Did The Serpent Originally Have Legs?
Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI
Biblical Authority Ministries, January 7, 2026 (Donate)
Perhaps one of the most-asked and most debated topics is the
serpent’s original appearance. The model
of the serpent at the Creation Museum
exhibit just outside of Cincinnati, OH is pictured below to get people to
consider and think about the serpent more deeply.
Serpent in the Garden of Eden exhibit at the Creation
Museum; Photo by Bodie Hodge
Determining features of the serpent from the precious
little information given in the Bible is a difficult task and there is
considerable speculation in this area.
For example, what color and patterns were on the serpent’s exterior,
what shape of eyes did the serpent have and so on…?
What Does The Bible
Say?
Even the question of legs on the serpent is one with
varying speculation. Consider the biblical text to see what it says of the
serpent to share some of the rigors researchers go through (Genesis 3:1-5, NKJV formatted):
Now the serpent was more cunning
than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the
woman,
“Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of
every tree of the garden’?”
And the woman said to the
serpent,
“We may eat the fruit of the
trees of the garden; “but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst
of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it,
lest you die.’”
Then the serpent said to the
woman,
“You will not surely die. “For
God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will
be like God, knowing good and evil.”
If we jump down
we read more (Genesis 3:13-15, NKJV formatted):
And the LORD God said to the
woman,
“What is this you have
done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
So the LORD God said to the
serpent:
“Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than
all cattle,
And more than every beast of the
field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her
Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”
When looking at Genesis 3:13-15, there is no direct
indication that the serpent had legs, only that its curse would be “on your
belly you shall go”. But in Genesis 3:1, we get a clue that the serpent was
likely classified as a beast of the field, which is probably why beasts of the field
were also mentioned in 3:14?[1]
What makes this an issue is that it was a land animal and/or flying reptile in
general, hence it moved one way or another—slithering or with appendages. If it
slithered already, what was the point of the curse and why compare it to
creatures which had legs in Genesis 3:14.
Regardless if it was a beast of the field, the serpent was
indeed a land animal of sorts and capable of locomotion in the Garden of Eden
and in the field. Let’s evaluate forms of locomotion to see the possibilities.
Locomotion
Land animals are currently known to have three classes of
locomotion[2].
They are:
1. Legged (or some form of appendage)
2. Slithering
3. Rolling
Beasts of the field, and virtually all land animals, use
some form of leg(s), from cattle as a quadruped to inch worms, which use two
grabbing spots on their body to inch along.
Of course, snakes and legless lizards slither.
The other means of locomotion is rolling. Few creatures
today roll and of these creatures, all roll temporarily. The primary means is
using gravity and balling up to roll down a hill like a web-toed salamander or a Namid
wheeling spider.
Precious few land animals have a self-powered rolling
mechanism. There are two that come to
mind, Mother-Of-Pearl moth
caterpillar stage and the Pangolins both
use a leg(s) and/or tail with which to push.
Even these rolling creatures use some form of appendage or leg, so
really there are only two types of locomotion found among animals today:
slithering or legged.
Was there some other form of locomotion among creatures
that are now extinct? This is a good question and without further research,
there is no certain answer and even so there may not be much to go on. But lack
of evidence is not evidence against.
As for the possibility of wings, this can’t be entirely
ruled out either. But if so, then the serpent was still with some form of
locomotion other than slithering. The issue of whether or not the serpent had
wings would come down to whether or not it was a beast of the field or a flying
creature that was created on Day 5. Regardless, if it had wings, it had some
form of appendage and physically changed forms.
Hebrew and
Greek
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”).[3]
Although, this may have been deduced from Genesis 3:14
regarding the serpent and it 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.
Commentaries: did the serpent have legs?
|
|
Commentator(s) |
Legs/ appendages? |
Comment(s): |
|
1 |
Henry Morris[4] |
Yes |
The body of the serpent, in addition, was altered even further
by eliminating his ability to stand erect, eye-to-eye with man as it were. It is further possible that all these animals (other than the
birds) were quadrupeds, except the serpent, who had the remarkable ability,
with a strong vertebral skeleton supported by limbs, to rear and hold himself
erect when talking with Adam and Eve. |
|
2 |
John Gill[5] |
Yes (whether feet or flying) |
Jarchi thinks it had feet before, but were cut off on this
account, and so became a reptile, as some serpents now have feet like geese,
as Pliny {x} relates; or it might go in a more erect posture on its
hinder feet, as the basilisk, which is one kind of serpent, now does; and if
it was a flying one, bright and shining in the air, now it should lose all
its glory, and grovel in the dust, and with pain, or at least with
difficulty, creep along on its breast and belly; and this, as it respects the
punishment of the devil, may signify, that he being cast down from the realms
of bliss and glory, shall never be able to rise more, and regain his former
place and dignity: |
|
3 |
Matthew Henry[6] |
Yes (perhaps feet and wings) |
He is to be for ever looked upon as a vile and despicable
creature, and a proper object of scorn and contempt: "Upon thy belly
thou shalt go, no longer upon feet, or half erect, but thou shalt crawl
along, thy belly cleaving to the earth," an expression of a very abject
miserable condition |
|
4 |
John Calvin[7] |
No |
This objection has induced certain men of learning and ability
to say, that the serpent had been accustomed to walk with an erect body
before it had been abused by Satan. There will, however, be no absurdity in
supposing, that the serpent was again consigned to that former condition, to
which he was already naturally subject. For thus he, who had exalted himself
against the image of God, was to be thrust back into his proper rank; as if
it had been said, ‘Thou, a wretched and filthy animal, hast dared to rise up
against man, whom I appointed to the dominion of the whole world; as if,
truly, thou, who art fixed to the earth, hadst any right to penetrate into
heaven. Therefore, I now throw thee back again to the place whence thou hast
attempted to emerge, that thou mayest learn to be contented with thy lot, and
no more exalt thyself, to man’s reproach and injury.’ |
|
5 |
Adam Clarke[8] |
Yes |
upon thy belly shalt thou go—thou shalt no longer walk erect,
but mark the ground equally with thy hands and feet; |
|
6 |
Leupold[9] |
Yes/No – open to both-not necessarily a complete transformation
but leans toward few, if any changes |
The first element is, "upon thy belly thou shalt go."
This does not necessarily mean that a complete transformation of the serpent
took place, so that "form and movements of the serpent were
altered" (Keil). Some speak quite boldly at this point about a former
erect posture, as though, for example, the serpent had strutted about proudly
as a cock. It has been rightly, pointed out that several parallels are
available. Man worked before the Fall and still works since. Now work is in a
measure a punishment. It seems likely that the rainbow existed before the
Flood; but since that time it is a pledge of God’s covenant. |
|
7 |
Matthew Poole[10] |
Yes |
If the serpent did so before the fall, what then was natural, is
now become painful and shameful to it, as nakedness and some other things
were to man. But it seems more probable that this serpent before the fall
either had feet, or rather did go with its breast erect, as the basilisk at
this day doth; God peradventure so ordering it as a testimony that some other
serpents did once go so. And so the sense of the curse being applied to this
particular serpent, and to its kind, may be this: Whereas thou hadst a
privilege above other kinds of serpents, whereby thou didst go with erected
breast, and didst feed upon the fruits of trees and other plants; now thou
shalt be brought down to the same mean and vile estate with them, |
|
8 |
John Trapp[11] |
Yes |
The serpent here is first cut shorter by the feet, and made to
wriggle upon his belly; |
|
9 |
Martin Luther[12] |
Yes |
From this some obvious conclusions follow: that before sin the
serpent was a most beautiful little animal and most pleasing to man, as
little mules, sheep and puppies today; moreover, that it walked upright. |
|
10 |
Allen P. Ross[13] |
Yes |
He says nothing about how the curse affected the serpent
physically, though Ross indicates that the curse did change him physically in
some way. |
|
11 |
C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch[14] |
Yes |
“the form and movements of the serpent were altered … though we
cannot form any accurate idea of its original appearance.” |
|
12 |
Flavius Josephus[15] |
Yes |
“had deprived him of the use of his feet.” |
|
13 |
Gordon Wenham[16] |
No |
“It is doubtful whether this implies that snakes once had legs
to walk with like other animals.” But he doesn’t explain why he thinks
it is doubtful. |
|
14 |
John Sailhamer[17] |
No |
This curse does not necessarily suggest that the snake had
previously walked with feet and legs as the other land animals.” But he
doesn’t explain why he calls the serpent a “snake” or why he concludes this
about the curse. |
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 certain that the serpent remained with the same form. 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 “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 mankind 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 coincides with the serpent
originally having some form of legs or appendages and these were either lost or
reduced (consider how many serpents crawl on their bellies and yet have legs
e.g. crocodile). 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.
Serpent model with appendages, but still crawls on its belly if you notice carefully; Photo by Bodie Hodge
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 that has been passed along to subsequent generations, increased pain in work that has been passed along too).
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 helps explain certain Defense and Attack Structures (DAS) in animals and plants that currently dominate the world.
Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.
Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.
Originally at Answers in Genesis; Edited; Republished by permission.
[1] I
personally lean toward the serpent being a beast of the field (not
dogmatically) as I understand that it could simply be compared to them in the
same way we can compare a bird to the beasts of the field.
[2] This
excludes motion by flying such as flying squirrels. Such locomotion is only temporary for land
animals and they have other means of movement while on the land.
[3] The
Genesis Record, Henry Morris, Baker Book House, 1976, Thirty-sixth Printing,
Page 108
[4] The
Genesis Record, Henry Morris, Baker Book House, 1976, Thirty-sixth Printing,
Page 107-109
[5] John Gill’s Exposition, John Gill, Adapted
from Online Bible, Larry Pierce, Notes on Genesis 3:14
[6] Revised
Matthew Henry Commentary, Adapted from Online Bible, Larry Pierce, Notes on
Genesis 3:1 and 3:14
[7] Calvin’s
Commentaries, John Calvin, Adapted from Online Bible, Larry Pierce, Notes on
Genesis 3:14
[8] Adam
Clarke’s Commentary, Adam Clarke, Adapted from Online Bible, Larry Pierce,
Notes on Genesis 3:14
[9]
Leupold’s notes, Leupold, Adapted from Online Bible, Larry Pierce, Notes on
Genesis 3:14
[10] Matthew
Poole’s Commentary, Matthew Poole, Adapted from Online Bible, Larry Pierce,
Notes on Genesis 3:14
[11] John
Trapp Commentary, John Trapp, Adapted from Online Bible, Larry Pierce, Notes on
Genesis 3:14
[12]
Luther’s Works Volume 1, Martin Luther, lectures on Genesis 3:14, Edited by
Jaroslav Pelikan, Concordia Publishing House, 1958 in English,
[13] Allen
P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of
Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), p. 145.
[14] C.F.
Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 1: The
Pentateuch (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989, original in 1875), translated
by James Martin, p. 99.
[15] Josephus,
Antiquities, I:1,50 in The Works of Josephus, translated by
William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), p. 30.
[16] Gordon
Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Dallas, TX: Word, 1987), pp. 78-79
[17] John
Sailhamer, Genesis, in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible
Commentary, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), p. 55
