LEGGED, TALKING SNAKE

The Hebrew word for serpent is nachash, and the Greek equivalent is ophis. It means “snake, serpent, sly, cunning, and image of a serpent.” The late Dr. Henry Morris says of the Hebrew word:

There has been much speculation as to whether the serpent originally was able to stand upright (the Hebrew word nachash, some maintain, originally meant “shining, upright creature”).

Although, this speculated meaning may have been deduced from Genesis 3:14 regarding the serpent being forced to crawl on its belly, this doesn’t really help us ascertain if the serpent had legs or not.

Commentaries
Several commentaries were checked to see what other scholars said about the serpent. They are accumulated below. Of course, commentaries are not inspired like the Bible is, but they can give us some insight.

Most commentaries seem certain that it was referring to some form of erect creature and changes took place with the curse. John Calvin was the only one who seemed to think that the serpent remained with the same form.18 He said that the curse was more of a statement to “put the serpent back in its place.” Leupold leaves open either position but leans against a full transformation, leaving the serpent more in its original form. Wenham and Sailhamer more recently (1987 and 1990 respectively) both lean against the serpent changing forms but give no reasons why they believe this.

The problem with leaving the serpent “as is” is that it reduces the curse to almost a meaningless status. If such a philosophy is to be held, then the parallel comments by the Lord to the woman and the man should also be statements to just “put them back in their place.” This raises theological issues. It would mean that the other effects of sin listed in Genesis 3, such as thorns and thistles, increased pain and sorrow for the woman, and mankind returning to dust, were merely statements to put human beings back in their place, not real changes. This seems highly illogical, as it would have death before sin in humans, with man already returning to dust (recall Romans 5:12).

Conclusion
The more logical answer is that the serpent originally had some form of legs or appendages, and these were either lost or reduced (consider how many reptiles crawl on their bellies and yet have legs, e.g., crocodiles). This seems to correlate with the plainest reading of the passage and the comparison of a curse (“on your belly you shall go”) as compared with cattle and other beasts of the field, which do have legs.

Thorns and thistles were brought forth due to the curse (physical changes to vegetation); there were physical changes to the man and woman (increased sorrow in childbearing and increased pain in work that has been passed along). There is no reason to assume the serpent didn’t undergo physical changes as well—he was a prime culprit. These physical changes due to the curse help explain certain defense and attack structures (DAS) in animals and plants that currently dominate the world.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shouldn’t the Woman (Eve) Have Been Shocked that a Serpent Spoke?

Often, people say that they can’t believe the serpent in Genesis 3 spoke because they claim animals don’t speak! Well, I wish I could tell that to my sister-in-law’s Blue-Fronted Amazon Parrot that doesn’t stop talking! Many types of parrots talk by mimicking, so it would be illogical to think that God didn’t give this ability to other animals—especially in a perfect world. Speaking human-sounding words and speaking intelligently, however, is not the same. Balaam’s donkey, as the only other example given of animals speaking in Scripture, was specially enabled by the power of God to speak intelligently to Balaam.

Because there is no other place in Scripture that reveals Satan or demons can cause animals to speak, it makes more sense that the serpent could make the sounds capable of speech and Satan used this to his advantage. In essence, Satan likely used this feature that the original serpent had and caused it to say what he wanted.

Although this may sound farfetched, there should be caution about limiting what God did or didn’t do in the perfect Garden. There is a possibility that many other animals had the ability to “speak” before the Curse. Many animals have types of sound-based or mimickry forms of communication today.

But the serpent was “clever” when it spoke. It made sense to the Woman. Since Satan was the one who influenced the serpent (Revelation 12:9, 20:2), then it makes sense why the serpent could deliver a cogent message capable of deceiving her. The serpent apparently cooperated and was an instrument in the deception and so deserved a punishment, which God justly gave. This reminds me of Judas, who also received due punishment, even though Satan entered him (Luke 22:3).

Of course today, serpents don’t speak, but the Curse in Genesis 3:14 probably had something to do with this. Recall the physical changes in Genesis 3. Perhaps this is the reason the particular kind of serpent that deceived the Woman did not pass along the ability to speak or may have even become extinct since the Fall.

The issue of the Woman being shocked when she heard the serpent speak also has a couple of problems. First, everything in the Garden of Eden was new to the first couple—they’d only been alive for a short time. Even a bug, cat, or dinosaur would all be new, so they wouldn’t have been shocked at a talking serpent.

God also programmed language into Adam and Eve (since they were able to speak immediately with God), which would have included some words that describe animals and their capabilities. So it shouldn’t have been shocking to see or hear something for the first time if you’re already “programmed” to know about something like talking animals.