Christians who pay attention to what their media is saying have a lot of concerns. Fantasy in particular has a lot of critics,¹ and a particular trope in more modern fantasy seems worrying: good dragons. Should we write dragons as ‘good guys’, given the well-known association between the dragon and Lucifer, from Genesis to Revelation (Gen. 3; Rev. 12)? More broadly, ought a writer to use a symbol in a manner contrary to the Biblical use of that symbol? None of us has a problem with the use of door-knobs as symbols, but serpents and wine, so prominent in Scripture, seem more concerning, at least when the symbolism differs. In the end, though we must not forget the historic and Biblical use of symbols in our utilizations, we are not bound by these uses, though they are sometimes unavoidable.

The central problem with the assertion that all dragons must be evil (and the answer it provides to the broader question) is that it’s not Biblical. Of course, if you’re reading a standard English translation of the Bible, the word ‘dragon’ really only shows up as a symbol of evil, whether is reference to contemporary pagan religion (51:9), to the king of Egypt (Ex. 29:3), or most famously to the devil (Rev. 12). Most of us, with a moment’s thought, would also recognize that the term ‘dragon’ could vaguely encompass the various Beasts of Revelation and Daniel. Adding ‘leviathan’ (Job 41) to the list is also easy, especially given Isaiah 27:1. What is easy to forget in modern English is that there is no hard line between dragons and snakes, symbolically.

In classical symbolism, snakes are dragons, and dragons are snakes. I mentioned earlier that the dragon’s connection with Satan starts in Genesis. More specifically, it starts in Genesis 3, where Satan inhabits or takes on the form of a serpent. This serpent-dragon connection is visible in Medieval interpretation, as shown by Isidore of Seville.² When we speak of the symbolism of the dragon, it is the symbolism also of the serpent. This should not be difficult to accept when we consider that the essential core of a dragon is a serpentine nature, whether we speak of the Hydra, Glaurung, Smaug, or leviathan.³

The symbolism of the snake in the Bible has two important elements which make it an apparent contradiction of dragon imagery (and an actual contradiction of the simplistic interpretation of dragon imagery). The first is Moses’s staff. This is the weaker of the two, as in conjunction with the other symbol given in Exodus 4:1-9 (a hand turned leprous on moment and healed in the next), it could be asserted that just as Moses’s hand became unclean and then clean, so his staff, by becoming a serpent, was made unclean before its restoration to cleanness in its original form. It would seem odd, in my opinion, to assert one of God’s miracles involved creating a symbol of Satan, but the ambiguity exists (it could be argued too that no symbolic weight is attached; it is certainly not emphasized in the passage).

The second contradiction, which has no such ambiguity, is the symbol of the bronze serpent, as used by both Testaments. The bronze serpent itself, given to the Israelites as a means of healing from the plague of venomous serpents afflicting them in Numbers 21, is problem enough for the anti-dragon interpretation, but the real kicker of the argument comes from John 3:14: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.” This passage presents an explicit parallel between the serpent and Christ Himself, an establishing of type and antitype. We cannot deny that here the serpent is a positive symbol, a symbol for the Lamb of God, despite its common use for the Deceiver in other passages.

Another example of such symbolic deviance is found in the lion. 1 Peter 5:8 uses it as a symbol for Satan and his ilk: “Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” Revelation 5:5, meanwhile, uses it for Christ Himself, calling Him “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David.” To an extent even greater than John 3:14 and Revelation 12, these two passages precisely invert each other’s symbolism. In one case, the lion is Christ; in another, it is Satan.

These instances of symbolism, I must admit, are far from true contradictions or even from being completely distinct. This unity has two parts. The bronze serpent of Numbers 21 was given as a means of healing from the bites of non-metaphorical venomous serpents, as in Verse 8: “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” Why were these serpents a problem in the first place? “The Lord sent fiery serpents among the people” as a retribution for their grumbling against His decree” (Num. 21:6).

In this story, then, the danger of the serpents is God’s doing, and so too is the cure, given in the physical symbol of a bronze serpent (which, we note, is unlike Christ in that the statue has no innate power). God brings the danger, and God heals the danger. The first half of the unity, then, is that God is sovereign in both harm and help, though in different ways (a matter too complex to get into here). Satan is, as per Job 1-2, merely a servant to God’s wishes- rebellious but bound to His decree, a worker of evil but only as the Lord permits. So, like the serpents in the wilderness, Satan is a means of discipline and of judgement, and the hand behind both the harm and the healing is God’s.

The second part of the symbolism’s unity remains, and this, more than the first part, explains the contrast between the use of a lion as a symbol. Ultimately, we must realize, evil is derivative. Evil is an inversion, a reflection, a denial, and therefore it must have something- righteousness- which it inverts, reflects, and denies. It is only fitting, then, that Satan should have a symbol which reflects the symbol of the Son of God. Christ is the Lion of Judah, and so Satan, in trying to usurp Him, is a lion prowling in the dark. To put it in literary terms: for every Aslan, there is a Puzzle, clad in mockery of the original. God made the serpent good, and Satan perverted it to his ends in the garden, yet Satan’s ends were all decreed by God for His glory. Evil’s symbols, thus, are often not separate but reflected from the symbols of good (there is a reason an inverted cross is part of the stereotypical occult).

To this whole case, then, there are two counterarguments: first, that by demonstrating the coherence of the symbolism I’ve destroyed my own case; and second, that both instances of apparent contradiction happen within Scripture. I’ll take the second first. The argument, fully stated, is this: as both apparent contradictions are encompassed within Scripture, they are permissible to reproduce, but they do not provide an example for exterior-to-Scripture media. Thus, the counterargument defuses the example by insisting it’s relevantly separate from that which I would apply it to.

This case has two central problems. First, the assertion that the example of Scripture’s self-treatment cannot be used to guide our treatment of Scripture is dangerous at best. The basis of Biblical hermeneutics, after all, is the imitation of Scripture’s self-treatment. Scripture’s self-witness, too, is the basis of our attribution to it of universal relevance and infallibility. In fact, to deny this principle would neuter 2 Timothy 3:16-17’s proclamation: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” The example of how the Bible treats its own symbolism, then, can rightly be used as an example for how we treat its symbolism, always remembering that while the Bible is infallible, we are not.⁴

Second, and this will be relevant in a moment, Scripture never actually imposes a duty not to deviate from its symbolism. Obviously, to deviate from its symbolism in interpreting it would be sin, but that comes under the prohibition against false witness (Ex.20:16) and false teachers (Matt. 18:6). No Scripture prohibits the use of pomegranates as a symbol of poisonous decadence, though that’s outside their Biblical wheelhouse. If you can adduce a passage that disproves this assertion, please do (comments should be on), but barring proof of the positive, this negative stands.⁵ To advance beyond Scripture, to be more holy than His Law, would be an evil deed (Col. 2:18-23).

This other counterargument would aver that by demonstrating Biblical symbolism has consistency I’ve destroyed my own examples’ validity. To some extent this is true- though this counterargument does require the acknowledgement the Scripture has a ‘good dragon’ in it-⁶ but it too has two failures. First, as noted above, Scripture does not impose a duty to cleave entirely within its symbolism except when dealing with it directly (we’ll discuss the subtleties of this next week).

Second, I have never asserted that the best course or proper course of action was to ignore or contradict Biblical symbolism. The examples I have given demonstrate that Scripture uses symbols not as copy-paste imitations but as complicated, living things. A new use of the symbol, in these examples, does not have to cleave to the first use, but it does have to remember it, should acknowledge and utilize it where useful. Here, as we often find, Scripture agrees with art, which would not have us use symbolism only shallowly. We must recognize, too, that Scripture played its symbolism not only off of itself but off of the world around it; Isaiah was not oblivious to the dragon’s importance as a symbol of primordial chaos and extreme power in the pagan world of his time.

(I must note, also, that the coordination of symbolism, in my opinion, is not necessarily an intentional reference by the later to the earlier. The two uses of the lion as a symbol, for instance, can easily be explained without requiring intentional mirroring. In the one case, Christ is likened to a lion for His undoubted glory and power; in the other case, warning is given of Satan’s power. That the two symbols coordinate in displaying the nature of Satan as a ‘false god’ or usurper can be a result not of an intention to say such (at least by the human author) but because the two persons they correspond to have that relationship (and thus their symbols follow suit).

Thus far is a survey of the theological basis of the problem. At its base, the problem of condemning ‘good dragons’ and their genre is that Scripture doesn’t condemn them. It is fair to be dubious of certain symbolism, certainly. Misuse of symbolism is far from impossible. Yet I would place much of the qualms as to the symbols in the category of ‘not eating meat offered to idols’- understandable but unjustified. The problem of symbolism, quite frankly, is in what is said, not how it’s said. Of course, how it’s said is relevant, but the what is the problem, as we’ll see next week in discussing some more theology and a lot more practical application.⁷

God bless

Footnotes

1 – [but I writ emagic]

2 – https://suburbanbanshee.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/more-good-dragons-in-christianity/

3 – Yes, the hydra of Greek mythology is a dragon. Pay no attention to monster manual morphologies.

In other news, I included Glaurung in that list for a reason (instead of, say, Ancalagon). In the Quenta Silmarillion, while I can’t speak definitely as to his number of limbs by reason of not having re-read Turin’s story recently, he travels serpent-like, on his stomach. He is spoken of, in fact, as a large serpent, a ‘Worm’ (worm or wyrm being another name for a dragon).

4 – We must also remember that imperfection in symbolism is not necessarily a moral failing (provided it seeks to tell the truth) and even morally imperfect works of art can be of great beauty, well worth our time. If they weren’t, we’d likely have no human art at all (or at least none of true complexity).

5 – Yes, this appears contrary to usual logical standards. It is not illogical, however. Unless Scripture prohibits, there is no moral prohibition. Thus, until we find a Scriptural prohibition upon something (even by implication), non-prohibition is assumed, is default. Thus absence of evidence, while not evidence of absence, is evidence for silence and its consequent defaulting of judgement.

6 – This is not to mention leviathan, which besides being an animal, is in Job symbolically used for a moral neutral, might, insofar as it has any symbolic weight. I’m really stretching by calling it symbolic, though. ‘Imagery’ would be a truer term.

7 – Thus, I will be dubious of a symbol which involves an inverted cross. Yet I will not be dubious on the basis of the symbol itself but because it is commonly used to communicate falsehood and evil. The inverted cross, short side down, is in modernity generally associated with the occult (Satanism particularly) and with the inversion or denial of Christ. If I see it, therefore, I will have an immediately suspicion that this is the intent of the author, will have a suspicion of what it says based on how it’s said. I cannot condemn it immediately, however. Even in history, the inverted cross has another major association: the death of the apostle Peter, who is said to have requested such an arrangement out of humility. As we can see from this association, quite possibly the older of the two (I’m uninformed on the specific history), historical and Biblical uses of a symbol are important but do not dictate use.