The interpretations of the serpent have been very- variant. Euscbius (Prccp. Evang. i, 10) sa3's that INlo- ses calls the evil spirit (iTovt]()o<2 daij.uov) bj' the name of "serpent," as he is "full of poison and malice." Adam Clarke (Commentary on Genesis, ch. iii) inter- jH'ets the word nuchish (rendered " serpent") to mean "a creature of the ape or ourang-outang kind." His notes on the whole passage afford a very curious speci- men of exegesis. We cite Lange (Genesis, Anier. edit. p. 2'28) as follows: "True it is that the serpent ap- pears as the probable author of this tempt^ition, but such probability is weakened by what is said in i, 25 and ii, 20. ' The serpent was a good creation of God, though different, as originally created, from what it afterwards became' (Delitzsch). As a type, the ser- pent is just as well the figure of health and renovation as of deatli, since every year it changes its skin, and ejects, moreover, its venom. This double peculiarity and double character, as dyaOoSaijiuiv and KUKuSai- juov, is indicated not only in language, but also in nij'ths, in sculpture, and in modes of worship. In this relation, however, we must distinguish two di- verging views of the ancient peoples. To the Egyp- tian reverence for the serpent stands in opposition the abhorrence for it among the Israelites [see Serpent], Greeks, Persians, and Germans." " That Satan made use of the serpent, and that a serpent was somehow employed, is likely ; the language of Jehovah subse- quently, while it was literally true of the instrument, being in a higher sense true of the agent, tlie one be- ing made the emblem of the other (Gen. iii, 14). AVas the language here entirely symbolical and figurative, having nothing in it literal whatever ? This does not seem likely. Wlw should such an allusion have l)een employed at all to describe the outcast and degraded condition of a fallen angel, had there been nothing whatever giving the serpent any connection with the temptation and the fiill ? Is it not more reasonable to consider both as l)lended, the literal and the symbol- ical.' (Gen. iii, 4; 2 Cor. xi, 3; Eev. xii, 9; xx, 2; Gen. iii, 15; Col. ii, 15; Rom. xvi, 20; 1 John iii, 8; John viii, 44). Conjectures, too, have arisen out of tlie terms in which the serpent was addressed : ' Upon tliy belly shalt thou go, and dust shaltthou eat all the daj^s of thy life.' 'The serpent, perhaps,' says Gill, ' formerly moved in a more erect posture, but was doomed to lick the dust.' ' Probably his original res- idence and food,' guesses another, ' were in the trees, but now he is degraded to the earth.' That sentence evidently, whatever might be its literal application to the serpent, was emblematically meant of Satan him- self. ' PlainW figurative,' says Dwight, 'to express a state of peculiar degradation and suffering' " (Ward- law, Systematic Theology, p. 85-7). Watson defends the historical character of the narrative (Institutes, pt. ii, cb. xviii), as also does Holden, Dissertation on the Fall (Lond. 1823, 8vo). Conycrs Middleton (Essay on the Allegorical and Literal Interpret'dimi of the Fall, Works, 1775, ii, 437) maintains the allegorical view. Comp. Pye Smith, First Lines ofTheolorpj, bk. iv, ch.ii.
A writer in the Journal of Sacred Literature (i, 351 sq.) seeks to show that the common opinion that the serpent was the instrument of tlie tempter is untena- ble, on the ground that the Scripture does not state that the serpent was an instrwnrnt ; anil that the lit* eral application of the words of the narrative to a sen pent 33 the instrument of Satan appears to be incon-
FALL OF MAN
472
FALL OF MAN
sistent with the present relation of the serpent to oth- er animals, and also with the testimony of geology as to fossil r('m:iins, etc. He maintains that under the name serpent Satan is meant, as there are "probable grounds for the conclusion tiuit the serpent was, during the earliest ages, the name of the Evil One, reflecting tlie conception of him tliat then prevailed." Bishop Newton {Dissert, on Creation and Fall, 1st edit.) takes a similar view, viz. that Satan is spolveu of in the pas- sage under the "well-known" symbol or hieroglyphic of the serpent, which was a proper emblem, he holds, of the deceiver of mankind, as in popular estimation it was lield to be the most cunning and insidious of ani- mals. Sherlock {Use and Intent of Prophecy, diss, iii) refers to the " common usage of Eastern countries, which was, to clothe history in parables and simili- tudes;" and remarks that "it seems not improbable that for this reason the history of the fall was put into tlie dress in which we now find it. The serpent was remarkable for an insidious cunning, and therefore stood as a proper emblem of a deceiver ; and j'et, be- ing one of the lowest of God's creatures, the emblem gave no suspicion of any power concerned that might pretend to rival the Creator." What was the particu- lar nature of the sin of our first parents it is not an easj^ matter to determine. Bishop Newton remarks (1. c.) that " eating forbidden fruit is nothing more than a continuation of the same liieroglj'phic charac- ters wherein the history of the fall was recorded be- fore the use of letters. It was plainly the violation of a divine prohibition ; it was indulging an unlaw- ful appetite ; it was aspiring after forbidden knowl- edge, and pretending to be wise aV)Ovc their condition. So much may be safeh' asserted in general ; we be- wilder" and lose ourselves in search of more particu- lars." In a later edition of this dissertation {Worhs, i, on, bishop Newton modified the statement above given, and gave his adherence to the view that a real serpent was concerned in the fall (see Quarry, (?■« Gen- esis i.x). Martensen {Christian Dogmatics, § 103) pass- es b}^ the question whether the "serpent was led by an evil spirit, or whether an evil spirit assumed the foi-m of the serpent;" but he adds, "if we abide by the original narration, we may say that the serpent is tlie allegorical designation for the criminal principle wliich opposed itself to man in temptation." Dorten- baeh (in Ilerzog, Beal-EncyUop. xv, 209, art. SUnde) maintains that the serpent was a real serpent, the tree a real tree, etc. Quarry gives a copious dissertation on Paradise and the Fall in liis Genesis and its Aziihor- ship (London, 18G6, 8vo). The aim of this writer is to witlulraw the scriptural statements " altogether from the range of physical interpretation." He cites a re- mark of Ilengstenberg's {Christologie, th. i, abt. i, p. 20, ed. l.SCO), to the effect that if the serpent be sym- bolical, the whole history is symbolical, as, in a con- nected passage like this, unity of interpretation must prevail ; and it is not allowable to follow at one mo- ment the symbolical, and at the next moment the lit- eral interi)retation. Admitting the truth of this,Quar- ry states that, nevertheless, the narrative maybe, as a whole, not simply an apologue illustrating true prin- ciples, but a true history of great facts represented symbolically. He interprets the tree of life (compare Kev. ii, 7 ; xxii, 2, 1-1), and the eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, as mystical ; the former denoting the promise of eternal life conditioned on man's obe- dience, tlie latter denoting the act of disobedience and its moral consequences, consciousness of jjtiilt and shame. He maintains that tlie suppositioif of a real serpent is untenable, as there is no ground for the be- lief that Satan can possess at will any living creature, or work such a miracle as to make a serpent speak. "A natural serpent is literally spoken of, but this nat- ural serpent is only the syml)ol of the i-cnl tempter ; otherwise tlie innocent animal I'eceives all tlie punish- ment, while the really guilty tempter escapes." The