CCL, CREC & Serpents and She-Nazis

The first two are not like the others!

We have completed our final trip of the year! Our California trip included delightful conversations and outstanding meals. The good folks at the Center for Cultural Leadership put on a show of hospitality. P. Andrew Sandlin was again a great host and extended his warm welcome to us! He always manages to find a way to include me in the program, though the place is full of highly talented people.

The opening banquet was a double dose of goodness this year! Dinner with David Bahnsen was a blast! We finally solved the Regulative Principle matter, made some great connections to past friends, and listened to some new Greg Bahnsen stories I had not heard before. David is a gift, and I am honored by his friendship and encouragement.

CCL has become part of our December routine and the perfect way to end the year.

The renewal of friendships continues to be a great encouragement to me. It’s also an absolute joy to meet new friends and hear their benedictions on my labors as PMOC. I am always overwhelmed by their attentiveness to my work in the CREC and the seriousness with which they read my labors. These last 15 months have been filled with challenges as we look forward to God’s work among us!

It was especially great to meet Dr. Scott Cook, adjunct professor of apologetics at Greenville Theological Seminary. Scott was a joy, and I hope we can build on those initial conversations. If someone had told me the Presiding Minister of Council for the CREC and a PCA minister teaching at Greenville Seminary would get along splendidly, I would have told you, “Well, of course!”

Our travels also went beyond San Francisco to Sacramento. After the symposium on Saturday, the Liberattis drove us to Sacramento. Melinda and I have enjoyed a little date night every time we attend.

Sunday morning was fairly relaxed since the service began at 1 pm. We had a peaceful Lord’s Day, and around midday, we made our way to the Church of the King. It’s been two years since I visited, but seeing a congregation grow so gracefully is remarkable. The labors of Pastors Stoos and Liberatii have borne much good fruit.

I preached Isaiah 64 on the purpose of longing in the Christian life. The worship was replete with beautiful music and scriptural readings, a rich covenantal feast, which we have become accustomed to when visiting CREC congregation.

Following the service, we had a full fellowship meal, followed by a lively Q&A with yours truly covering matters of church calendar, marriage, and the CREC. We went on for quite some time and we could have gone longer. Still, the day was not over for these dear saints.

We arrived at the pastor’s house later in the evening for the after-party. That initiated another few hours of lively conversation and questions pertaining to the CREC and the future of the denomination., What a stellar group of men! I have been fighting some serious allergy problems recently, and while I was exhausted by the end, the entire Sunday was an unforgettable display of heavenly kindness.

We thank God for our safe return to Pensacola and for giving us the next 30 days to enjoy the rest of Advent, Christmas, and early Epiphany festivities with our Church! And speaking of Providence, we have a great announcement to make to the general public later today!

2025 looks even more promising!

I will offer several updates for my Friday Substack, including an overview of my travel year!

---

Serpents and She-Nazis

I should offer a few words on the recent kerfuffle begun online by neo-nazi apologists who took a word I used in a sermon back in July and ran with it as proof of my loyalty to Jewish Kabbala practice. I still don’t know what these things mean. If the screenshots I saw entail that I spend my time delving into magical Jewish texts, then I think they assume too much of my literary habits. Someone else believed I had been deeply steeped in Michael Heiser’s writings to arrive at such conclusions. Again, this is categorically false. I think I only read one Heiser chapter for an essay I wrote for the Theopolis Institute. The other observation argued that my conclusion came from reading Jewish mythology, where Lilith is portrayed as Adam’s first wife. The character appears in the Babylonian Talmud. I can honestly say that I had never heard of Lilith until such accusations were made.

Furthermore, I have never read one page of the Talmud, except for a few quotes online. In one sense, I am revealing my ignorance of these sources, but in another, I am quite comfortable remaining unaware of them. My main agenda in the last 20 years has been to engage in biblical theology. As a committed Vantilian, even connecting a character in the Bible with one outside of the Scriptures seems dangerous, in my estimation. Therefore, the entire accusation seems inconsistent and somewhat putrid.

It is well-known that these guys prey on the weak and feed off their ignorance to propagate and make twice-sons of Belial. So, using the PMOC of the CREC as a target is a rather amusing exercise. In sum, they are effeminate pro-nazi apologists whose lives are dedicated to the praise and adoration of their father, Fuhrer. They have nothing to offer but putrid sacrifices.

But this is well-known and established. Those who follow them will ruin their lives with anger, hatred, bitterness, and more. I wish I could tell their listeners that their futures look devastating and miserable if they continue on this path!

So, it has been delightful to receive their anonymous wrath in the last couple of days. They function in tribalistic forms like legion. When their leader gives the cue, the anonymous army—mostly bots—replies to defend their podcast fuhrer. It’s entertaining but frightening to see the language they use. I have decided not to post any pictures because of their words. They are unmistakably vile! No, I will not engage fools in their folly, and I will not engage demonic fools who delight in their folly. The she-nazis follow their leader.

Typology as Gift

And speaking of she-serpents, I want to reiterate my reference to the serpent in the female form because, typologically, it is a fitting image for those who hate our blessed Lord. The Garden-Serpent was not some muscular image but a more delicate trickster.

But to see this, you must pass the standard practice of looking at the words involved and the typology. Some will simply mention that the serpent is referred to as “he” in Genesis 3:1 found in most of our English translations. But a literal rendering is not as clear. For instance, a literal emphasis rendering would be:

And the serpent was more crafty than any animal of the field which Jehovah Elohim had made. And it said to the woman, Is it even so, that God has said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

• וַיֹּאמֶר (vayomer): and said¹

Therefore, we need to look at the typological nature of the text. Typology is a gift of seeing and connecting God’s themes into a coherent vision. Typology is possible because we live in Western civilization and breathe the best of Western tradition. Shakespeare and P.G. Wodehouse are ours. C.S. Lewis worked out his types and shadows and gardens. Tolkien gave us orcs and hobits. All ours by virtue of our linguistic and typological tradition in the West! We should cherish these things.

Among the many blessings of this noble history is the ability to give order to our grammar. The orcs of the Left don’t do typology because LGBTQ+ culture hates the West. They want alphabet cereal in real life. They don’t see the order in language. They can’t see shadow and fulfillment. They confuse all rules of engagement. They exchange the glory of the text for the misogyny or the offense of the text. The more confused gender-language is, the better for their cause. They won’t cease until thei sussceed att disorieteeng our language. They won’t stop until our letters are turned upside down. They want evil to be legislated into all our textbooks. They want typology gone from our interpretive lenses.

The Serpent Connections and Sexual Confusion

But before I elaborate, I should say that the issue is adiaphora. If someone sees a Hebrew noun and determines that it can only mean that the beast of the field is portrayed in the masculine, I am perfectly fine with it. In fact, in close to 700 sermons preached at my congregation, I think I have only referred to the serpent in Genesis 3 in the masculine. And I may even change my thoughts but have been persuaded otherwise.

Nevertheless, my opening presupposition is that the serpent is distinct from Satan, the fallen angel. While Satan is referred to as the “old serpent,” this speaks directly to his influence rather than his identity. There is no indication that a talking creature exercises supernatural gifts in Genesis 3, nor does it say Satan took the form of a serpent. The curse is placed upon the offspring of the serpent. So, we are talking about two distinct entities. Yet, it would be foolish to cause a direct break between the serpent and Satan or their works. Revelation 12 connects Satan to “that serpent of old.” Revelation 20:2–3 also does the same by calling Satan a serpent (see also Ezekiel 28:13).

Therefore, the proper connection would be that Satan is not the serpent but influences or controls the serpent. There is an ideological tie between Satan and the serpent; the story has a Screwtape familiarity. There are also profound typological and theological connections throughout the Scriptures. It is very clear that the serpent has dragon-like connotations (Rev. 12:9). A glance through the Old Testament stories would indicate that there are demonic manifestations or influence of Satan in serpents, dragons, sea creatures, and even as an angel of light (II Cor. 11:14-15).

Another key biblical imagery of serpent-like manifestations is the one from Revelation 20 concerning Jezebel, who is playing a metaphorical, feminine role, and her role is distinctly sexualized, immoral, and prostitutionalized. She is the image of the serpent and a final representation of the serpent image before the details of the end of world history in Revelation 20.

In this manner, at the end of the Scriptures, we see a direct line back to the beginning of Scripture and the manifestation of the serpent in the Garden as a Jezebel figure. The Jezebel-spirits are offspring of the serpent in Genesis 3. They practice harlotry, a common refrain of Satan’s tactics (see also my book where I detail Satan’s strategy and eschatology, and final doom). In fact, my opening statement could be that the serpent in Genesis 3 is the Jezebel of Revelation 20. That connection will be developed, but it is worth noting initially.

Sexual Insanity

I argue that sexual confusion began in the Garden. There was a distinct plan to erase God’s direct purpose for man and woman. This insanity is not the result of academic queers in the 1960’s. Gender confusion began long ago. Nevertheless, the serpent temptations infiltrate the modern discourse. The she-nazis were appalled that I would connect the serpent to sexual confusion, but I would like to double down here.

Satan directly influences these Jezebel/serpent manifestations in your local chapter of gender studies. The serpent also has offspring among the LGBT entrepreneurs and the head of the Public Relations department at Harvard. We can assert that the Serpent in the Garden was a type of every Lesbian Studies academic in American universities. Every time we see a distortion of sexuality, we can also see a serpentine manifestation that began in the Garden.

In the Garden, the serpent was the embodiment of confusion. She didn’t follow the laws of logic. The Fall of Man in Genesis 3 was the precursor to the fall of Babel in Genesis 11. Linguistic confusion happened earlier than the tower. The serpent’s cause was to make Adam and Eve re-think everything, including language. The Serpent wanted to create sexual confusion by approaching the woman first. She changed the rules of the game. She caught our forefathers off linguistic guard. Adam was to protect and to provide. He should have jumped in and crushed the serpent fairly quickly. It would have been the world’s fastest excommunication service. But Adam allowed the serpent to keep the conversation and the disorientation going. He was behind the tree, watching the whole thing. He let his wife sit under the tutelage of a sexual revolutionary.

Sexual confusion began in the Garden. Unredeemed history has had 6,000 years to perfect its sexual insanity. And the serpent has continued to deceive through the lineage that started with the curse of Genesis 3.

Is the Serpent Described in the Female?

Before offering some thoughts, it would be helpful to reiterate my starting point. Some of the patristic writings (Eusebius of Caesaria, Chrysostom, etc.), the Eastern Orthodox tradition, recent popes, and a few recent commentators in the past century, like Adam Clarke and modern populizers like Hank Hanegraaf, view the serpent in Genesis 3 as metaphors for sin, temptation, and evil. The serpent, therefore, only operates as a symbol of the evil Adam and Eve experienced in the Garden.

Cardinal Ratzinger observes that:

[T]he image of the serpent . . . is taken from the eastern fertility cults. These fertility religions were severe temptations for Israel for centuries, tempting it to abandon the covenant and to enter into the religious milieu of the time. . . .²

But while some of the applications behind the metaphor make sense of the biblical language, my operating assumption is the materiality of the serpent. There was an actual, physical serpent, beast of the field present fully cognizant due to the influence of Satan himself.

While I understand what the metaphorical approach seeks to accomplish, I think it leaves many unanswered questions. For instance, who was cursed in Genesis 3? Was it a metaphorical evil? The ideology of falsehood? Was the curse on the unity of mankind? While these things are true, they can only be true if there is a material creature for whom Yahweh imposes a curse.

My goal is to provide some initial thoughts since it has been raised by she-serpents that I practice Kabbala and use Jewish incantations and that I am a Jewish agent infiltrating a Reformed Presbyterian denomination. Were these things true, I would have chosen a much more promising career in the Word-of-Faith movement. It would have provided me with much more comfort and maybe, just maybe, my own private jet.

Furthermore, before presenting some facts, I suspect I may convince a few readers of my position, but I also suspect many will remain unconvinced. To the ones who remain skeptical, blessings and cheers. To those who are convinced, be careful of being persecuted by she-nazis and their tribe of anonymous lost boys seeking whom they may devour.

General Arguments for a “she” reading of the serpent

Argument 1: Angels are genderless.

Fallen and redeemed angels are genderless. In terms of the Latin Vulgate’s original text, the word “serpens” (serpent) is neuter. Masculine pronouns are used in many places and angels are used in the masculine consistently. Historically, however, serpents have played the role of fertility, deception, and temptress, which can also be used in feminine categories.

Some Hebrew usage of serpent (nachash) may also imply the root of “shining one.” This would connect its idea to the fallen angel, Satan himself, who appears as an angel of light in places (II Corinthians 11:14). Is it possible that Paul’s reference takes us back to the Garden? Did the serpent appear with a serpent figure but also shining as an angel? I cannot say, but thoughtful dialogue would be interesting to pursue.

Some philological considerations may conclude that the Hebrew word has distinctly male connotations. In the Hebrew Bible and Jewish tradition, this word has a masculine grammatical gender. However, it would be simplistic to settle and determine the particular reference merely on linguistic elements without including its typology.

Argument 2: Female Angels?

Are there female angels in the Bible? I tend to believe that the overwhelming evidence points in the negative direction. There are artistic depictions of female angels, but the uses of angels (Gabriel and Michael, for instance) and the use of the Hebrew (מֲלְאָךְ, malak) and Greek (ἄγγελος, angelos) points to the supremacy of masculine angel figures in the text.

Nevertheless, there is an interesting reference in Zechariah 5:9:

Then I looked up—and there before me were two women, with the wind in their wings! They had wings like those of a stork, and they lifted up the basket between heaven and earth.

The two women have the “wind in their wings.” Is that a vision, a symbol of judgment? Likely both. Either way, they are depicted with angelic features. Further, in Revelation 12:14, a woman is given wings to fly and flee the dragon. This is undoubtedly symbolic language, but it should be noted that "wings' are definitively angelic categories. Whether symbolically (most likely in Zechariah’s vision), no one should seek to change the language of the Bible.

Argument 3: Differentiating serpents and Satan

As I have stated earlier, it’s important to differentiate between the material serpent and Satan himself. Early Christian writers, such as Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century), Justinian (6th century), and Cassiodorus (6th century), explicitly identify Satan as the one who tempted Eve through the serpent. Still, they do not equate the serpent with Satan. And none other than Calvin himself agreed:

For when Moses says that the serpent was crafty beyond all other animals, he seems to intimate, that it had been induced to deceive man, not by the instigation of Satan, but by its own malignity. I answer, that the innate subtlety of the serpent did not prevent Satan from making use of the animal for the purpose of effecting the destruction of man. For since he required an instrument, he chose from among animals that which he saw would be most suitable for him: finally, he carefully contrived the method by which the snares he was preparing might the more easily take the mind of Eve by surprise (Genesis 3, commentary).

Even if we interpret the serpent as someone possessed by Satan himself, we know that the Devil can appear in whatever manifestation he deems best to challenge, confront, and destroy the kingdom of God.

In this case, he took a beast of the field to control and direct. Angels are glorious and powerful, yet Satan, a fallen angel, manifests himself, or to be more precise, comes in the form of or controls an attractive, talking creature with rationality and seductive rhetoric. My argument is that we can easily depict Satan/the Devil in masculine terms, but I don't think we have as much certainty when it comes to the serpent in Genesis 3. Again, these are tentative thoughts, but I think they are sufficiently clear.

The Devil can control or manifest in various ways throughout the Scriptures. The serpent is a deceiver in the Garden, and we should expect Satan to use and control others in the way Satan finds most compelling to entangle God's people. Nevertheless, God sent demons into pigs and threw them off the cliff into a lake and drowned them (Luke 8:36-39). God is the Master who uses serpents and Satan for his own purposes (Job 1).

Furthermore, and more to the point, there is nothing biblically preventing the Devil (the Father of Lies) from manifesting as a cannibal woman (II Kings 6:29; Lamentations 4:10) who eats their own children. The serpent in the Garden sought to eat the children of the Most High God.

Additionally, the serpent is a female temptress (as we see in Pilgrim's Progress) and a prostitute in Proverbs. According to Solomon, she “preys on your life (Prov. 6:26), is dressed with crafty intent (Prov. 7:10), and leads others to squander their wealth (Prov. 29:10). She is the anti-Lady Wisdom. All these features are found in the serpent in Genesis 3. She preys on Eve, is crafty in her rhetorical deception, and causes Adam and Even to squander their gifts. We might even say that the serpent is like a prostitute, a Jezebel-like figure. And like Jezebel and the prostitute, the serpent appeared as one who brought forth sexual confusion.

The desire to cause sexual confusion is precisely why the language used by the serpent as cunning and deceitful carefully matches the language used by female prostitutes in Proverbs and throughout the prophetic writings. The serpent's flattery is filled with the harlotry language of the Old Testament. At the very least, the serpent is portrayed with female characteristics. When Revelation warns the church to be aware of the Jezebel spirit, he is alluding to the prostitute spirit of cunningness, used explicitly by the serpent in the Garden. If Revelation is a re-enactment of Genesis as the redemption of the cosmos, then I think we have a reasonably good typological connection made.

Argument 4: The Parallel of Genesis 3:15

Finally, while the Seed of the Woman is our Lord, born of a woman (Gal. 4), the woman is Mary, the theotokos, mother of the Son of God. She is the new Eve, as Jesus is the true Adam. The affirmation that Mary is the "bearer" of the offspring (Jesus) is historically and biblically verifiable. Augustine makes this case clearly:

“The Woman signifies Mary, who, being spotless, brought forth our spotless Head ... as [Mary] in bringing forth a Son remained a Virgin, so the Church also should during the whole of time be bringing forth His members, and yet not lose her virgin estate.”

Mary’s faithfulness also indicates the ultimate image of the Church as the bride. The Church wars against the serpent line. Genesis depicts two lines of “seed” engaged in holy war throughout history. We see this played out already in Genesis 4. Cain continues in the serpent line, and Abel exemplifies the redemptive line. This continues through the line of Seth, who perpetuates the seed of the serpent.

Jesus is the ultimate seed of the woman (Gal. 3:16). He was not created but given through the womb of a woman ("Virgin-Womb," as the hymn writer states). And similarly, Genesis 3:15 says, that Yahweh will put enmity between you (the serpent) and the woman, and between your seed (the serpent's seed) and hers. The "hers" can reference all the righteous women who bore sons in the Old Testament, but ultimately Mary. Furthermore, by extension, we can say that those godly redeemed women who bear children in the covenant continue that blessed line. Paul refers to it as the seed of Abraham. As the hymn-writer puts it:

Ye chosen seed of Israel’s race,
Ye ransomed from the fall,
Ye ransomed from the fall,
Hail Him who saves you by His grace, and crown him Lord of all!

Matthew Henry states:

He was likewise to be the seed of a woman only, of a virgin, that he might not be tainted with the corruption of our nature; he was sent forth, made of a woman (Gal 4 4), that this promise might be fulfilled.

But it also seems evident that the serpent also produces offspring. There is a parallel between the two. Of course, she is not literally giving birth, but her serpentine ideology will be absorbed by the evil line throughout history. This offspring produces an evil lineage that shall war against those from the seed of Mary and, consequently, from the line of our Covenant Lord, Jesus Christ. The war of the lines places Cain and Abel against each other and the Church against the false religious leaders in the first century and throughout history. God will cut down the serpent line at the end of history and judge them in everlasting judgment.

We should not overlook the parallel between the seed of the woman (those who love Yahweh) and the seed of the serpent (those who follow their father, the Devil). This is why Revelation singles out two women to describe the evil city in the first century. They are perpetuating the serpent’s line in their deception. And then, in Revelation 17, the "woman" who blasphemed and swallowed the martyrs, known as "the mother of prostitutes," is certainly a description of the demonic work of the Serpent. The serpent lineage is violent and uses the false prophets of Israel to kill God's people at the end of the Old Covenant era (likely between 66 and 70 AD).

The difference between the serpent’s offspring is that she produces a lineage that schemes against God’s people (Eph. 6) but ultimately swallows her own. She is a deceitful whore who ends up deceiving herself. She is Jezebel, who foul dogs eat at the end (II Kings 9:30-37), while the woman's seed shall shine like the sun (Judges 5).

Closing Affirmations and Denials

I trust my thoughts at least whet the reader’s appetite. My goal is to make you think carefully about an oft-overlooked detail. I never thought a simple linguistic and typological observation would lead to such interest, but here we are. Wait until these excommunicated serpents hear what I have to say about the remarkable sea creature in the book of Jonah. But I will leave that observation for another time.

I want to conclude with a few affirmations and denials at the heart of my arguments, and those aware of the background conversations will understand what is being affirmed and denied.

I affirm that the serpent is a literal and material figure.

I affirm that the serpent is diabolical in nature.

I affirm that Satan controls the serpent and that they are two distinct entities.

I affirm that Satan can appear as an angel of light, even a shining serpent.

I affirm that the serpent has distinct female features and typifies prostitutes and Jezebels throughout history. Her history is marked by deceit, seduction, and trickery.

I affirm that modern women who prostitute themselves and who find a life outside of their God-ordained calling are the offspring of the serpent in the garden.

I affirm that women are made in the image of God and that feminist’s attempts to distort the original calling of women violate their image-bearing status.

I affirm that women are co-heirs of grace, as St. Peter states.

I affirm that redeemed women are the offspring of Mary and Mary’s God, Jesus Christ.

I deny that the only way to understand the narrative in Genesis three is through metaphors and allegories, as some patristics and modern Orthodox and Catholic authors do.

I deny that women are by nature serpent-like as nefarious groups would, or that they are ontologically inferior to men, or that somehow they do not carry the image-bearing status of man.

I deny that women are, by nature, deceitful, as some nefarious groups would.

I deny that women ought to be kept in ignorance.

I deny that women have no role in rebuking their husbands in cases of ethical violations.

I deny that women have no voice in contributing to the life of the Church.

I deny that women’s role is solely to bear children.

I deny that a woman is to be intellectually ignorant, as some nefarious groups would.

I deny any statement that diminishes the woman’s role as partner, companion, and help to her husband.

I deny that the Talmud or other non-biblical literary works can add typological strength to the creation narrative. The Bible is internally self-sufficient, and its types and shadows are independent of outside sources.

Postscript:

As an additional note, I should reference a couple of historical points: Adam, Eve, and the (female) Serpent are at the entrance to Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris:

Medieval Christian art usually depicted the Edenic Serpent as a woman, emphasizing its seductiveness and relationship to Eve.

Several early Church Fathers, including Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea, interpreted the Hebrew "Heva" as not only the name of Eve but in its aspirated form as "female serpent."

1. וַיֹּאמֶר (vayomer) is a Hebrew phrase that translates to “and said” or “and he said.” It is the third-person masculine singular vav-consecutive imperfect form of the Hebrew verb אָמַר (amár), which means “to say.”

2. Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), in his book, 'In the Beginning . . .': A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall (Huntington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, 1990, from the 1986 German).