As part of my writing for International Biblical Studies Writing Month (held over for a second month due to popular demand), I am writing an exegetical essay on Isaiah 65:17-25 for the Feasting on the Word lectionary series. I came across an interesting aspect of the passage that I thought I would discuss.
It is widely recognized that Isaiah 65:25 alludes to Isaiah 11:6-9. Isaiah 65:25a states:
The wolf and the lamb will graze together; the lion will eat straw like the ox; and the serpent will have dust for its food.1
It occurs to me that this is a rather odd statement. The first two phrases quoted above envision a return to the conditions of the Garden of Eden. The imagery is right at home in this passage, which envisions God creating a new heavens and a new earth (Isaiah 65:17). It also matches the heavenly vision of Isaiah 11:6-9.
But what is going on with the serpent? In Isaiah 11:8, the child will play with the asp and the adder without being hurt. This would make us think that the serpent eating dust is in contrast to its previous predilection. But Genesis 3:14 (which was probably known to Third Isaiah) states that eating dust is the serpent’s punishment. This would suggest that while the other animals are returning to the peaceful existence of the Garden of Eden, the serpent still bears its punishment. This doesn’t match with the thrust of the verse or with the material to which it alludes in Isaiah 11:6-9.
Blenkinsopp offers the following suggestion:
[The author] was apparently convinced that, having been cursed from the very beginning, snakes are the one exception to this ideal scene of harmony in the animal world. The snake is therefore excluded from this transformation of the natural world, this return to the first creation, in which humans and animals are to live in harmony and none will kill for food.2
This explanation leaves me less than satisfied. After all, nothing states that the serpent is not going to live in harmony. It won’t be killing for food, since it will eat dust. And the main animosity in Genesis 3 is between the serpent and humans, not between serpents and other animals.
But I still don’t have a satisfactory explanation for what is going on with the serpent. Does Isaiah 65:25 see this as a positive or negative for the serpent? Is the serpent going to eat dust instead of attacking humans? Or is the serpents fate contrasted with the fate of the other animals through a reiteration of the curse in Genesis 3:14? What is going on?
Anyone have any ideas?
- My translation. [back]
- Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 55-66, Anchor Bible 19B (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 290. [back]
On February 6th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Kevin,
I enjoyed your article, and I think that the issue of the exception of the serpent is a very difficult to understand.
Let me go back to your translation: The wolf and the lamb will graze together; the lion will eat straw like the ox; and the serpent will have dust for its food.
What does that mean the wolf and the lamb will graze, and the lion will eat straw like the ox? Alike these transformations, do we expect something transformation of the serpent that the serpent will eat something vegetation rather than dust?
Let’s take the agricultural words, grazing in the pasture, straw as a guide to discuss this issue. Both dust and ground are also understood as same way. The peaceful imagery in the transformation of the wild animals is also found in the serpent. Isn’t it? As you translated “And the serpent…” I agree with your translation rather than NRSV (But the serpent).
They are all peaceful imaeries including the serpent. I’m not sure whether we need to go Genesis or somewhere else to understand this issue.
The last section of v. 25 says, “they shall [including the serpent] not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain, says the LORD.” I’d like to focus on this last section to understand the issue that you raised up.
On February 7th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Kevin,
Interesting thoughts. Personally, I think that if we just assume the author here was not aware of Genesis 2-3, or if he was aware that he was not trying to make any connection, we could easily understand the verse: the serpent will eat dust, not small rodents.
Of course, this assumes that if the author was aware of Genesis 2-3 he had no desire to make a direct connection. I admit, it’s a dubious assumption, but its one of the few things that I can think of off the top of my head.
On February 8th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Hi Kevin,
your post inspired to write a reply on my blog. Let me know if you find it helpful.
On February 8th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
[…] Poetry has a post in which he discusses the issue of interpretation I raised in my post “Dust Eating Serpents.” I hope to respond to what he has to say about Isaiah. For now, I wanted to address another […]