The Pulpit Commentary — Genesis — Section 135

pre-eminent subtlety, which J not now a and more likely to be easily persuaded (1 characteristic of serpents, " nn _intimation Tim. ii. 14 ; 1 Pet. iii. i). Cf. Satan's as- that the repH!c was no creature of cnrth, or sault on Job through his wife (Job ii. 9). one that received its form from God," an Milton's idea that Eve desired to be inde- opinion scarcely different from that of Cyril pendent, and had withdrawn herself out of (c. Julian., lib. 3), that it wns only the simit- Adam's sight, it hns been well remarkeJ, lacrum of a serpent. But (1) the curse pro- "sets up a beginning of the fall before the nounced upon the serpent (eh. iii. 14) would fall itself" (Lange). Yea. 1J ;:i~. Is it even so seem to be deprived of nll force if the subject that1 (Gesenius). Is it really so that! (Ewahl, of it hnd been only an apparition or an unreal Fiirst, Keil). Etiamne, i·el Itane (Calviu). creature ; and (2) the language of tho New A question either (1) spoken in irony, as it' Testament in referring to man's temptation the meauing were, "Very like it is that Gou implies its litera.lity (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 3). "We careth what you eat ! " or (2) inquiring the are perfectly justified in concluding, from reason of the prohibition (LL'<:., Ti 0T1 ,1,nv this mention of the fall, that Paul spoke of it a 0,o,; Vulgatc, C'l.tr prrecepit vobis Deus) ; as an actual occurrence" (Olshausen). Adnm or (3) simply soliciting information (Chaldcc Clarke contends with much enthusiasm that Paraphrase); but (4) most likely expressing the tempter was not a serpent, but an ape or surprise and astonishment, with the view of ourang outang. And he said. Not as ori- suggestin~ distrust of the Divine goodness ginally endowed with speech (Josephus, and disbelief in the Divine veracity (Ewald, Clarke), or gifted nt this particular time with Rosenmilller, Kalisch, Keil, MacdonalJ, the power of articulation (' Ephrem., lib. Lange). The conversation runy have been •Je paradiso,' c. 27, quoted by Willet), but commenced by tho tempter, and the ques- simply as used by the devil (Augustine, tion " thrown out as a feeler for some weak Calvin, Rosenmiiller, et alii), who from this point where the fidelity of the woman might circumstanco is commonly styled in Scrip- be shaken" (Murphy) ; but it is more likely ture "the serpent, " "the old serpent, " that the devil spoke in coutinuation of a "that old serpent" (cf. Rev. xii. 9; xx. colloquy which is not reported (Kalisch, 2). Nor is it more difficult to understand Macdonald), which hns led some, on the sup- tho speaking of the serpent when possessed position th11t already many arguments h,lll by Sntnn, than the talking of Balaam's nss been adduced to substantiate tho Divine when the Lord opened its mouth (Num. xxii. severity, to render "yea" by "qua;ito 28-30). Equally with the idea that the magis," as if tho meaning were, " How devil Wll.!l the only agent in man's tempta- much more is this a proof of God's unkinJ- tion, and thnt the serpent is purely the alle- ness ! " (Aben Ezra, Kimchi). Kath God gorical dress in which the historian clothes said. "Tho tempter felt it necessary to liim (Eusebius, Cajetan, Quarry,.A.lforu), must change the living ;personal God iuto n merely the notion be rejected that there was nothing general n1tmen d1vimtm" (Keil); bnt tlu, but a serpent (.A.hen Ezra, Kalisch, Knobel). Elohim of eh. i. 1 was not a mere nur,,:,1 Why, if there wns nn evil spirit manipulating dimnum. .As much astray is the observa. the reptile, tho historian did not say so has tion that Satnn wished to nvoiJ profaning been oxplainecl (1) on the ground that the the name of Jehovah (Knobel). Better is belief in the devil was then foreign to the the remark that the serpent could not utter Hebrews (l{uobel) ; (2) that up to this point the name Jehovah, ns 11is assault was directed ·in tho uarrntivo there is no mention of the against the p,na,lisiacnl coYc·uant of Gou  Tllf.: DOOR OF GENE8rn. [rn. t11. 1-7. --------------- "·ith man (La11:,c). J;y using the nnme dcrstm1ding " that they were not to meddle Elohim ins!ca,l or ,J chonh the cornnnnt re- '1ith it as 11 forbidden thing" (Murphy). latiomhip o[Gorl towar,ls man was obscured, Lest ye die. E1•en Calvin hero admits that nrnl 111:in's position in the garden rcpl'csentc,l E~•o liegii'.s to give way, reading ·t~ ruiforte, as that of n subject mthcr than n son. As it were, Ern ,ms first placed at tl1e furthest w_1th wl_nch Macdonald appears to ngrnc, rlislancc possilile from the supremo, nml cl1sco,·cnng "doubt nnd hcsitnncy" in hor then nsssiled. Ye shi.11 not ei.t of every 1:tngungc; but-(1) the conjunction may point tree of the garden. I. e. either accepting to a consequcnco which is certain-indeed tho present rcntlering :is correct, which the this is i~ usmtl mcanina (cf. eh. xi. 4; xix. Hebrew will bear,-" Arc tl1crc ony trees in 5 ; Ps. 11. 12) ; (2) "Where there are so the garden of which you may not cat!" many i·cal ~rounds for coudcnmin" Eve's "Is it really so that God hnth prohibitccl c?n_clnct, it 1s .our duty to Lo cautious in ,·on from some!" (Calvin),--0r, trnnslating ginng those winch nro 1woblcmaticnl" (Bush)· }o-fol as 1wt any-Latin, nullus (Gc.senius, nnd, (3) "she would hnve represented th~ § 15'?., 1)-" Hath Goel said ye shall not cat penalty iu n worse rather than a softcne,1 of any 1" (Macdonald, Keil). According to form had sho begun to think it unjust " (Inglis). the first the devil simply seeks to impeach the Di,,inc goodness; according _to the Ver. 4.-And the serpent said unto the second he also aims nt intensifying the woman. "As Goel had preached to Aclam, Di,·iue prol:iliition. The secon,l renderiug so Satan now also preaches to Eve. . . . . . appears to be supported Ly the fitness of 'l'he ~bjeet of Sata~ was to draw awny Eve Eve's reply. by Ins word or saymg from that which Goel Vers. 2, S.-And the woman said unto the had saicl" (Luther). Ye shall not surely eerpen t. K ei thr.r afraid of the reptile, there die. Lo-moth temiUhun (the negative lo lieing not yet any enmity among the crea- preceding the infinitive absolute, as in Ps. tures ; nor astonished at his speaking, per- xli.x. S and Amos ix. 8 ; its position here haps as being not yet fully acquainted with being determined by the form of the penalty. the capa bilitics of the lower animals ; nor eh. ii 17, to which the devil's lan!!llage ~uspiciollil of his designs, her innocence and gives the direct negative. Ville E~ald, inexperience not predisposing her to appre- 'Hcb. Synt.,' § 312). Thus the second step hend danger. Yet the tenor of the reptile's in his assault is to challenge the Divine interrogation was fitted to excite alarm ; nncl veracity, in 11llusion to which it hns been if, ns some conjecture, sl1e understood that thought our 'Saviour calls Satan a linr (cf. Satan was the speaker, she should at once f ~hn viii. !4 ,: ora".. AaAj ro, ,f,,iil~c: I.: rwv have taken flight ; while, if she knew ,o,wv AaAE<" or, ,f,warq,; ,ar,v ,ra, o 1rar1)p 0