Page images

first, and afterwards Eve. By creating the woman after the man had been formed, and in the presence of man, God wished to give to Adam an ocular illustration of his own formation, and thus, by this second creation, to give him a vivid idea of his own Creator, as of a powerful and benevolent Being who carefully provided for his necessities and prosperity (Gen. 2: 18, 20). And by selecting that particular method of forming woman (Gen. 2:21), God, by whose omnipotence she also was produced,' intended to give to his newly created children a lively sense of their reciprocal duties. Gen. 2: 24. Matth. 19:5, 6. Ephes. 5: 28-33. 1 Tim. 2: 12, 13. 1 Cor. 11: 8,9; comp. v. 7, 3. and Ephes. 5: 22, 23.

Other means also were made use of by God, to furnish his newly formed creatures with materials for the improvement of their understanding and heart. Gen. 2: 15—17, 19, 20.2

Note. Doederlein remarks, that the literal explanation of this history of the origin of the woman, is confirmed by Paul in 1 Cor. 11: 8.

Other interpretations of the history of the creation of Adam and Eve, such as, that it is a fable, or allegory, or a philosopheme, or a dream, are collected in Gabler's Urgeschichte, Vol. 2, pt. I. See the arguments for the literal and historical interpretation, in Reinhardt's Dogmatik, $ 69.

IX. Gen. 1: 31, God saw that every thing which he had made was very good [787 ain).

1: man-in our image, after our likeness. comp. ch. 5: 1.

XI. The Scriptures designate those as being like unto God, who excel others in dignity. In Cor. 11:7, the man, as head

let us make בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ־נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם ,1

: 26 .X.


1 Gen. 1:27. 5: 2. Matth. 19: 4, he made male and female.

2 Morus De religione notitia, cum rebus experientiae obviis, et in facto positis, copulata, Pars I. Dissert. vol. II. N. 1.

of the woman, is called Elxwv Tkov the image of God. In Psalm 82: 6, the regents of the people are called gods [1975] and sons of God (712bl; and in Heb. 1: 6, Christ as the most exalted of kings is termed Fototoxos first begotten.

XII. Gen. 1: 26–28. James 3:9, 7. See, in Reinhardt's Dogmatik (p. 262), a refutation of the opinion, that the image of God consisted merely in holding the dominion of the earth.

XIII. Acts. 17, 29, we (men] being like unto God, must not think that the godhead is like unto silver or gold or stone or a lifeless work of human art. 25.

XIV. Gen. 2: 15—20.

XV. Moral excellence is also expressly stated as a mark of similarity to God. Col. 3: 10, the new man, who is renewed according to the image of him that created him. Compare Eph. 4: 24, the new man created according to God in righteousness and true holiness. 1 Pet. 1: 15, 16. Matth. 5: 48.

XVI. The possibility of sinning, which was evinced in our first parents by their unhappy conduct, by no means implies that they were urged to transgression by a necessity of their nature, and that it was impossible for them to remain faithful. For it is evident from the history of the wicked angels, that they had the power to sin ; and yet other beings of the same rank, viz. the good angels, were able to remain faithful.

XVII.* The bodies of men might have attained a higher state of perfection, might have become avevMatixa spiritual bodies (1 Cor. 15: 45 &c.), might have been transformed Callao680 fai). Eichhorn, in his Repert. for Biblical and Oriental literature, remarks, " The fruit of the tree of life contained some salutary properties, which would have preserved men from death, if they had not poisoned themselves. Still, man could not have lived for ever, so as never to have changed this taber



nacle ; the structure of his physical conformation is not adapted to it. But that he might have enjoyed a life which should not have been terminated by death, but by an ennobling transition into another state of existence, is perfectly credible," vol. 4. p. 200. See Reinhardt's Dog. $70. No. 3. p. 252.

ΧVΙΙΙ. 1 Cor. 15: 21, 22, δι' ανθρωπου ο θανατος-εν τω Adau anoivnosovou death came by man-in Adam they die.

XIX. Gen. 2: 17. 3: 17, 19. Rom. 5: 12, 14 &c.

XX. Gen. 3: 22, “the man shall not eat of the tree of life, that he may live for ever [bai 997].”

§ 54.

[ocr errors]

The fall of our first parents. But the privilege of perpetuity of life, was withdrawn from our first parents (1), when Eve, through the instigation of a serpent (2), who ate of the forbidden fruit (3), was at length herself prompted to mistrust God (4) and disregard his prohibition; and when Adam, through her influence, was induced to commit the same sin.


I. Gen. 3: 19, 22 &c, saun no to dust thou shalt re


II. Explanation of the history of the Fall.-- In the Comment. de Protevangelio, the following explanation is given of the history of the fall: “The natural serpent ate of the forbidden fruit; and Eve observed it. The devil accordingly took occasion to connect with this circumstance a conversation with

thus :

Eve, in order to induce her to transgress the command of God. Eve believed it was the natural serpent that spake to her, and supposed that the eating of that fruit had conferred on the serpent the power of rational conversation, which she had hitherto not observed in


of the animals around her, not even in the serpent itself which she had known before" (v. 13). According to this view the first verse of ch. 3, would be translated

The natural serpent became (as it seemed to Eve) more subtle than any other animal.” [7pg-non bon). As, agreeably to this explanation, Satan had abused the serpent's eating of the fruit, in order to carry on a concealed conversation with Eve, he was accordingly treated as a serpent when the punishment was announced. The sense of the 14th verse would then be this : “ Thou shalt suffer a punishment, such as no irrational animal is capable of suffering; reproach and terror shall be thy everlasting portion, (upon thy belly shalt thou go and on the dust shalt thou feed).” This interpretation of the history, has been misunderstood by Gabler. He supposes that it entirely denies the presence of a natural serpent, and that the devil is meant by the serpent in v. 1. But this explanation admits, that in v. 1, a natural serpent is meant, and that Eve thought this serpent spoke to her, whilst it was Satan who, though invisible to her, carried on a concealed conversation with her at the time she saw the serpent. Thus also in another place, Gabler 3 unjustly lays it to the charge of this interpretation, that the 14th verse is applied simultaneously to Satan and the natural serpent; whereas it only requires that the punishment of the devil be regarded as announced to him in figurative language, derived from the nature of the serpent. Nor is cunning altogether denied to the serpent, but only the ability to conduct a rational conversation, which is indeed a faculty evidently belonging to no irrational animal.

1 Opusc, acad. Vol. II. p. 420. 2 Eichhom's Urgeschichte, B. II. Th. 1. S. 271. 3 Sup. cit. p. 177, where more accurate views of this interpretation are given.

It is evident that the conversation between Eve and the serpent, could not have consisted merely of thoughts and suspicions in the mind of Eve, as has been contended by some. This is clear from the following reasons. — 1. Eve could not well have been led to believe that the serpent had derived so much wisdom from eating the forbidden fruit, if the serpent had not seemed to her to speak, and had only given some mute inducement to transgress the divine command.-2. It is inconsistent with the simplicity of the narrative, to doubt that such occasion for disbelief was given, and to represent the conversation with the serpent as being merely ideas in the mind of Eve, excited by Satan.”

That it cannot be regarded as an Æsopic fable, nor as a poetic fiction, when the serpent is introduced as speaking with Eve, is evident (says Hess) as well from the fact that what precedes and succeeds is historical, as from the circumstance that the design of the writer appears to have been to give a sensible representation of a peculiar and highly important event.

The principal explanations of this history which are collected in Eichhorn's Urgeschichte, edited by Gabler, are the following:

1. That which regards it as really historical, and receives the whole, or some parts of it, as historically true.

2. That which views it as a historical mythus or fable ; i. e. as a fictitious narrative founded on some historical fact.

3. That which makes it a history derived from the hieroglyphic figures.

Opusc. acad. Vol. I. p. 421,424. 2 Eichhorn's Rep. Vol. IV. p. 217. 3 Bibliotheca of sacred history, pt. II. p. 241.

4 Rosenmüller's explanation of the fall, in Eichhorn's Repert. Vol. 5. p. 160. Gamborg's Nysa, from the Danish, 1790 &c.


« PreviousContinue »