Bodily Exercise

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 11:59 AM 7/28/97 -0400, Pastor Joe wrote:
>Gen 3:6
>6	And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food (lust of the flesh)
>, and that it was pleasant to the eyes (lust of the eye), and a tree to be
>desired to make one wise (pride of life), she took of the fruit thereof, and
>*did eat*, and gave also unto her husband with her; and *he did eat*.
>(KJV)
>
>And they probably weren't even really that hungry.

Adam Clark wrote a interisting commentary about the Garden. It's rather
leagthy, but here it is for those that don't mind killing about five minutes.


Genesis 3:1


Genesis 3:1

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD
God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not
eat of every tree of the garden?


	[Now the serpent was more subtle] We have here one of the most difficult
as well as the most important narratives in the whole book of God. The last
chapter ended with a short but striking account of the perfection and
felicity of the first human beings, and this opens with an account of their
transgression, degradation, and ruin. That man is in a fallen state, the
history of the world, with that of the life and miseries of every human
being, establishes beyond successful contradiction. But how, and by what
agency, was this brought about? Here is a great mystery, and I may appeal
to all persons who have read the various comments that have been written on
the Mosaic account, whether they have ever yet been satsified on this part
of the subject, though convinced of the fact itself. 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. The whole account is either a
simple narrative of facts, or it is an allegory. If it be a historical
relation, its literal meaning should be sought out, if it be an allegory,
no attempt should be made to explain it, as it would require a direct
revelation to ascertain the sense in which it should be understood, for
fanciful illustrations are endless. Believing it to be a simple relation of
facts capable of a satisfactory explanation, I shall take it up on this
ground; and, by a careful examination of the original text, endeavour to
fix the meaning, and show the propriety and consistency of the Mosaic
account of the fall of man. The chief difficulty in the account is found in
the question, Who was the agent employed in the seduction of our first
parents?
	The word in the text which we, following the Septuagint, translate
"serpent," is naachaash  (heb 5175) and, according to Buxtorf and others,
has three meanings in Scripture:
	1. It signifies to view or observe attentively, to divine or use
enchantments, because in them the augurs viewed attentively the flight of
birds, the entrails of beasts the course of the clouds, etc., and under
this head it signifies to acquire knowledge by experience.
	2. It signifies brass, brazen, and is translated in our Bible, not only
brass, but chains, fetters, fetters of brass, and in several places steel,
see <2 Sam. 22:35; Job 20:24; Psa. 18:34>; and in one place, at feast
filthiness or fornication, <Ezek. 16:36>
	3. It signifies a serpent, but of what kind is not determined. In <Job
26:13>, it seems to mean the whale or hippopotamus: "By his spirit he hath
garnished the heavens, his hand hath formed the crooked serpent," naachaash
 (heb 5175) baariyach  (heb 1281): since baarach  (heb 1272) signifies to
pass on or pass through, and bªriyach  (heb 1280) is used for a "bar"
(bolt) of a gate or door that passed through rings, etc., the idea of
straightness rather than crookedness should be attached to it here; and it
is likely that the hippopotamus or sea-horse is intended by it.
	In <Eccl. 10:11>, the creature called naachaash  (heb 5175), of whatever
sort, is compared to the babbler: Surely the serpent, naachaash  (heb
5175), will bite without enchantment; and a babbler is no better.
	In <Isa. 27:1>, the crocodile or alligator seems particularly meant by the
original: In that day the Lord-- shall punish leviathan the piercing
serpent, etc. And in <Isa. 65:25>, the same creature is meant as in <Gen.
3:1>, for in the words, And dust shall be the serpent's meat, there is an
evident allusion to the text of Moses. In <Amos 9:3>, the crocodile is
evidently intended: Though they be hid in the bottom of the sea. thence
will I command the serpent, naachaash  (heb 5175), and he shall bite them.
No person can suppose that any of the snake or serpent kind can be intended
here; and we see from the various acceptations of the word, and the
different senses which it bears in various places in the sacred writings,
that it appears to be a sort of general term confined to no one sense.
Hence, it will be necessary to examine the root accurately, to see if its
ideal meaning will enable us to ascertain the animal intended in the text.
	We have already seen that naachaash  (heb 5175) signifies to view
attentively, to acquire knowledge or experience by attentive observation,
so nichashtiy  (heb 5172), <Gen. 30:27>: "I have learned by experience,"
and this seems to be its most general meaning in the Bible. The original
word is by the Septuagint translated ofis  (grk 3789), "a serpent," not
because this was its fixed determinate meaning in the sacred writings, but
because it was the best that occurred to the translators: and they do not
seem to have given themselves much trouble to understand the meaning of the
original, for they have rendered the word as variously as our translators
have done, or rather our translators have followed them, as they give
nearly the same significations found in the Septuagint: hence, we find that
ofis  (grk 3789) is as frequently used by them as "serpent," its supposed
literal meaning, is used in our version.
	And the New Testament writers, who seldom quote the Old Testament but from
the Septuagint translation, and often do not change even a word in their
quotations, copy this version in the use of this word. From the Septuagint
therefore we can expect no light, nor indeed from any other of the ancient
versions, which are all subsequent to the Septuagint, and some of them
actually made from it. In all this uncertainty it is natural for a serious
inquirer after truth to look everywhere for information. And in such an
inquiry the Arabic may be expected to afford some help, from its great
similarity to the Hebrew. A root in this language, very nearly similar to
that in the text, seems to cast considerable light on the subject. The
Arabic chanas or khanasa signifies "he departed, drew off, lay hid,
seduced, slunk away"; from this root come the Arabic, akhnas, khanasa, and
khanoos, which all signify an ape or satyrus, or any creature of the simia
or ape genus. It is very remarkable also that from the same Arabic root
comes khanas, the DEVIL, which appellative he bears from that meaning of
khanasa, "he drew off, seduced," etc., because he draws men off from
righteousness, seduces them from their obedience to God, etc., etc. See
Golius, sub voce. Is it not strange that the devil and the ape should have
the same name, derived from the same root, and that root so very similar to
the Lord in the text? But let us return and consider what is said of the
creature in question. Now the naachaash  (heb 5175) was more subtle,
`aaruwm  (heb 6175), "more wise, cunning, or prudent," than any beast of
the field which the Lord God had made. In this account we find:
	1. That whatever this naachaash  (heb 5175) was, he stood at the head of
all inferior animals for wisdom and understanding.
	2. That he walked erect, for this is necessarily implied in his
punishment-- on thy belly (i. e., on all fours) shalt thou go.
	3. That he was endued with the gift of speech, for a conversation is here
related between him and the woman.
	4. That he was also endued with the gift of reason, for we find him
reasoning and disputing with Eve.
	5. That these things were common to this creature, the woman no doubt
having often seen him walk erect, talk, and reason, and therefore she
testifies no kind of surprise when he accosts her in the language related
in the text; and indeed from the manner in which this is introduced it
appears to be only a part of a conversation that had passed between them on
the occasion: Yea, hath God said, etc.
	Had this creature never been known to speak before his addressing the
woman at this time and on this subject, it could not have failed to excite
her surprise, and to have filled her with caution, though from the purity
and innocence of her nature she might have been incapable of being affected
with fear. Now I apprehend that none of these things can be spoken of a
serpent of any species:
	1. None of them ever did or ever can walk erect. The tales we have had of
two-footed and four-footed serpents are justly exploded by every judicious
naturalist, and are utterly unworthy of credit. The very name "serpent"
comes from serpo, "to creep," and therefore to such it could be neither
curse nor punishment to go on their bellies, i. e., to creep on, as they
had done from their creation, and must do while their race endures.
	2. They have no organs for speech, or any kind of articulate sound; they
can only hiss. It is true that an ass by miraculous influence may speak,
but it is not to be supposed that there was any miraculous interference
here. GOD did not qualify this creature with speech for the occasion, and
it is not intimated that there was any other agent that did it; on the
contrary, the text intimates that speech and reason were natural to the
naachaash  (heb 5175): and is it not in reference to this the inspired
penman says, The naachaash was more subtle or intelligent than all the
beasts of the field that the Lord God had made? Nor can I find that the
serpentine genus are remarkable for intelligence. It is true the wisdom of
the serpent has passed into a proverb, but I cannot see on what it is
founded, except in reference to the passage in question, where the
naachaash, which we translate serpent, following the Septuagint, shows so
much intelligence and cunning: and it is very probable that our Lord
alludes to this very place when he exhorts his disciples to be wise--
prudent or intelligent, as serpents, fronimoi  (grk 5429) hoos  (grk 5613)
hoi  (grk 3588) ofeis  (grk 3789), and it is worthy of remark that he uses
the same term employed by the Septuagint in the text in question: ofis
(grk 3789) een  (grk 2258) fronimootatos (compare GSN-5429), the serpent
was more prudent or intelligent than all the beasts, etc.
	All these things considered, we are obliged to seek for some other word to
designate the naachaash  (heb 5175) in the text, than the word "serpent,"
which on every view of the subject appears to me inefficient and
inapplicable. We have seen above that khanas, akanas, and khanoos, signify
a creature of the ape or satyrus kind. We have seen that the meaning of the
root is, he lay hid, seduced slunk away, etc., and that khanas means the
devil, as the inspirer of evil, and seducer from God and truth. See Golius
and Wilmet. It therefore appears to me that a creature of the ape or
orangutan kind is here intended; and that Satan made use of this creature
as the most proper instrument for the accomplishment of his murderous
purposes against the life and soul of man. Under this creature he lay hid,
and by this creature he seduced our first parents, and drew off or slunk
away from every eye but the eye of God.
	Such a creature answers to every part of the description in the text: it
is evident from the structure of its limbs and their muscles that it might
have been originally designed to walk erect, and that nothing less than a
sovereign controling power could induce them to put down hands in every
respect formed like those of man, and walk like those creatures whose
claw-armed paws prove them to have been designed to walk on all fours. Dr.


Tyson has observed in his anatomy of an orangutan, that the seminal vessels
passed between the two coats of the peritoneum to the scrotum, as in man,
hence, he argues that this creature was designed to walk erect, as it is
otherwise in all quadrupeds. Philos. Trans., vol. xxi., p. 340. The
subtlety, cunning, endlessly varied pranks and tricks of these creatures,
show them, even now, to be more subtle and more intelligent than any other
creature, man alone excepted. Being obliged now to walk on all fours, and
gather their food from the ground, they are literally obliged to eat the
dust; and though exceedingly cunning, and careful in a variety of instances
to separate that part which is wholesome and proper for food from that
which is not so, in the article of cleanliness they are lost to all sense
of propriety; and though they have every means in their power of cleansing
the aliments they gather off the ground, and from among the dust, yet they
never in their savage state make use of any, except a slight rub against
their side, or with one of their hands, more to see what the article is
than to cleanse it. Add to this, their utter aversion to walk upright; it
requires the utmost discipline to bring thern to it, and scarcely anything
irritates them more than to be obliged to do it. Long observation on some
of these animals enables me to state these facts.
	Should any person who may read this note object against my conclusions,
because apparently derived from an Arabic word which is not exactly similar
to the Hebrew, though to those who understand both languages the similarity
will be striking, yet, as I do not insist on the identity of the terms,
though important consequences have been derived from less. likely
etymologies, he is welcome to throw the whole of this out of the account.
He may then take up the Hebrew root only, which signifies to gaze, to view
attentively, pry into, inquire narrowly, dc., and consider the passage that
appears to compare the naachaash  (heb 5175) to the babbler, <Eccl. 10:11>,
and he will soon find, if he have any acquaintance with creatures of this
genus, that for earnest, attentive watching, looking, etc., and for
chattering or babbling, they have no fellows in the animal world. Indeed,
the ability and propensity to chatter is all they have left, according to
the above hypothesis, of their original gift of speech, of which I suppose
them to have been deprived at the fall as a part of their punishment
	I have spent much time on this subject:
	1. Because it is exceedingly obscure;
	2. Because no interpretation hitherto given of it has afforded me the
smallest satisfaction,
	3. Because I think the above mode of accounting for every part of the
whole transaction is consistent and satisfactory, and in my opinion removes
many embarrassments, and solves the chief difficulties. I think it can be
no solid objection to the above mode of solution that Satan, in different
parts of the New Testament, Is called "the serpent," the serpent that
deceived Eve by his subtlety, the old serpent, etc., for we have already
seen that the New Testament writers have borrowed the word from the
Septuagint, and the Septuagint themselves use it in a vast variety and
latitude of meaning, and surely the orangutan is as likely to be the animal
in question as naachaash  (heb 5175) and ophis  (grk 3789) are likely to
mean at once "a snake, a crocodile, a hippopotamus, fornication, a chain, a
pair of fetters, a piece of brass, a piece of steel, and a conjurer," for
we have seen above that all these are acceptations of the original word.
Besides, the New Testament writers seem to lose sight of the animal or
instrument used on the occasion, and speak only of Satan himself as the
cause of the transgression, and the instrument of all evil. If, however,
any person should choose to differ from the opinion stated above, he is at
perfect liberty so to do; I make it no article of faith, nor of Christian
communion; I crave the same liberty to judge for myself that I give to
others, to which every man has an indisputable right, and I hope no man
will call me a heretic for departing in this respect from the common
opinion, which appears to me to be so embarrassed as to be altogether
unintelligible. See further on verses 7-14, etc.
	[Yea, hath God said] This seems to be the continuation of a discourse of
which the preceding part is not given, and a proof that the creature in
question was endued with the gift of reason and speech, for no surprise is
testified on the part of Eve.
(from Adam Clarke Commentary)

http://www.netjava.com/~moon
moon@netjava.com
						Jerry Moon