve directly. Instead, he used one of these serpents as his medium or spokesperson’ (The First 2,000 Years, pp. 51-52).

Interestingly, a few sources agree with Skousen that Satan also spoke to Adam through a serpent, not in his own spirit body as he did with Moses (Moses 1:12-23). The devil may have been worried that, even with the veil drawn, our first parents might have reacted negatively to his own personage based upon their internal memories of their acquaintance with him. His next tactic after being rejected by Adam was to contact Eve separately and immediately, before they had a chance to “compare notes.” His strategy was to “divide and conquer.”

Jewish Tradition Held that the Serpents Spoke

‘The fact that the scripture speaks of the serpent as being articulate is worthy of brief comment. Josephus, in summarizing the ancient Jewish tradition on this subject states that, before the Fall, “all living creatures had one language” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 1, paragraph 4). William Whiston of Cambridge University comments on this statement in a footnote, saying, “Many inducements there are to a notion that the present state that they (the animals) are in is not their original state; and that their capacities have been once much greater than we now see them, and are capable of being restored to their former conditions” (ibid.).

‘In line with this thought is the most unusual but apparently possible phenomenon of animals being quickened and being permitted to express themselves intelligibly (Numbers 22:28; 2 Peter 2:16). It is given further credence from the fact that animals will apparently enjoy some power of articulation after their resurrection as seen by John in an open revelation (Revelation 4:6). He describes them as “praising God.” Joseph Smith was told that John saw the actual condition of these animals as they shall exist in the full felicity of their glory following their redemption or resurrection (D&C 77:3-4).

‘The scripture expressly states that one of the serpents in the Garden of Eden did speak to Eve in her own language and did reason with her after the manner of the deceitful eloquence which had been “put into the heart of the serpent” by Lucifer (Moses 4:6) (Skousen, ibid.).

There Would Seem to be Separate Punishments for the Serpent and for Satan

Some authors do not feel that there was any punishment of serpent animals at all – only the devil – and this is understandable, since the sacred writ does not actually seem to demarcate well where one set of woes ends and another begins.

First God deals with the serpent who convinced Eve to break the commandment concerning the fruit (there had to be consequences, even for the “secret agent,” just as there were for Adam and Eve). In punishing the serpent, presumably all of the other serpents who had taken the devil’s side were similarly affected; they were intelligent enough to know what they were doing was in opposition to their Maker. They would be genetically altered to limit the way they used their legs; in the case of the reptiles we call snakes, their limbs would be completely lost.

‘The woman said: The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. And I, the Lord God, said unto the serpent: Because thou hast done this, thou shalt be 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’ (Moses 4:19-20). Again, the serpent is referred to as a “beast of the field,” an animal created on the 6^th Day. Its punishment is that it will go on its belly henceforth, implying that it will lose the use of its legs. This Joseph Smith is reported to have verified (see below). To try to apply this physical punishment to Satan could be an exercise in “spiritualizing” a scripture meant to be taken literally, but the reader will have to decide.

Some critics of a literal serpent interpret this and all the following punishments for serpents as applying to Satan; i.e., (1) “Cursed above cattle and beasts” could mean that the devil will never get a physical body like the animals; (2) “Upon thy belly” could mean that he will be regarded as the lowest of the low; (3) “Eat dust all the days of thy life” could mean he will always be behind the Savior (“eating his dust”), always involved with men made “of the dust of the ground.”

It is true that the next verse shifts to a punishment of Satan – the “bruise his heel, bruise thy head” prophecy – without an apparent change in audience. It is also interesting that “bruising the heel” connotes a snake on the ground striking a person on a low point of the body. But the lack of identification of who is being addressed in the curses need not imply that Satan is the only recipient, nor does the fact that the devil is sometimes called “a serpent” because of his venomous nature mean that he and the serpent of Eden should be regarded as identical.

Cleon Skousen wrote: ‘The Lord wasted no time as he turned upon the serpent. This creature was one of those subtle intellects of the animal kingdom who, with many of his kind, had deliberately fallen under Lucifer’s influence. The Lord pronounced judgment upon him immediately (Moses 4:19-20). That some change took place in the physical capacities of the serpent as a result of this rebuke seems apparent, since otherwise the form of the rebuke would be meaningless. “Upon thy belly shalt thou go” came as a judgment. This would indicate that previously this branch of the animal kingdom had enjoyed some other means of locomotion. It might also be worthy of mention that the close allegiance which existed between Satan and the members of the serpent kingdom during the Garden of Eden era resulted in Lucifer also being designated thereafter as a “serpent” (D&C 76:28; 88:110; Revelation 12:9) (op. cit. 57-58).

Draper, Brown, & Rhodes make several astute observations regarding the punishment applied to the serpent and to Satan and how they tie together closely. ‘According to Genesis 3:1, the serpent was the sole agent for tempting Eve. But the expression that “Satan put it into the heart of the serpent” (Moses 4:6) places Satan squarely at the center of this effort and affirms that he can exert some influence even in the animal kingdom – “he spake by the mouth of the serpent” (Moses 4:7). That “he had drawn away many after him” (Moses 4:6) might not refer to serpents, but could refer back to pre-mortal events when Satan enticed others to follow him out of heaven. In one of the few recorded verbal exchanges between the Lord and Satan following the expulsion of the latter from heaven (Genesis 3:14), the Lord addresses Satan through his agent, the serpent. The cursing of the serpent to go on his belly, though apparently spoken against the animal, was ultimately aimed at Satan, tying him to this earth’ (The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse by Verse Commentary, pp. 42,47).

If nothing else, these various viewpoints should demonstrate that this is anything but a cut-and-dried issue. Almost no point of it is universally accepted, and that is what this study is meant to stress.

Joseph Smith Verified that There was a Reptile with Legs

Monte S. Nyman, commenting on the temptation of Eve, said: ‘Genesis equates Satan with a serpent in the account of Eve’s temptation. However, as represented in the Book of Moses, Satan tempted Eve through a serpent by putting “it into the heart of the serpent” to question and challenge her (Moses 4:6). While the serpent and those (serpents) “drawn away” could be a figurative representation of Lucifer and his followers from pre-mortality), the serpent was actually there in the garden, and there seems to be more evidence for a literal interpretation. It would be natural for a serpent to be present in the garden, but Satan would have been an obvious intruder. Having been won over by Satan, the serpent became a willing agent through whom Lucifer could work without being recognized.

‘Joseph Smith gave further information regarding the serpent and the fall. It is found in a report of Josiah Quincy, one-time mayor of Boston, regarding his visit to Nauvoo in 1844, during which occasion he was shown the parchment of Abraham and Joseph (of Egypt) by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

“The parchment last referred to showed a rude drawing of a man and woman, and a serpent walking upon a pair of legs. I ventured to doubt the propriety of providing the reptile in question with this unusual means of locomotion. ‘Why, that’s as plain as a pikestaff,’ was the rejoinder. ‘Before the Fall, snakes always went about on legs, just like chickens. They were deprived of them, in punishment for their agency in the ruin of man’” (Josiah Quincy, Figures of the Past, Boston, 1883, pp. 386-387). 

‘Furthermore, Moses 4:7 retains a statement lost from the Book of Genesis: “And he spake by the mouth of the serpent.” Both Genesis and Moses suggest that Satan worked through the serpent because the nature of the serpent “was more subtle than any beast of the field which I, the Lord God, had made” (Moses 4:5; Genesis 3:1). Thus it appears that Satan was able to deceive some of the animals and therefore work through the serpent to bring about the fall.

‘Whether the serpent is literal or figurative is really immaterial as far as the outcome is concerned. Eve was tempted and yielded to the temptation. Adam yielded also, and the fall was initiated. The important truth restored in the Book of Moses is that Satan “knew not the mind of God” (Moses 4:6). In his desire to overthrow the plan of God, Satan did not realize that he was bringing about the very condition which would enable the plan to work: the mortality of man.

‘The first consequence of partaking of the fruit was a curse upon the head of the serpent. Again we meet the problem of whether the serpent is figurative for Satan, or whether there was a literal cursing of the beast. From the context, it seems to be both literal and figurative, with the serpent being a type of what would happen to Satan and his followers. The literal interpretation comes from Moses 4:20, where the comparison to all other beasts is made. There is no comparison between Satan and his followers with other animals, which leaves us only the literal conclusion. Verse 21 extends the curse to Satan and his followers’ (Studies in Scripture, Vol. 2: The Pearl of Great Price, Randall, 1985, pp. 92-95). For a second account of the Josiah Quincy report, see Hyrum Andrus, op. cit., pp. 204-205.

Oliver Cowdery’s Remarks on the Record of the Abraham Papyrus Showing a Serpent with Legs

James R. Clark, BYU professor, in his book, The Story of the Pearl of Great Price (Bookcraft, 1962), quotes Oliver Cowdery as saying about the two rolls of the Michael Chandler papyrus: ‘The language in which this record is written is very comprehensive and many of the hieroglyphics exceedingly striking. The evidence is apparent upon the face, that they were written by persons acquainted with the history of the creation, the fall of man, and more or less of the correct ideas or notions of the Deity…The serpent, represented as walking, or formed in a manner to be able to walk, standing in front of and near a female figure, is to me, one of the greatest representations I have ever seen upon paper, or a writing substance, and must go so far towards convincing the rational mind of the correctness and divine authenticity of the holy scriptures, and especially that part which has ever been assailed by the infidel community, as being a fiction, as to carry away with one mighty sweep, the whole atheistical fabric, without leaving a vestige sufficient for a foundation stone’ (Letter to William Frye, printed in the Messenger and Advocate, Vol. 2, pp. 235-238, Kirtland OH, DEC 1835).

Prof. Clark continues: ‘There is a reproduction of that serpent with legs in the Egyptian Grammar, as Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery copied it from the papyrus of Abraham or of Joseph. And where might they get such an illustration? Abraham had the records going back to the beginning. We wrote an article in 1935 for the Church Section of the Deseret News on “The Records of Enoch.” We sent that article, before it was published, to Elder Joseph Fielding Smith. He was kind enough to send back the following letter and to copy out of a book by A. S. Yahuda, The Accuracy of the Bible, a picture of another serpent with legs from Egyptian sources. Elder Smith wrote: “I am enclosing to you a roughly traced sketch, showing a serpent as the author says feeding bread to a Deity. More likely (it is) the serpent tempting Eve. This serpent also has legs. It struck me as something very interesting” (Letter to James Clark from the Office of the Church Historian, 04 NOV 1835). Prof. Clark summarizes: ‘Is it too great a stretch of the imagination after all of this evidence to conclude that Abraham did as he promised to do in Abr. 1:28,31 and drew on written records going back to the time of Enoch or Adam, and if he did not finish his record, that Joseph (of Egypt) did?’ (pp. 96-97,114-116).

Selected Statements of Other General Authorities

James E. Talmage wrote: ‘Satan presented himself before Eve in the Garden, and, speaking by the mouth of the serpent, questioned her about the commandments that God had given respecting the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil’ (Articles of Faith, p. 64).

Orson Pratt said: ‘It was in the Garden of Eden that the devil, or one of those foul spirits, entered into a certain animal or beast, called a serpent, and came before our first parents and beguiled them’ (Journal of Discourses 13:63).

A Scientific Concordance?

As we have seen, the Prophet Joseph is reported to have stated: ‘Before the Fall, snakes always went about on legs, just like chickens. They were deprived of them, in punishment for their agency in the ruin of man.’

There may be a tie-in here with the most current classification standard for dinosaurs: ‘Modern reptiles, like lizards and crocodiles, walk on their legs, sprawling out from their sides. When at rest, their bellies touch the ground. When walking, they must first lift themselves up from the ground. Dinosaurs were different. They walked with a posture we call “fully erect.” No dinosaur dragged its belly on the ground – they all walked up off the ground, legs straight below them. At rest, a dinosaur’s belly still would not touch the ground. Dinosaurs are the only reptiles that ever walked like this’ (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 16 MAR 1988).

According to this standard, the serpents in Eden could have been classified as dinosaurs, perhaps among the last. Their being cursed to go on their bellies strongly suggests divine micro-evolution (genetic engineering) into modern snakes, lizards, crocodiles, turtles, et. al.

Conclusion: Uncertain Doctrines Should be Qualified as Such

Although I have engaged in a modicum of speculation in a number of points in this paper, I hope that the more “grounded” observations I have made have been sufficient to demonstrate that the matter of the devil tempting Eve by himself or, alternatively, by persuading a serpent – a literal animal – to approach her for him is by no means a settled issue. There are enough evidences that an actual reptile was selected by the adversary to entice Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit to suggest that it should not be preached or taught that Satan was the only serpent in Eden – at least not without presenting the other viewpoint as explored in this paper.

Why? For the same reason that we are directed not to dogmatize about answers to the many Creation questions for which the Lord has not yet provided revelation. Latter-day Saints are free to believe whatever they would like about the serpent in the Garden. The Savior will answer all our questions in the Millennium (D&C 101:32-34). In the meantime, we should try our best to avoid presenting our own ideas as though they were the official position of the Church.

The Holy Ghost will not ratify error. If we teach an untruth, the Spirit will not bear witness, and the faith and testimony of the hearer – especially “babes in Christ” – will be built upon a sandy foundation and weakened (1 Nephi 13:29). The truth of doctrines is always important!