Why the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God made?

Question

Genesis 3:1 states: "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made."

Who claims that the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made? Is it God Himself or the author of Genesis? I ask this because I don't see the attributes that make the serpent more crafty. Animals that work in groups, such as wolves, hyenas, and even bees, seem far more crafty to me.

Answer 1

Your question is likely a duplicate. See Why is עֲרוּמִּ֔ים (Gen 2:25) translated "naked," and in the very next verse its singular form, עָר֔וּם (Gen 3:1), is translated "crafty/shrewd?"

However, let me offer what might be generously termed an "originalist" view (or less generously, a "naive" view).

Speculations on Genesis and the Serpent

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which Yahweh had made. – Genesis 3:1 literal Hebrew

But the serpent was most skilled of all of the wild beasts upon the earth whom The Lord God made. – Genesis 3:1 literal Greek from the Septuagint (practical, skilled, intelligent)

The Hebrew root for nachash (נָחָשׁ) is the basis for a noun, a verb, and an adjective. As a masculine noun, it can mean serpent (the feminine version means bronze), as a verb it can mean deceiver or diviner, and as an adjective it can mean shining. Serpent, deceiver, diviner, shining. How interesting!

Concerning the word, “cunning” in Hebrew (עָר֔וּם), the word is used seven times in the Bible. Six of those times, which are all in Proverbs, the Hebrew word is translated prudent or sensible. In the Greek Septuagint, translated from Hebrew into Greek under the auspices of the Jewish Sanhedrin, we read φρόνιμος (phronimos), which means practical, skilled, or intelligent in Greek (wise, prudent).

It’s also interesting to note that the difference between the Hebrew words for cunning (עָר֔וּם, ‘ā·rūm) and naked (עָר֛וֹם, ‘ā·rō·wm) is only in the vowels that were used, which were added as "vowel points" by the Masoretes much later.

Serpents Weren't Snakes

The image of Eve and Adam, who was there with her, being tempted by a snake is a great example of the problems encountered when people bring preconceptions into the scriptures. It's easy to do. Certainly, medieval painters did so, as well as scholars of ancient near-eastern literature and philosophy!

Genesis 3 Taken Literally

Let's lay aside our own preconceptions for a moment and consider what the first part of Genesis literally presents.

1. It's the account of God's creation of the heaven and the earth.
2. God created various types of animals first and then humans, male and female.
3. God commanded them to sexually reproduce and fill the earth.
4. The most “cunning” (or “naked”) of all the wild animals that God created was named "serpent" by Adam.
5. Serpents, whatever they were, apparently could speak the language of humans, otherwise the passage wouldn’t bother to explain that the serpent was more cunning than all the other animals. One such serpent tricked humans into disobeying God's command.
6. God pronounced a judgment on all humans and either all serpents or just this one, and predicted hatred between Eve and the serpent. Eve’s offspring (singular) and the serpent’s offspring (singular) would continue this hatred.
7. The serpent would wound the heel of Eve’s offspring (singular), but Eve’s offspring (singular) would deliver a fatal wound to the serpent.

Inferences Based on Genesis 3

Our inferences about serpents include the following:

1. Serpents were also created male and female, and commanded to reproduce as did all the other animals that God created.
2. Serpents were more intelligent than orangutans, parrots and crows, tucuxi dolphins, and octopuses. Currently, tucuxi dolphins are considered the most intelligent wild animal on earth today.
3. Perhaps all serpents except one perished in the flood. The one that survived is “the fleeing serpent” mentioned in Isaiah and Job, and “the serpent of old” mentioned in Revelation, and also called Leviathan and “the Dragon.”
4. Before God cursed serpents—or at least that serpent—THEY DID NOT CRAWL ALONG THE GROUND AS SNAKES, otherwise God’s pronouncement would be pointless and wouldn’t have been a curse. The imagery of eating dust may come from the lowly snake whose tongue flickers near the ground to pick up the scent of prey. However, an animal that actually does eat dirt is the earthworm. Wormlike fly larvae, called maggots, eat only rotting flesh.
5. The motive of this serpent to deceive the humans is not stated. We do know that serpents were created before humans, but humans were given stewardship over the earth and all plant and animal life. Perhaps, this serpent, under the instigation of satan, became jealous, just as Cain later became jealous of Abel. With the death of humans, serpents could then take primacy over the earth. Or perhaps satan incarnated himself conveniently as a serpent, while Messiah would be incarnated as a human.
6. Perhaps Eve believed that she herself would give birth to the one who would deliver the fatal wound to the serpent. She named her first son Cain, which in Hebrew means “acquired,” and she is quoted as saying, “I have acquired a man from Yahweh.” The Septuagint translation is “I have acquired a man through (or on account of) Yahweh.” Eve’s desire might thus be a reasonable interpretation of “the desire of women” alluded to in Daniel 11 and fulfilled by Mary’s giving birth to Jesus, the Messiah.

Further Study

https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen3.pdf

What's the meaning of Genesis 3:15? - The Case for Messiah (One for Israel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdOxc-nvh1k

Answer 2

Previously in this story, God speaks:

Gen.2

18 The Lord God said: "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him."

But in Gen. 3:1 the speaker is the narrator. Whether the narrator is God or not is a theological question: did God write Genesis, did Moses, or is it the work of a later author/authors. However, the simple answer to the OP question is that the speaker is the narrator.

As to why the serpent is described as the most crafty: This was no ordinary serpent such as a snake or a Komodo dragon today. It was a sentient being, capable of speech with humans. It operated not from instinct but from conscience intent to seduce. It is in that sense this serpent was called more crafty than the wild animals. Christian theology understands the serpent as something other than a mere animal. Rather, it was either a symbol of the devil, or the form that the devil assumed.

Answer 3

As regards your question, maybe could be useful to you to read an answer I posted (https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/62359/22234) about 4 years ago (Why is עֲרוּמִּ֔ים [Gen 2:25] translated "naked", and in the very next verse its singular form, עָר֔וּם (Gen 3:1), is translated "crafty/shrewd?").

Even if it does not answer exactly to your question, I believe it contains some interesting points that brings to light a number of pivotal concepts useful for your current research.

Answer 4

We may find it perplexing that in Genesis and Revelation, the serpent is depicted as Satan, punished by God to crawl on its belly and eat dust all its life (Genesis 3:14) and ultimately cast into the lake of fire. However, in Numbers 21:9, Moses was commanded to create a bronze serpent that provided healing to those who looked at it. Today, the World Health Organization uses a similar symbol, the Rod of Asclepius-a snake entwined around a pole, as part of its official logo. This symbol is universally associated with health and medicine.

Could it be possible that the serpent is a metaphor for the sinful nature of humanity? The punishment in Genesis 3:14 may symbolize the hardships humanity faces when cast out from God's care. By looking at the serpent, an analogy for facing our sins and repenting, we receive healing and salvation. Ultimately, God will take away our sins and cast them into the lake of fire.

I don't have a definitive answer, but this interpretation seems reasonable to me.