order of intelligences had fallen from their first estate, (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6.) Sin aims to extend itself, and here we find it operating to the delusion and fall of our first parents. It was in the plan of God, that with all their bias to good, there should be a possibility of fall. The will, though disposed to all that was good was liable to the control of evil, in the shape of a powerful temptation. The tempter assaults the race at its weak and exposed point-through the woman-by an appeal to his selfsufficiency. Yet this tempter is God's enemy, as well as man's, and God takes part against him for man's redemption. Marriage, which had been the medium of man's fall, was made to become also the channel of salvation. Eve, the fallen mother of our woes, is to bring forth children, though in sorrow, and through an unbroken succession of children, "the seed of the woman" is to come as the bruiser and conqueror of the serpent.

1. The serpent. The animal serpent is here primarily referred to, as possessing qualities which fitted it to be the agent of the tempter. Among all animal tribes which God had created, and which Adam, with his knowledge of them, had named, this one was more subtle than all the other beasts of the field. This term subtle is elsewhere rendered "crafty," "prudent," Job 5: 12; Prov. 12: 16. As the human pair was to be tempted in regard to knowledge, there is deep meaning in this statement, that the serpent was the most subtle of all the animals. It is most likely that this animal was then, before the curse, the most knowing and prudent as it is now everywhere the symbol of low artifice and degraded malignity. That there was a real serpent in this transaction cannot be doubted any more than we can doubt the real history throughout.

| Here, where the facts speak, further explanations are not necessary, nor fitted to the time of the beginning. (1.) The real serpent is contrasted with the other animals, (vs. 1.) (2.) In the New Testament allusion is made to a real serpent in referring to the history, (2 Cor. 11:3, 14; 1 John 3:8; Rev. 20: 2.) Yet (3.) that there was in the transaction a superior agent, Satan himself, who only made use of the serpent, is plain from his being referred to as "the Old Serpent, called the Devil and Satan," (Rev. 12: 9,)—" a murderer from the beginning," (John 8:44.) Satan is also spoken of as the arch seducer, who is even "transformed into an angel of light," (2 Cor. 11:14.) The reference may be to this event. Almost all the Asiatic nations hold the serpent to be a wicked being that has brought evil into the world.— Von Bohlen, a Ind., i., 248. Some have sought to turn this history of the temptation into an allegory. But it wears the same aspect of historical detail as the rest of the narrative. Others have understood that there is here only the animal serpent. But we understand the literal serpent as the agent of a superior being, who was the real tempter, not merely that Satan was now acting in the form of the serpent. It is plain that here was a person, having intellect and moral sense-having speech and reasoning powers, such as do not belong to the brute creation. God so regarded the tempter, as is plain from the language of the curse. was a responsible moral agent. "Because thou hast done this thou art cursed," etc. Keil remarks that inasmuch as the tempter did not approach our first parents in the form of a heavenly, God-like Being, but in the form of a deeply inferior being, subordinate to man himself, 80 they had no excuse for allowing

He

The agency of Satan in the fall has been controverted on such grounds as the following:

1. That the author speaks of the serpent as "the most subtle of all the beasts," as though referring to its own ingenuity. But this was not merely the way in which it appeared to our first parents: but was probably the original constitution of the serpent, on account of which Satan chose his agency above that of all others.

2. That the serpent has no organs of speech. But Calvin replies, "No one has any except as God gives them. How with Balaam's beast? Besides, the serpent who now can only hiss, may, at first, have been an eloquent speaker."

3. It is asked, how could God have allowed this temptation by a powerful spirit? This involves the whole question of the permission of sin in the world, now, or at the beginning. We are not to pronounce upon God's doings, but to arrive at the truths revealed.

4. It is objected that the curse is directed only against the “irrational creature." But Leland remarks, "The terms are accommodated to the condition of the creature possessed." And this is rather the form in which it is denounced against the Satanic tempter himself. The fallen pair saw only the animal.

5. It is alleged that Satan is not found elsewhere referred to in the Old Testament till the Babylonian exile, and hence probably is borrow

66

6. Objectors say it is not likely that the devil would have assumed such an unsightly shape, but a more attractive one. Yet this objection begs the question. We may suppose that this kind of serpent had originally a very attractive form, and received its more degraded and grovelling habits in the curse. The term nachash is the term used in Numb. 21:6; but with the Hebrew term seraph,"-translated, “fiery serpent." It is the seraph serpent," which God there sent among the people. The term seraph in Hebrew means fiery. And this kind of serpent was probably a glistening creature, and may have been so far attractive, even after the fall, while the kindred terms of nachash mean brass and enchantment -all giving the impression of some bright, glowing, and fascinating appearance, as the original idea. And as "the nachash," in Numbers, seems to have been a flying serpent and seraphic, the whole idea is akin to that of an angel of light," and would seem to be the basis of that New Testament reference to this transaction. The term nachash, with a different adjective, is used in Job 26: 13, of Satan, "the (crooked) serpent," and in Isa. 27: 1, of leviathan-where it may mean the nachash fallen.

¶ And he said. How far the serpent used language has been questioned by many. But it is no more incredible than that "Balaam's ass spake with man's voice," and this latter is reasserted in the New Testament, (2 Peter 2:16.) ¶ Yea, hath God said. Lit., Yea, more that. Then it is so that. Sept. and Vulg., Why? or, Is it even so? This is spoken as insinuating a reflection upon the known command of God. "What good is life in Paradise if one may not enjoy the things which are found therein, but only feels the more pain by seeing them before one's eyes while one is forbidden to

mind already wavered. But it is rather the indication that she regarded the touch as also prohibited -and this was the strict construction which her fidelity had hitherto put upon the command. "Touch not, taste not, handle not," (Col. 2: 21.) There is no proof that she added this as a charge of undue severity on the part of God. ¶ Lest ye die. Many understand this as softening the words of the prohibition-as though she had said," Lest perhaps ye die," when God had said, "Ye shall surely die." Others find in this language of hers the intimation that she thought the tree was prohibited on account of some poisonous quality of the fruit. But this is not conveyed in the terms. It is simply a weighing of the penalty against the violation, as in Ps. 2: 12, "Kiss the Son lest He be angry," as He surely will be. As Gerlach says, This answer shows that the first of our race sinned against a clear, known command." Rom. 5: 13.

66

4. The tempter here replies with a positive contradiction of God's words. The penalty was in the strongest terms, 'Dying ye shall die." This is a direct denial of it, "Ye shall not dying die." This idea, therefore, is not, "It is not so certain as you imagine that such a direful consequence will follow;" but it is certain that it will not follow. Here Satan appears as the father of lies, John 8:44. OBSERVE.—(1.) God is not the author of sin. Satan appears as the tempter, insinuating his evil suggestions and motives, while the human will appears as originating the first sin of the first pair. Satan would have effected nothing by his temptations had not man wil

lingly and freely admitted his arts. Turretin holds that the true cause of sin is the free will of man, and that the external cause is Satan.Vol. I., p. 670. See James 1: 13-15. (2.) The folly, and danger, and sin of listening to temptation. "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil (one)."

5. For God doth know. That is, "God hath spoken falsely in denouncing such a terrible doom upon this simple eating of that fruit. For He knows very well that instead of any such fatal consequence it shall result in your highest gain. This was blasphemy. The appeal " to her is at this exposed point" of desire after knowledge, independently of God. The tree of knowledge was a symbol of the Divine knowledge, in which God was to be worshipped and obeyed by abstaining from it-and submission was to be made to the Divine word of command as the only rule of faith and practice. Thus, only could the tree of life and all the other trees be enjoyed. Here, therefore, the tempter tries his art-promising knowledge apart from God-in disobedience of God-in spite of God. Here is promised a knowledge of evil, by contact and converse with it; while only God can thus know it and be uncontaminated by it. Here is the great trial of the race. Herein is the foul temptation of the adversary. "After that in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God," 1 Cor. 1:21. It is by consenting to be fools, in the sense of Satan, that we become wise in the Divine sense. He who knows this fundamental truth has attained to the essence of knowledge. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of