SERPENT (“NACHASH”) SERAPH.
By Merritt E. Cornell
The word “serpent,” in Gen. 3:1, is from the Heb. nachash, which signifies close scrutiny or enchantment. The commentators seem to very generally agree in this definition. Also that the root and kindred forms signify seraph or shining, glistening, as polished brass, from which we are led to the conclusion that the creature used by Satan for a speaking medium was not a crawling reptile, but a glistening seraph. And we learn from the record that “the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field;” and Satan, of whom it is declared (Eze. 28:3, 12), “Thou art wiser than Daniel, there is no secret that they can hide from thee,” “Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom,” &c., would certainly know better than to choose for his purpose a slimy reptile. The serpent of Eden must therefore have been of another species and of a higher grade, or else he was greatly degraded by the fall and curse that followed. Among all the animal tribes, this serpent was “more subtle.” The word “subtle” is sometimes rendered “crafty,” “prudent,” as in Job. 5:12; Prov. 12:16. It is therefore probable that this animal before the curse was the most beautiful, shining, and seraph-like, as well as the most knowing and prudent, of all the animal creation, whereas it is now, since the fall, the most low and degraded. To the objection that the serpent has no organs of speech, Calvin replies, “No one has any except as God gives them. How with Balaam’s beast? Beside, the serpent that can now only hiss, may, at first, have been an eloquent speaker.” There need be no difficulty on this point if the Scripture is credited, for it is positively stated that “the dumb ass speaking with man’s voice forbade the madness of the prophet.” 2 Pet. 2:16. The serpent, now degraded to crawl in the dust, eating only what is mixed with dust, was no doubt once a shining, flying seraph, possessing discernment and sagacity beyond all others of the animal creation. The Comprehensive Commentary, endorses the following from Matthew Henry:— “Perhaps it was a flying serpent, which seemed to come as a messenger from the upper world, one of the seraphim; for the fiery serpents were flying. Isa. 14:29.” “The Arabic, which is very nearly identical with the Hebrew, gives the root of the word chanas, as signifying he departed, drew off, lay hid, seduced, slunk away, &c. . . . It is very remarkable also that from the same root comes Khannas the devil, which appellative he bears from that meaning of Khanasa: he drew off, seduced, &c., because he draws men off from righteousness, seduces them from their obedience to God.” The Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical Commentary, on the term “nachash,” says:— “It is far more likely, however, to have had for its primary sense that from which comes the secondary meaning of brass, or rather of bronze—shining metal. This gives, as the primary, the idea of splendor, glistening.” Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible has the following:— “Serpent. Herodotus (ii. 75, iii. 108.) speaks of serpents with wings whose bones he imagined he had himself seen near Buto in Arabia. Monstrous forms of snakes with birds’ wings occur on the Egyptian sculptures.” Jacobus, in his notes on Genesis, says:— “Objectors say it is not likely that the devil would have assumed such an unsightly shape, but a more attractive one. Yet this objection begs the question. We may suppose that this kind of serpent had originally a very attractive form, and received its degraded and groveling habits in the curse. The nachash is the term used in Num. 21:6; but with the Hebrew term ‘seraph’—translated, ‘fiery serpent.’ It is ‘the seraph serpent’ which God there sent among the people. The term seraph in Hebrew means fiery. And this kind of serpent was probably a glistening creature, and may have been so far attractive, even after the fall, while kindred terms of nachash mean brass and enchantment—all giving the impression of some bright, glowing, and fascinating appearance, as the original idea.” George Bush, Prof. of Heb. and Orient. Lit., N. Y. City University, in Notes on Gen. 3:1, says:— “Serpent. Heb. nachash. The word ‘serpent’ in our language comes from the Latin serpo, to creep, but the Hebrew term has no relation to the form or motion or any external attribute of the serpent. It is a term descriptive solely of mental properties, being derived from a root signifying to search or scrutinize closely, to find out by experiment, and in some few instances to practice divination or augury. Gen. 44:5; Lev. 19:26; 1 Kings 20:33. The name, therefore, is obviously more appropriate, in its original import, to some kind of rational being than to a brute beast or an unintelligent reptile. * “A due reverence for Scripture would seem to force from us the admission that here was a real serpent uttering real words, since the inspired historian expressly asserts the fact. But was this all? Is there not clear evidence of the presence also of a higher power latent under the serpentine form, and acting through it as an obsequious organ? The apostle Paul in exhorting the Corinthians to beware of false teachers, says, ‘I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity of Christ.’ Here is a comparison between the seduction of the Corinthians and the seduction of Eve; and as the former were in no danger of being deceived by a more brute animal, Eve cannot be supposed to have been beguiled by a mere irrational creature. If the serpent in Genesis was nothing more than the brute reptile, the comparison is destroyed; but if it was the organ of Satan, the comparison is true and forcible; that is, there was danger lest Satan should deceive the Corinthian converts through the means of false teachers, as he did Eve by means of the serpent. That such is the apostle’s meaning is implied in verses 13–15 of the same chapter: ‘For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.’ We know from Scripture of no other period in the history of this archapostate when the transformation here predicted of him is so likely to have taken place as that now referred to, when he perhaps assumed the form of a bright, glorious, and winged serpent, of that kind which in Scripture are called seraphs or seraphim, from their luminous, burning, glowing appearance, an appearance that might very naturally have suggested the phrase, ‘angel of light.’” “There can be no reasonable doubt, therefore, that the devil actuated the serpent by which Eve was beguiled, and that he was consequently the instigator of the first sin in Paradise. This being is here designated under the appellation, serpent from his insidious, subtle, and malignant nature, and the epithet old is applied to him, Rev. 12:9, from his having commenced his diabolical acts at the creation, and continued to practice them through several thousand years down to the period of that prophecy. He is moreover elsewhere called devil, from his being a calumniator, or slanderer; Satan, from his being an adversary or hater; and the wicked one, from his general character.” “We find a general belief both among the ancient Jews and early Christians that the serpent before the fall was not only gentle and innocuous, but in form and appearance among the most beautiful of creatures. In Num. 21:6, it is said, ‘The Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.’ Here the original phrase is seraphim or burning serpents, probably from their resplendent color in which they resembled an order of angelic beings called also seraphs or seraphim. Isaiah also, chap. 14:29, speaks of a ‘fiery flying serpent,’ doubtless of a similar species. We know, therefore, of no insuperable objection to considering the serpent of Eden as a far more splendid and beautiful creature than the common reptile so denominated; and the traditional comment of Rabbi Bechai may, perhaps, rest upon solid grounds. ‘This is the secret (or mystery) of the holy language, that a serpent is called seraph, as an angel is called seraph,’ and then after quoting Num. 21:6, he adds, ‘The Scripture calls serpent seraphim because they were the offspring of the old serpent.’” “There was doubtless a signal transformation made to pass upon him in consequence of the curse now inflicted. From having formerly moved by the aid of wings, or with the head and breast elevated above the ground, he was now reduced from this imposing posture, and became, in the fullest sense of the term, a reptile, vile and loathsome, and incapable of eating any food but what should be more or less mingled with the dust.” The harmony of these learned authorities on the original term “nachash,” carries with it a conviction of its truth, and relieves the matter of all objections and obscurity, and gives a dignity and importance to the Bible account not generally realized. The serpent’s dazzling brightness, his intelligent subtilty, and his seraph wings with which he flew through the air, glistening in the sun with such attractive beauty as to arrest the attention, excite the admiration, and fascinate mother Eve, are all now removed. He was degraded, by the Creator, so low that Satan could never again use him as a medium to fascinate and deceive. He is now most loathsome—an earthy, crawling, dust-eating reptile. Instead of shining, fascinating beauty, the sight generally strikes with a chill, and he is abhorred by all the Eves, and most of the Adams of our race. And well would it be for us to learn to abhor sin which first came by the serpent, with the same loathing we naturally have toward the agent used. But if we would avoid evil, we must shun the appearance of it, and every way that leads to it. “To parley with temptation is to play with our ruin.” Understanding Satan’s devices, may we escape his snares and come off victors at last.