083. I. The Primitive Temptation.
I. The Primitive Temptation.
1. Concerning an Instrumental Agency.—On the face of the narrative nothing seems plainer than the fact of an instrumental agency in the temptation—that is, something used as the instrument of a higher agency. There is, indeed, no mention of a higher agency in the narrative itself, but the facts clearly require such an agency (Genesis 3:1-5). If the serpent which appears in the temptation is to be taken in the literal sense of an animal, there is still no satisfactory identification of it. “Who was the serpent? of what kind? In what way did he seduce the first happy pair? These are questions which remain yet to be answered.”[463] It is no wrong to the good doctor to say that, after his own learned endeavor to identify this “nachash” with the ape order, they still remained in the same unanswered state. There is a widely prevalent tradition of the serpent as concerned in a temptation and fall of man, which in some instances is in close accordance with the Mosaic narrative.
[463]
There is another view which may be stated. It is, that serpent is a symbolical term for the designation of Satan himself. With this interpretation there is no literal serpent or other animal with any part in the temptation, but Satan is the immediate and only agent, and the subject of the penal infliction. It is very difficult to adjust the items of the sacred narrative to this view. It is further suggested that if no animal was present in the temptation Satan might still have appeared in the semblance of one.
2. A Higher, Satanic Agency.—As an animal could be only an instrument in the temptation, so the facts of intelligence embodied therein evince the presence of a higher agency. There is knowledge of the divine command, reasoning about God, the nature of good and evil, and the virtues of the forbidden fruit. These facts are possible only to a rational intelligence. Even without the signs of the deepest craft, there is still the full evidence of such an agency.
There is no open reference to a satanic agency in the narrative of the temptation. The devil is not named therein, but there is the manifestation of a malignance and craft which clearly points to his agency. The scriptural characterization of the devil and the evil works attributed to him affirm the same fact. He is the enemy that sowed the tares among the good seed which the Son of man cast into the field of the world (Matthew 13:37-39.). He is a murderer and a liar from the beginning, and there is no truth in him (John 8:44). He is “that old serpent, called the devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world” (Revelation 12:9). In mentioning the serpent as beguiling Eve the thought of Paul cannot rest with the mere instrument in the temptation, but must include the agency of the devil under the same designation (2 Corinthians 11:3).
3. Manner of the Temptation.—Under this head we need no longer any distinction between the instrument and the real agent in the temptation. For the manner of the temptation we need little more than the facts as grouped in the sacred narrative. The subtlety of the devil appears through the whole process of the temptation. There was craft in beginning with Eve in the absence of Adam. The two together would have been stronger than either alone; and presumably Eve was understood to be the more susceptible to temptation. The divine command is inquiringly approached, with the stealthy suggestion of an unnecessary restriction of privilege. Then with cunning boldness the penalty of disobedience is denied: “Ye shall not surely die.” Suspicion of divine duplicity is insinuated: God himself knows that, instead of evil, only good shall come of eating the interdicted fruit (Genesis 3:1-5). Thus the apprehension of death and the strength of religious reverence and love were greatly weakened, while the forbidden fruit was set in such false lights as to excite a very strong desire to partake of it.