The Works of the

Reverend Matthew Poole

The

Exegetical Labors of the

Reverend Matthew Poole

Translated by the Rev. Steven Dilday

Volume 1: Genesis 1-9 Containing: I. A Synopsis of Interpreters, Both Critical and Otherwise, of the Sacred Scripture II. Annotations upon the Holy Bible

Culpeper, Virginia Master Poole Publishing 2007

Master Poole Publishing 110 Laurel Street Culpeper, VA 22701 Copyright © 2007

CONTENTS Acknowledgments ......................................................... 5 Directions for Use ......................................................... 7 I. Prefatory Matter .....................................................11 A Royal Copyright ..................................................13 The Author’s Dedication...........................................15 Preface to the Synopsis: Genesis-Esther ........................17 Preface to the Annotations: Genesis-Isaiah.....................51 II. Commentary on Genesis ...........................................65 The Argument of the Book of Genesis...........................67 Chapter 1 .............................................................69 Chapter 2 ........................................................... 119 Chapter 3 ........................................................... 175 Chapter 4 ................................................................ Chapter 5 ................................................................ Chapter 6 ................................................................ Chapter 7 ................................................................ Chapter 8 ................................................................ Chapter 9 ................................................................ SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................... n

Acknowledgments First, I would like to thank Andrew Myers. His labors in proofreading and prowess in researching all things obscure have greatly improved this work. Also, many thanks to Whitefield Theological Seminary and Dr. Kenneth Talbot for taking on this unusual doctoral project. It is hoped that these volumes will be a credit to the Seminary.

Directions for Use Each of the volumes in this series, The Exegetical Labors of the Reverend Matthew Poole is actually composed of two separate works: A

Synopsis of Interpreters, Both Critical and Otherwise, of the Sacred Scriptures

(known by its Latin title, Synopsis Criticorum, the translated text of which is printed in this regular type) and Annotations upon the Holy Bible (the text of which is printed in bold type). In the Synopsis, written primarily for students, ministers, and scholars, Poole presents something of a verse-by-verse history of interpretation, setting forth the most important interpreters and interpretative positions. The Annotations, on the other hand, are written for the use of the common man, giving a summary of the most important interpretive issues and Poole’s own, most mature (being written in the years immediately prior to his death), judgment. In these volumes, the Annotations have been interspliced into the translation of the Synopsis, creating an omnibus of Poole’s exegetical efforts. It may already be apparent from this brief description of these volumes that they are intended for study; they are certainly not a light read. So that every reader, from the unlearned to the scholar, might get the most profit from these volumes, these directions are proffered: 1. Read and study the prefatory material, especially the “Preface to the Synopsis: Genesis-Esther.” In the “Preface to the Synopsis: Genesis-Esther,” the reader is introduced to the interpreters, writing on these Books of the Bible, who, in Poole’s judgment, are of the greatest significance. Because the Synopsis is primarily about the history of interpretation, an acquaintance with the interpreters is of the utmost importance. The translator has provided additional information about these men in the footnotes to aid the reader. Paul taught the Ephesian Christians that the ascended Lord Jesus provides teachers for the edification of His Church in all ages; 1 this is a synopsis of their teaching and testimony, a thing of surpassing value. 2. Note that a brief summary of each book and an outline of each

chapter has been provided. 2 1

Ephesians 4:11-13. Poole composed the book outlines from Genesis to Isaiah, but the chapter outlines were not added until the third edition of the Annotations, 1696, by Samuel Clarke and

2

8

This will help the reader get and keep the entire context in view as he studies particular verses. 3. Study the cross-references. The Authorized Version of the text has been provided at the beginning of each verse. In the Annotations, Poole provided a great many crossreferences in the printing of the verse itself. 1 These should not be neglected; they are of great value in gaining an understanding of the verse being studied, and it will be found that the verse being studied has implications for the right interpretation of other texts. 2 Furthermore, the reader will find the verses, referenced in the Synopsis portion for the illustration of grammatical principles, to be of great help and use. When the reason for the citation of a particular verse is not clear in English, the translator has provided annotations in the footnotes to aid understanding. 4. Begin the study of the commentary portion under each verse with the Annotations portion (printed in bold). Remember that the Annotations were written for the common man, and in them Poole summarizes and gives his most mature evaluation of the most important matters. Reading the Annotations portion will frequently shed much light upon the mass of raw exegetical material in the Synopsis portion. 5. Note that Poole often presents a wide variety of interpretive positions in a short space. Edward Veale. Samuel Clarke (1626-1701), one of the ejected ministers under the Act of Uniformity, was well-qualified for this editorial work, having composed his own The Old and New Testament, with Annotations and Parallel Scriptures (1690) and A Survey of the Bible; or, an Analytical Account of the Holy Scriptures, Containing the Division of Every Book and Chapter, thereby Shewing the Frame and Contexture of the Whole (1693). Edward Veale was one of the divines called upon to complete Poole’s Annotations, writing the portions on Ephesians, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude. He will be discussed at greater length in conjunction with those portions. 1 Samuel Clarke and Edward Veale appear to be responsible for supplemental crossreferences, added to Poole’s own. All of the cross-references have been provided in this text. 2 Westminster Confession of Faith 1:9: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”

9

In the Synopsis portion, contradictory positions can be presented without any transition. The intepreters who held a certain view are usually given in parentheses after the presentation of the interpretive position, and this is frequently all that the reader is given with respect to a transition from one position to another. 6. Be patient and persevere. Solomon the Wise teaches in the Proverbs that in some things knowledge and wisdom come only with effort, 1 and penetrating beyond a superficial understanding of the Scriptures will require hard work; but let the Christian give himself to this labor in the assurance of faith, that Jesus Christ is speaking to him through the Word, 2 and that in this study he will taste of the Lord that He is good. 3

1

Proverbs 2:1-5. 1 Peter 1:11. 3 1 Peter 2:3. 2

175

Chapter 3 The serpent’s subtlety, and ensnaring question, 1. The woman’s answer, 2. The serpent denies the certainty of the threatening, 4; suggests a benefit by eating, 5. The woman looks on the fruit, takes, eats, gives to the man, who also eats of it, 6. The consequence of their sin, 7, 8. Adam’s summons, 9, appearance, 10, examination, 11, excuse, 12. The woman examined, excuses, yet confesses the fact, 13. Sentence upon the serpent the instrument, 14; upon the devil the chief agent, with the first gospel promise, 15; upon the woman, 16; upon the man, 17-19. Adam names his wife, 20. God clothes them, 21. They are thrown out of Paradise, 22, to till the ground, 23. Their return impossible, 24. Verse 1: Now the serpent (Rev. 12:9; 20:2) was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made (Matt. 10:16; 2 Cor. 11:3). And he said unto the woman, Yea (Heb. Yea, because, etc.), hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? [The serpent, #$xfn@Fha] That serpent, 1 so that we might understand Moses to speak of a notorious serpent (Vatablus). Certain of the Hebrews simply take the serpent for a beast whose language (as also of other animals) Eve is believed to have understood. (They maintain that the serpent had the power of speech [Josephus, Philo, and Basil in Tirinus].) Others by the serpent understand Satan (Fagius), and they maintain that the similitude of a serpent was assumed by the Demon. So it is in Cyril 2 (Rivet). Others understand this of a true serpent; yet so that Satan might have spoken through it as through an instrument. Thus the old Hebrew Kabbalists (in Fagius, thus Munster, Fagius, Lyra, Estius, Menochius, Rivet, Pareus). The Scripture is wont to understand the originator of an action under the name of the instrument (Munster on verse 8), and to accept either for the same (Fagius). The serpent was not alone, but was moved by the Devil, as it is evident from John 8:44; Revelation 12:9; 20:2, 10 (Pareus); and from Wisdom of Solomon 2:24 3 and Romans 16:20 (Picherel). He spoke through the serpent, as formerly through witches (Rivet), and in the idols and oracles of the gods of the nations (Picherel); and as the 1

Here serpent is definite, has taken the definite article. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 378-444) was a participant in the third ecumenical council, held at Ephesus. He repudiated the heretical Nestorian Christology, but tended himself to the monophysitism. 3 Wisdom of Solomon 2:24: “Nevertheless through the envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it.” 2

176

Angel did through Balaam’s ass 1 (Lyra, Menochius). It is amazing that Julian thought it absurd that a serpent should speak, while he himself was believing, and the heathen relating, that a serpent barked after the fashion of a dog (Pliny’s Natural History 8:41); and that the image of Juno Moneta 2 has spoken (Valerius Maximus’ 3 Nine Books of Memorable Deeds and Sayings 4 1:8); and that in fact the image of Fortune has spoken twice with these words, Rightly ye, matrons, have seen me, and duly ye have declared me (Valerius’ Nine Books of Memorable Deeds and Sayings 1:8); and both that the cow of Privernum had spoken (Julius Obsequens’ The Book of Prodigies 5 38), and that the same occurred in a Roman territory (Julius Obsequens’ The Book of Prodigies 40), where it also pronounces the words, Rome, beware (Julius Obsequens’ The Book of Prodigies 53); and that the dog of Ariminus spoke (Rivet); and that the tree of Apollonius spoke; 6 likewise that the oak of Dodona spoke 7 (Pareus). Question: How was the serpent able to speak with the woman? Some maintain that the serpent initially had both intellect and the use of language, of which he was deprived because of sin. If this was so, why is there no mention of these in the cursing of the serpent? Others maintain that Satan spoke, and assumed the outward appearance of a serpent. But the curse of the serpent was not applicable to Satan. Others maintain that Satan spoke by the mouth of the serpent. But why, in that case, would the serpent, if innocent, suffer punishment? Neither is it proper for an Angel to act in this way. Others maintain that Eve knew the languages of the beasts, etc. But what induced the serpent that he would deceive Eve? And who taught him the art of deceit? And how would the serpent know what God had forbidden? Abarbanel, of all the interpreters, appears to me to judge most subtly, who denies that the serpent spoke to the woman (for it is not said, as it is concerning Balaam’s ass, 8 that God opened the mouth of the serpent), but it is a prosopœia, 9 of which sort many things are: as in Psalm 148:7, Praise the LORD, ye dragons, etc.; in Job 1

Numbers 22:21-35. Juno Moneta, or Juno who warns. 3 Valerius Maximus was a first century Roman collector of antiquities. 4 Factorum et Dictorum Memorabilium Libri Novem. 5 Julius Obsequens was a fourth century Roman author, about whom little is known. De Prodigiis is an extract from the work by Livy. 6 In The Argonautica 2, Apollonius of Rhodes, a third century Hellenistic poet, writes of an oak tree nymph that spoke. 7 The oak of Dodona was a sacred site dedicated to Zeus. The priests of that place, even before the establishment of a sanctuary, would interpret the voice of the deity in the rustling of the branches and leaves. It is said that a black dove landed upon the tree and spoke to the locals in human speech, declaring that an oracle should be established in that place. 8 Numbers 22:28. 9 A prosopœia is a speech, composed by one, but delivered by the mouth of another. 2

177

28:14, The depth saith, It is not in me; and, in Genesis 3:14, God is said to speak to the serpent: as if the mute and stupid animal would converse. Insofar as it is said in verse 6 that the woman saw that it would be good for eating, etc., but not that she heard the voice of the serpent, thence Abarbanel says that it is evidently proven that it did not speak with the woman, but this is said, because, since the serpent had climbed oftimes into that tree and, with Eve observing, had eaten, yet had not died, she began to think that those fruits were not deadly; and it is just as if the serpent had said, You shall not die. If you should ask why then was the serpent punished? Abarbanel responds that the serpent, not content with herbs, etc., climbed into the tree, so that it might eat the fruit (de Muis’ Various Sacred Things, Composed out of Various Rabbis). Concerning the serpent, two things are to be examined closely, says the most learned Mede. 1. Who was it in fact; 2. who was it in the opinion of Eve. Question 1: Who was it actually? I respond: Undoubtedly, it was the Devil, who misused the brutish serpent, either by possessing him, or (which I prefer) by appearing in the outward form of it. Question 2: What did Eve suppose the serpent to be? a serpent, or, in fact, Satan? If the former is answered, it detracts from the perfection of that state, seeing that she was ignorant of that which we all know, namely, that a serpent is not able to talk. If the latter is answered, 1. Why would she converse with the Fallen Angel? 2. Why does it say that the serpent was more crafty, except to indicate that it was the occasion of the fraud? Response: I clear this difficulty by these propositions. 1. I suppose that it is the rule in the dealings of spirits with men that the spirit would present itself by an outward form, visible to some extent. Which is indeed true, in as much as an experience with spirits is called a vision or apparition. Also God and the good Angels were present in the midst of men by this method. And Eve knew this. 2. I also suppose this rule to be given to spirits, that under the outward form they match what in some way represents their own condition. Just as in the civil sphere, diverse ranks are distinguished by a diversity of garments. Neither was Eve ignorant of this. From this it follows that good Angels are not able to appear in any other way than in a human form, but evil Angels were not able to present themselves by means of the human form in the state of innocency (subsequently, he revealed himself by means of the feminine, rather than the serpentine, form): the matter is otherwise after the fall; neither is it surprising, since one falling star can rightfully represent another. With these things posited, it was not on this account that Eve would marvel that a spirit spoke with her: But on account of this, that inasmuch as it appeared in the form of a most subtle serpent (which was revealing its nature) and had assumed its outward appearance, so that it might inspire in the woman the opinion of its own sagacity, she quickly gathered that it was most sagacious and was able to understand the mind of God

178

more clearly than herself (Mede in his Diatribe “Discourse 37”). Eve did not know of the existence of evil Angels, but she took this one to be a good Angel, knowing that such excellent protection was assigned to her and to her husband by God (Lightfoot’s On Genesis). Question: Why would not the woman be amazed at a speaking serpent? Response: Eve considered, not by assenting, but by pondering within herself, whether a serpent might perhaps have the power of speech. Thus Cyril. For she was recently created, even in fact after Adam had given names to the beasts; she did not experience these things. Neither did the perfection of the woman demand this, that she should have congenital knowledge of all things natural, as the perfection of the man was requiring (Estius’ Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences 1 2). This was an ignorance of pure negation, and such was possible in the state of innocency, like in children, etc. (Rivet). Eve was admiring and looking upon that which was occurring by an evidently higher power; but fear was absent, because she had not yet sinned, and she knew that she was cared for by God (Menochius). At that time, there was no cause for fear. At that time, man was the lord of the beasts, and they revered him (Estius’ Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences). It was not unknown to Eve that these words were formed by a supernatural power; but she did not sufficiently consider, as she was obliged, that they were forged to tempt her (Tirinus). The Demon entered the serpent, not by his own election, but by a divine dispensation, which did not permit the man to be tempted by the Devil in a pleasing and grand form, but in an uncouth outward appearance, in which case, the fallacies of the Demon could be the They conclude the Bacchic revels o1fesin sooner detected (Lyra). a)nestemme/noi, etc. that is, crowned with serpents, exclaiming, Eu0a_n, Eu0a_n, that is, Eve, Eve; and the serpent is the sign of their revels (Clement’s Exhortation to the Heathen 2 2 in Grotius). [The serpent] Hence, I believe, comes that serpent, guardian of the golden apple trees, in the Poets 3 (Gataker). [More subtle] Wise unto evil (Targum Jerusalem). Question: In what sense is this spoken? Response: In a twofold sense: 1. Inasmuch as this subtlety is attributed the serpent (Estius’ Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences), of which these indications are brought forth: that it, when attacked, immediately hides its head, either inserting it into the earth, or surrounding it with the coils of its own body (Estius’ Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences, Fagius); that it refuses to listen to the voice of the charmer (Estius, Fagius); that at certain times it strips off its old skin and puts on new 1

In Quatuor Libros Sententiarum Commentaria. lo/goj o( protreptiko\j pro\j #Ellhnaj. 3 In Greek mythology, Ladon was a hundred-headed dragon which Hera set to protect the golden apples of her western orchard. 2

179

(Fagius); that, being about to drink, it first spues out and gives up its venom, as Epiphanius testifies concerning the heresy of the Ophites 1 (Estius). Some cavil that these are prominent in many animals of greater cleaverness. But it would not be absurd, if we should say that the gift, which was destructive to man, was taken away from the serpent (Calvin). Epiphanius supposes its subtlety to have been diminished by the malediction. If this be not true, rightly it is said to be more prudent than the others, not with respect to all things, but with respect to natural instincts, even, inasmuch as I might speak in this way, the arts of life against the perils of its preservation: Which excellence is certainly a kind of prudence. With this it agrees: for by nature it is capable of harming man invisibly and insidiously (Estius’ Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences); for, sitting motionless in the way and hiding in those sands with which it is the same color, it strikes the heels of the horse, Genesis 49:17, and, with only little projections extended, which are like unto grains of wheat, he draws little birds, flying to the bait. Accordingly, the Philosopher, 2 History of Animals 3 1:1, teaches that serpents are ma/lista e0pibou/louj, especially treacherous. And, in the writings of Æsop, the crab, having entered into society with the serpent, was encouraging him metaba/llesqai th~j panourgi/aj, to give up his subtlety: but he was showing himself to be not at all obedient. To these, it could be added out of Pliny that the serpent, with his vision obscured by winter hibernation, anoints and refreshes his eyes with fennel; but, if his scales became numb, he scrapes them with the thorns of the juniper; the vernal snake extinguishes nausea with the moisture from lettuce (Bochart’s A Sacred Catalogue of Animals 1:1:4:8). Under and over itself it coils, so that it might act more cunningly and consider its way more cautiously. For, that this coiling pertains to its cunning, the fable of Æsop Of the Serpent and the Crab testifies 4 (Picherel). Some suppose them to be called prudent because they deliberate protractedly. Certain of the Hebrews say that the serpent was at first gifted with human affections, and, hence, was more subtle (Fagius). Others maintain that subtlety is attributed to the serpent because of the Devil speaking in it; just as we call the tongue of man deceitful (not because deceit belongs to it, but) because a deceitful mind moves it (Estius’ Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences), and a tongue learned, which the intellect moves with prudences 1

The Ophites were a second century Gnostic sect, worshippers of snakes. Because of his preeminence in the field, Aristotle is frequently referred to as “the Philosopher”. 3 Historia Animalium. 4 In Æsop’s fable, the Crab attempts to convince the Snake to give up his winding and twisting ways for a more straightforward manner of dealing. The Snake is recalcitrant, so the Crab strangles him in his sleep. In death his body is laid out straight and in full length. The story is intended to encourage frankness and simplicity of manners. 2

180

(Lyra). Others conjoin both of these; thus Augustine. It is probable that Moses regarded the latter sense, signifying this, that that cunning Devil used a subtle instrument, suited to himself (Estius’ Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences). This subtlety is to be referred principally to the Demon (Lyra). MrU(f/naked, in 2:25, is here Mw@r(f/subtle. It speaks to the elegance of the Hebrew language that the same term is repeated in diverse signification. So it is in Judges 10:4, with respect to MyrIyF(j, 1 and in Judges 15:16, with respect to rwOmxj 2 (Fagius). The serpent; or rather, this or that serpent; for here is an emphatical article, of which more by and by. The serpent’s eminent subtlety is noted both in sacred Scripture, Genesis 49:17; Psalm 58:5; Matthew 10:16; 2 Corinthians 11:3, and by heathen authors, whereof these instances are given; that when it is assaulted, it secures its head; that it stops its ear at the charmer’s voice; and the like. If it be yet said that some beasts are more subtle, and therefore this is not true; it may be replied, 1. It is no wonder if the serpent for its instrumentality in man’s sin hath lost the greatest part of its original subtlety, even as man’s sin was punished with a great decay both of the natural endowments of his mind, wisdom, and knowledge, and of the beauty and glory of his body, the instrument of his sin. But this text may, and seems to be understood, not of the whole kind of serpents, but of this individual or particular serpent; for it is in the Hebrew Hannachash that serpent, or this serpent, to signify that this was not only an ordinary serpent, but was acted and assisted by the devil, who is therefore called that old serpent, Revelation 12:9. And this seems most probable, partly from the following discourse, which is added as a proof of that which is here said concerning the serpent’s subtlety; and that surely was not the discourse of a beast but of a devil; and partly from 2 Corinthians 11:3, which hath a manifest reference to this place, where the apostle affirmeth that the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety; not surely through that subtlety which is common to all serpents, but through that subtlety which was peculiar to this, as it was possessed and acted by the devil. There seems indeed to be an allusion here to the natural subtlety of all serpents; and the sense of the sacred penman may seem to be this, as if he said: The serpent indeed in itself is a subtle creature, and thought to be more subtle than any beast of the field; but howsoever this be in other serpents, it is certain that this serpent was more 1

Judges 10:4a: “And he had thirty sons that rode on thirty ass colts (MyrIyF(j), and they had thirty cities (MyrIyF(j) . . .” 2 Judges 15:16: “And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass (rwOmxjha), heaps upon heaps (MyItfrFmoxj rwOmxj), with the jaw of an ass (rwOmxjha) have I slain a thousand men.”

181

subtle than any beast of the field, as will appear by the following words. If it be said, the particle this, or that, is relative to something going before, whereas there is not a word about it in the foregoing words; it may be replied, that relative particles are often put without any antecedents, and the antecedents are left to be gathered not only out of the foregoing, but sometimes also out of the following passages, as is apparent from Exodus 14:19; Numbers 7:89; 24:17; Psalm 87:1; 105:19; 114:2; Proverbs 7:8; 14:26. So here, that serpent, that of which I am now to speak, whose discourse with the woman here followeth. Question. How the serpent could speak, and what the woman conceived of his speech, and why she was not affrighted, but continued the discourse with it? There be two satisfactory answers may be given to these questions. 1. The woman knew that there were spirits, and did freely and frequently converse with spirits or angels, who also did appear in some visible shape to her, which seems very credible; because in the following ages not only the angels, but even the blessed God himself, did in that manner converse with men. And as they afterwards used to appear in the shape of men, why might not one of them now appear to her, and converse with her, in the shape of a beautiful serpent? And why might she not freely and securely discourse with this which she thought to be one of those good angels, to whose care and tuition both she and her husband were committed? For I suppose the fall of the angels was yet unknown to her; and she thought this to be a good spirit, otherwise she would have declined all conversation with an apostate spirit. 2. A late ingenious and learned writer represents the matter thus, in which there is nothing absurd or incredible: The serpent makes his address to the woman with a short speech, and salutes her as the empress of the world, etc. She is not affrighted, because there was as yet no cause of fear, no sin, and therefore no danger, but wonders and inquires what this meant, and whether he was not a brute creature, and how he came to have speech and understanding? The serpent replies, that he was no better than a brute, and did indeed want both these gifts, but by eating of a certain fruit in this garden he got both. She asked what fruit and tree that was? Which when he showed her, she replied: This, no doubt, is an excellent fruit, and likely to make the eater of it wise; but God hath forbidden us this fruit. To which the serpent replies, as it here follows in the text. It is true, this discourse is not in the text; but it is confessed by Jewish and other expositors, that these words: Yea, hath God said, etc., are a short and abrupt sentence, and that they were but the close of a foregoing discourse; which might well enough be either this now mentioned, or some other of a like nature. And that expression which follows, Gen 3:6, when the woman saw, i.e. understood that it was a tree to be desired to make one wise, may seem to imply, both that the serpent told her, and that she believed, that the speech and

182

understanding of the serpent was the effect of the eating of that fruit; and therefore that if it raised him from a brute beast to the degree of a reasonable creature, it would elevate her from the human to a kind of Divine nature or condition. [Unto the woman] Being naturally the more easily deceived (Lyra). [Why hath God prescribed] He takes it interrogatively (Fagius). Ti/ o3ti ei]pen (Why has He said, or, What is it that He said?) (Septuagint). Why has He forbidden? (Castalio). yki@ P)a, Indeed (Oleaster), Is it in accordance with the truth that (Syriac, Arabic), Yea, is it the case that (Munster), Is it really possible that, He said? (Samaritan Text). Is it true that God, etc.? (Chaldean in Fagius). This the more learned follow, rendering it, Is it so? (Vatablus, thus Tigurinus); Is it indeed? (Pagnine); Yea, has God decreed? (Junius and Tremellius). But then he would have said P)aha, as in Genesis 18:13 1 (Piscator). Others: Yea, because (Piscator, Malvenda, Ainsworth, Montanus). Picherel parafra&zei/paraphrases: The serpent . . . among other words, spoke these, Yea, has God forbidden to you? With a brief expression, he subsumes certain things which previously he said. See Ruth 2:21 in Hebrew 2 (Picherel). Others read it affirmatively: How much more? (Fagius), or, Much more (Vatablus). It appears that the statement is truncated, and they maintain that others preceded (Kimchi and other Hebrews in Fagius, Lapide, Ainsworth); and the Hebrews suppose that perhaps he spoke in this manner: Certainly God hates you, for He does not grant to you such and such honor; other animals are superior to you, and that through the jealousy of God (Fagius). After which he subjoins, Yea, is it true that He says? (Vatablus). To others this is not satisfying. The woman should have been unwilling patiently to hear so long and so malicious a sermon against God (Estius’ Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences). He (the serpent) did not accuse God of cruelty, for Eve would have necessarily shuddered at this blasphemy; but, rather cunningly, as if commending God, he speaks in this way: that is to say, I do not believe that God, who is so liberal and consummately good, has thus earnestly and absolutely forbidden this tree. Here, the serpent slyly attempts to subvert the purpose of the precept, so that he might subvert the precept itself: that is to say, No just reason appears why He would forbid; therefore, He has not 1

Genesis 18:13: “And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I indeed (P)aha) bear a child, which am old?” Note the interrogative h prefixed, indicating a question. 2 Ruth 2:21: “And Ruth the Moabitess said, Also (yki@ MgA%) he said unto me, Thou shalt keep fast by my young men, until they have ended all my harvest.” It appears that Ruth communicated more of her conversation with Boaz, as related in verses 714, but only this most pertinent point of the conversation is here repeated for the reader.

183

forbidden in sincerity, but in jest, even teasing, has He spoken (Lapide). It is the custom of Scripture to capture the end of words, from which you might understand their beginning. Thus, in Joshua 2:24, the returned spies say, Because He has given, etc., which was not the beginning of the speech (Kimchi in Fagius). Kimchi asserts these things (in my judgment) not without reason (Fagius’ Comparison of the Principal Translations). yki@ P)a is never placed at the beginning of an oration (Fagius). They generally suppose it to be a paralepsis, 1 for Moses, out of the lengthier speech of the serpent, preferred to relate only that which was necessary for his design, namely, that by which the serpent secured what he was straining after (Malvenda). It can be translated, Much more, etc.; that is to say, I am amazed that God has deprived you of great goods, but much more I am amazed that He would prohibit, etc. (Vatablus). [Why has He prescribed] Disorder was not then possible in the subordinate faculties, unless it had been first in the reason; therefore, he did not tempt at first with the consuming of the tree, but with the restriction of the precept, Why has He prescribed, etc.?; that is to say, This precept was not appropriate, since you are of a free condition and are superior to all the trees (Lyra). He said unto the woman, who had upon some occasion retired from her husband for a season (an advantage which the crafty serpent quickly espieth, and greedily embraceth, and assaulteth her when she wanteth the help of her husband). Yea, or, why, or, is it so, or, indeed, or, of a truth. It is scarce credible that God, who is so bountiful, and the sovereign good, and so abhorring from all parsimony and envy, should forbid you the enjoyment of any part of those provisions which he hath made for your use and comfort. [Of every] Thus he spoke, so that he might lure her into the conversation (Fagius). It is ambiguous whether he is denying this concerning any tree, or concerning in fact only some particular tree; modifying the words in this way, so that he, having been caught unawares, might be able to specify that he referred only to the one tree, etc. (Menochius). The clever devise of the Demon is to speak ambiguously: hereafter Apollo was called Loci/aj/ Ecliptic, for he was pronouncing loch\n fwnh\n, that is, an oblique word, or ambiguous oracles (Bonfrerius). Here the Devil completely covers the lie under the appearance of a truth (Piscator). Of every tree, or, of any; for the word is ambiguous, which therefore the cunning adversary useth to hide the snare which he was laying for her. [Myhi$l)v, Elohim] With serious application to his purpose, he uses the title, which refers to the severity and judgment of God (Fagius). 1

A paralepsis is a rhetorical devise. Material is omitted, or treated cursorily, usually to highlight the importance of that material.

184

Verse 2: And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. [Of the fruit of the trees, C(' yrIp;%mi] Of the fruit of the tree (Cajetan, Septuagint, Menochius). Or of the tree is put for of the trees, as spear, in 2 Kings 11:10, 1 is put for spears, 2 Chronicles 23:9; 2 ship, in 1 Kings 10:22, 3 is put for ships, 2 Chronicles 9:21; 4 thus, in verse 7, leaf for leaves. 5 See Genesis 4:20 6 (Ainsworth). [We eat] That is, It is lawful to eat (Vatablus, Ainsworth). Verse 3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die (Gen. 2:17). [He prescribed to us] The Vulgate not incorrectly adds, to us. For, although when God issued the prohibition to Adam, Genesis 2:16, Eve did not yet exist; nevertheless, through Adam, inspired by the Holy Spirit, God thoroughly instructed her (Picherel). [That we should not eat, and neither should we touch] I render it, Ye, being about to eat, shall not touch. In Hebrew, it is a hysteron proteron, as in Colossians 2:5 and in Virgil’s Æneid 9, by sleep and wine destroyed, instead of, by wine and sleep, as would be the case if thereupon he should observe the right order of words. In that case, ye shall not touch, ye shall not eat; that is, Ye shall not touch in order to eat. So it is in Exodus 20:4, 5, Thou shalt not make a graven image, etc., thou shalt not bow down, in the place of which it is said in Leviticus 26:1, Ye shall not make idols, etc., in order to bow down. Now, she is mindful of touch only because it precedes eating, lest by means of 1

2 Kings 11:10a: “And to the captains over hundreds did the priest give king David’s spear (tynIxjha, singular) and shields . . .” 2 2 Chronicles 23:9a: “Moreover Jehoiada the priest delivered to the captains of hundreds spears (MytiynIxjha, plural), and bucklers, and shields, that had been king David’s . . .” 3 1 Kings 10:22a: “For the king had at sea a navy (ynI)//ship, singular) of Tharshish with the navy (ynI)//ship, singular) of Hiram: once in three years came the navy (ynI)//ship, singular) of Tharshish . . .” 4 2 Chronicles 9:21: “For the king's ships (twOy%nI)/, plural) went to Tarshish with the servants of Huram: every three years once came the ships (twOy%nI)/, plural) of Tarshish . . .” 5 Genesis 3:7b: “And they sewed the leaf (hl'(j) of the fig tree together, and made themselves aprons.” 6 Genesis 4:20: “And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of the tent-dweller (b#$'y lhe)o, singular) . . .”

185

touching she should arrive at eating. See verse 22 (Picherel). [That we should not touch, etc.] Also the woman adds to the words of God (for God had spoken nothing concerning touch), and she takes away from them, lest peradventure we die 1 (Fagius). [Npe%] Lest (Junius and Tremellius, Ainsworth). Lest at any time (Malvenda). Out of displeasure with the precept (Fagius), out of weariness and hatred for the precept (Menochius), adding of her own, she invidiously exaggerates (Menochius, Tirinus). Or, rather, on account of religion and reverence for the precept, she said this, that the fruit is, as it were, not even to be touched, which it was not lawful to eat (Menochius out of Lapide, Malvenda). Thus some also assert that touch was prohibited, so that she might be further removed from tasting, but this is not drawn from what is written (Lyra). Soon, having experienced a harmless touch, she hoped the same of tasting (Grotius). [Of the fruit] Most precious fruit. For the article is added, 2 so that you might see that she is already stirred a considerable amount (Menochius). [Lest peradventure we die] God had absolutely asserted; the woman doubts; the Devil denies. Thus Rupertus 3 (Lapide, Menochius, Fagius). Npe% is an adverb of doubting: Therefore, the serpent establishes his lie by the doubling of the word, Ye shall not surely die 4 (Picherel). This is spoken doubtingly, even, as it were, by extenuating the precept (Bonfrerius). Npe% is an adverb of doubting, from Nw@p%, to hesitate: but it could be from hnFpf%, to regard, that is, with consideration of this matter, etc. Npe% is not always an adverb of doubting (Piscator, Lapide, Ainsworth, Malvenda), as it is evident in Psalm 2:12, lest He be angry, and Isaiah 27:3, lest anyone visit it (Piscator). But often it is simply an adverb of denial (compare Psalm 91:12 with Matthew 4:6); sometimes of assertion (compare Isaiah 36:18 with 2 Kings 18:29, and Matthew 15:32, lest they faint, with Mark 8:3, they will faint [Ainsworth]). From the response of the Devil, it is plain that Eve had said, Dying, thou shalt 1

Genesis 2:17: “For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (twOm tw@mt@f, infinitive absolute followed by an imperfect, used to emphasize [in this case, the certainty of] the verbal action).” Eve drops the infinitive absolute construction. 2 The construct chain, C('ha yrIp;%miw%, is definite. 3 Rupertus (1091-1135) was a learned Benedictine, Abbot of Tuits on the Rhine. The citation is likely taken from his commentary In Genesin. 4 In the Hebrew, the infinitive absolute form of twm precedes the imperfect form, Nw@tmut;@ twOm-)$l. The infinitive absolute can be thus used to emphasize the certainty of the performance of the verbal action. In this construction, it is the infinitive absolute, the certainty, which is negated. Normally, in order to express that the action of the main verb will certainly not take place, the negative particle would be placed between the infinitive absolute and the main verb.

186

die, etc. 1 (Piscator). For she was thus far in her integrity (Lapide). Neither shall ye touch it, to wit, in order to the eating of it. Or the

touch might be simply forbidden, or she might reasonably understand it to be forbidden in and by the prohibition of eating, because it was an occasion of sin, and therefore to be avoided. For it is not probable that the woman, being not yet corrupted, should knowingly add to God’s word, or maliciously insinuate the harshness of the precept. Others read, lest peradventure ye die, as if she doubted of the truth of the threatening; which seems not probable, the woman yet continuing in the state of innocency, and such doubting being evidently sinful; and the Hebrew particle Pen doth not always imply a doubt, as appears from Psalm 2:12; Isaiah 27:3; and Isaiah 36:18 compared with 2 Kings 18:29. Verse 4: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die (Gen. 3:13; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14). [Ye shall by no means die] He does not say, Surely ye shall not die, but, ye shall not surely die: Thus he denies only the certitude of death (Piscator out of Junius). What she doubted, this he denies (Fagius). Certain of the Hebrews say that he first persuaded the woman to touch, which she had said was prohibited, and that, since she was uninjured by the touch, he tempted her to eat (Fagius). It is not so certain as you imagine, that you shall die. God did say so indeed for your terror, and to keep you in awe; or, he had some mystical meaning in those words; but do not entertain such hard and unworthy thoughts of that God who is infinitely kind and gracious, that he will, for such a trifle as the eating of a little fruit, undo you and all your posterity, and so suddenly destroy the most excellent work of his own hands. Verse 5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened (Gen. 3:7; Acts 26:18), and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. [For God doth know] yki@/for ought to be translated as but (Grotius, Piscator). yki@ is put for M)i yki@, for if (Piscator); that is to say, God knows that this will be most useful to you: therefore, since He is good and takes care of you, He is not to be thought to wish to deprive you of this good (Menochius). [In the day] To the immediate evil, which God had threatened, He opposes an immediate good (Ainsworth). [They shall be opened, w@xq;p;nIw:] And they shall be opened. And is put 1

Here it is supposed, based on the response of the serpent, that Eve did use the infinitive absolute construction.

187

in the place of then (Piscator, Ainsworth). So it is also in Mark 14:34, instead of then in Matthew 26:38. What Mark 15:27 has as and they were crucifying, Matthew 27:38 has as then they were crucifying (Ainsworth). He deceives with a homonym. He promises that they will be knowers/understanders, but he knows that they will be experiencers of good and evil (Piscator). [The eyes] That is, of the mind. Ye will be extremely sharp-sighted, so that ye will be rightly judging that until now ye had known nothing and had been as blind men (Menochius, Tirinus). If you would have the whole truth of the matter, and God’s design in that prohibition, it is only this, He knoweth that you shall be so far from dying, that ye shall certainly be entered into a new and more noble kind of life; and the eyes of your minds, which are now shut as to the knowledge of a world of things, shall then be opened, and see things more fully and distinctly. [Ye will be like gods (Septuagint, Montanus, Malvenda, Junius and Tremellius, Ainsworth, Oleaster)] Myhi$l)k@', like God (Syriac, Drusius). Equal with God (Fagius). This form is common to either number (Drusius). It is divine to know all things. Homer says of Jupiter, plei/ona h3|dei, he knew more, and elsewhere, Qeoi\ de/ te pa/nta i1sasi, the gods know all things. Knowledge is the life of the gods: Cicero in Hortensius. This gift, as needful as it was, they were obliged to seek from God by prayer for the advantage of the dominion given to them from heaven, not, however, to take it up by their own agency. In the place of this tree, the Poets substituted a fire; an instrument, of course, of all arts and of a luxurious lifestyle. Claudius Neapolitanus, 1 in Porphyry’s 2 On Abstinence from Animal Food 3 1, conjoins both. Add the poem of Moschion, 4 found in the works of Stobæus, 5 entitled Concerning Time 6 (Grotius). [Like gods] Not restrained by any inhibition, nor subject to anyone (Lyra). Others: like magnates, leaders (Onkelos), who are obliged to discern between good and evil (Fagius, Drusius). And therefore they learned magic, so that they might judge in imitation of Magi (Drusius). Others: like Angels (Hebrews in Fagius, Drusius, Vatablus, Targum Jerusalem, Arabic). It could have been understood of evil Angels, who experience both good and evil 1

Little is known of Claudius the Neapolitan. He wrote a tract against abstinence from animals which is refuted by Porphyry. 2 Porphyry (c. 232-c. 304) studied in Rome under Plotinus. He endeavored to make the obscure Neoplatonism of Plotinus intelligible to the popular reader. 3 De Abstinentia. 4 Moschion (probably living during the second century) was a physician and poet. He wrote De Mulierum Passionibus (Concerning the Passions of Women), as well as the works cited by Stobæus. 5 Joannes Stobæus was a late-fifth century compiler of Greek antiquities. 6 De Tempore.

188

(Ainsworth). Thus he accuses God of jealousy (Fagius). The woman, seeing that the tree was good for eating, that is, that the serpent had eaten of its fruit with impunity, believed that God had forbidden eating, lest they become like unto Him, that is, with respect to knowledge, which she was gathering from its name, since it was called the tree of knowledge by God Himself (de Muis on verse 1). Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil, or, as God, like unto God himself in the largeness of your knowledge; the very name that God hath put upon the tree may teach you. But this is a privilege, of which, for divers causes best known to himself, some of which your own reason will easily guess at, he would not have you partake of. Verse 6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant (Heb. a desire) to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat (Ecclus. 25:24; 1 1 Tim. 2:14), and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat (Gen. 3:12, 17). [And she saw] With her eyes and mind, she was wholly intent upon the tree (Fagius). Curiously and attentively considering the fruit, she was eager to taste (Menochius). The beginning of the transgression appeared (Hebrews in Fagius). The woman saw; by curious and accurate observation, and gazing upon it, or perceiving it by the serpent’s discourse, as was observed on Genesis 3:3. [That is was good for eating, lkf)jmal;] For consumption. A verbal noun is put in place of a verb (Vatablus). [And pleasant to the eyes, MyInAy('lf hwF)jta] A desire of the eyes (Montanus), that is, very desireable to the eyes. Desire in the abstract, that is to say, a thing in the highest degree desirable (Malvenda). That it would be health to the eyes (Onkelos); that is, it would be healing to the eyes. Now, to heal the eyes is a Chaldean adage meaning to feed the eyes (Fagius). Pleasant to the eyes, to wit, in an eminent degree; for otherwise so were all the rest. [With an agreeable appearance, lyki@#o;hal; dmfx;ne] Desirable for conferring prudence; thus the Hebrews, whom the more learned follow (Vatablus, Onkelos, Targum Jerusalem, Oleaster, Malvenda, Samaritan Text, Arabic, Cajetan, Piscator, Ainsworth, Picherel). lyki@#o;hal;, to make wise, is here taken transitively. So it is in Psalm 32:8. 2 Otherwise, it is usually taken 1

Ecclesiasticus 25:24: “Of woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.” 2 Psalm 32:8: “I will instruct thee (K1l;yki@#o;)a, with a pronominal, direct object suffix)

189

intransitively (Piscator). Others refer this to the external appearance (Vulgate, Syriac). The Greeks: w(rai=on tou~ katanoh~sai, that is, just how salutary it was could be inferred from its appearance (Grotius). The tree was worthy of attentive consideration (Menochius). The woman, with the word of God already repudiated, perceives and judges quite differently than previously (Fagius). To make one wise, which she might know by the serpent’s information. See the notes on Genesis 3:1. [She gave to her husband h@m@f(i] With her, that is, so that he might eat together with her (Vatablus, Lapide). Thus Picherel; that is, just as she herself had eaten, so also he himself should eat. See Ecclesiastes 10:16; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:14. The preposition with is sometimes used to communicate similitude: to feel with someone is to feel just as that one feels. So it is in Ecclesiastes 2:16; the Hebrew is with, which Jerome renders like as. 1 So it is in Galatians 3:9, they are blessed with Abraham, that is, like Abraham; and in Romans 8:17, Xristw|~ sumpa&sxein, to suffer with Christ, and sundoca&zesqai, to be glorified with Christ (Picherel). Others translate it, who was with her (Fagius, Piscator, Oleaster). That is, he came to her as quickly as possible, although the sermonizing of the serpent was already completed and (as it appears) the serpent himself had already slipped away. Nevertheless, God afterwards brought him back into the view of our first parents (Piscator). All of our interpreters together, whom I have considered, agree that Satan assaulted the woman with the man absent. But I scarcely believe that either the woman would have endured to be drawn away from her husband, not for a day, but for nearly an hour; or the man would have wished her, I do not say to be torn from his side, but to depart from his view for a long while, and to allow her to wander. Certainly an affection, not so small and feeble, was realized recently, even today, in the couple, joined with reciprocal delight; still less is it possible in those, whom, into so close a tie, God Himself had bound with such solemnity; especially, since there was no one with whom they, scattered from one another, might be able to be associated familiarly (Gataker’s Cinnus 194). From the word, h@m@f(i, the Hebrews gather that Adam was present during the exchange, and they reproach his negligence, for he did not call her away from the evil (Fagius). Gave also unto her husband with her, who by this time was returned to her, and who now was with her; or, that he might eat with her, and take his part of that fruit. and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye.” If lyk@i#o;hal;, in Genesis 3:6, is transitive, the direct object must be supplied. 1 Ecclesiastes 2:16b: “And how dieth the wise man? as (M(i/with) the fool.

190

[And he ate] This is expressed with great emphasis. For the prevarication of the woman did not at all pertain to their posterity (Fagius). He ate, because he believed that pardon would follow the transgression, and thus he would remain in his current status (Lyra). Verse 7: And the eyes of them both were opened (Gen. 3:5), and they knew that they were naked (Gen. 2:25); and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons (or, things to gird about). [Their eyes were opened, hnFx;qap%ft@iwA] That is, of the mind and soul (Rabbi Salomon). Thus they are called Myxiq;p%i, that is, seeing, who discern causes rightly, Exodus 23:8 1 (Fagius, Lapide). They began to perceive their own evil (Vatablus). The eyes of them both. The eyes of their minds and consciences, which hitherto had been closed and blinded by the arts of the devil, were opened, as the devil had promised them, though in a far differing and sadder sense. [They knew that they were naked] Both with respect to soul and body (Piscator, Ainsworth). And they knew that nudity was indeed shameful now (Piscator). They knew that they were naked: supply, and they were ashamed (Picherel). They learned what the use of the male is, what the use of the female is. Nudity is to the Hebrews ta_ genhtika_, the parts dedicated to generation. See 1 Corinthians 12:23 (Grotius). Then they were recognizing that their nudity was liable to embarrassment (Lyra). Now their nudity began to displease them, which previously was not indecent, but suitable for those who are innocent (Fagius). Thus they perceive themselves to have been deluded by Satan (Fagius, Tirinus). They feel the rebellious motions of concupiscence by their own members thrusting themselves forth (Fagius, Menochius). [Mym@irUy('] The letter y is added (which was absent in Genesis 2:25) by way of epitasis and auxesis, 2 as the Hebrews maintain, to signify the ugliness which was added to nudity after sin (Fagius). They knew that they were naked. They knew it before, when it was their glory, but now they know it with grief and shame, from a sense both of their guilt for the sin newly past, and of that sinful concupiscence which they now found working in them. [They sewed together 3 fig leaves (Chaldean, Samaritan Text, Arabic, Munster, Pagnine, Tigurinus)] This does not satisfy. Where did they get the 1

Exodus 23:8: “And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise (Myxiq;pi%, seeing), and perverteth the words of the righteous.” 2 That is, through emphasis and exaggeration. 3 Genesis 3:7b: “And they sewed together (w@rp%;t;yI%wA), and made themselves aprons.”

191

needle and thread by which they might sew? Oleaster says that this was done either by hand, tying one to another, or stitching together with briars: as would be the case, of course, if they gathered from the thorns of the briars small pins. In any event, there was hardly so much leisure or even curiousity, in such great consternation of their souls, that they might zealously undertake an unnecessary work. Therefore, I render it, and with leafy boughs intertwined, or woven together, they made aprons. rpatf@ signifies to attach, to fasten, to fold together, to affix. Job 16:15: 1 I have brought sackcloth into contact with my skin. Ezekiel 13:18: 2 Bringing into contact, or, fitting (certainly not sewing) pillows to armpits. And hle(f signifies, not only leaf, but also, bough, shoot, branch; so it is in Genesis 8:11, 3 Proverbs 11:28, 4 and most clearly in Nehemiah 8:15 (Gataker’s Cinnus 200). [Now, what the rest translate sewed together, the Syriac translates, they joined together.] They were plaiting green twigs around their sides (Menochius). They sewed, that is, they intertwined, or weaved together leaves and branches (Ainsworth). [Leaves of a fig tree] Hebrew: leaf. See what things have been said on verse 2. From this place, some conjecture that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a fig tree: but Ibn Ezra rejects this (Fagius). They seek the leaves of the fig tree because of their width (Piscator). They tied, twisted, or fastened, the lesser branches or twigs, upon which were also the leaves of a fig tree, which peradventure was then near them, and which because of its broad leaves was most fit for that use. [Girdles (thus the Syriac)] t$r$gxj/belts (Samaritan Text, Pagnine, Montanus, Oleaster). Girdles (Chaldean, Munster, Tirinus). Things like girdles (Septuagint, Malvenda). Coverings (Arabic). Aprons (Ainsworth). Loincloths (Junius and Tremellius, Vatablus) for covering their shameful parts (Vatablus, Piscator). It is an argument of the corruption of that nature, which nature is propagated through those shameful members (Piscator, Ainsworth). Made themselves aprons, to cover their nakedness. Verse 8: And they heard the voice of the LORD God (Job 38:1) walking in the garden in the cool (Heb. wind) of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God (Job 31:33; Jer. 1

Job 16:15a: “I have sewed (yti@r:patf@) sackcloth upon my skin.” Ezekiel 13:18a: “And say, Thus saith the Lord God; Woe to the women that sew (twOrp%;tam;li) pillows to all armholes.” 3 Genesis 8:11a: “And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive branch (hl'(j) pluckt off.” 4 Proverbs 11:28: “He that trusteth in his riches shall fall: but the righteous shall flourish as a branch (hle(fke).” 2

192

23:24; Amos 9:3) amongst the trees of the garden. [And they heard] Moses describes in detail the order of the response of the grace of God. First of all, Adam was terrified, and driven to the recognition of his sin, and cast down by his own false confidence (Fagius). [The voice of the Lord] Either that this was voice of One accusing Adam for the first time, although it is not written, on account of which Adam might hide himself: or by this voice I understand certain words which God might have spoken to Himself while walking, concerning that which had fallen out contrary to His prohibition (Picherel). The voice, the former or the latter, was, Adam, where are you? (Menochius, Piscator), or the sounds of the shaking of the trees, on account of the steps of God walking, in order to make sinners afraid (Menochius, Bonfrerius); or thunder, which is called the voice of God in Psalm 29:3. Wind is usually joined with thunder. God is introduced here as the Judge. Compare with Job 38:1 (Piscator). [The voice of the Lord walking abroad, K7l'@hat;mi] They refer this walking to the wind, or to the voice. See Jeremiah 46:22, 1 Ben Melech 2 (Drusius). Some refer this to the voice (Fagius, Drusius, Ainsworth, certain Hebrews in Malvenda), the walking-about-voice of God in the garden; so that it might be said that the voice of God was carried by the wind unto the ears of our first parents (Drusius’ Of Sacred Observations 16:25). A voice is said to walk, that is, to sound long, Exodus 19:19, 3 just as also the waters are said to walk, Genesis 8:3 4 (Fagius, Ainsworth). Junius and Tremellius render it, the walking-sound of God, and thus they explain it as a certain light sound, and also like the noise of God approaching. This does not satisfy at all. 1. Then he would not have called it a voice, but the sound of feet, as in 1 Kings 14:6. 2. The word K7l'@hat;mi is never attributed to a sound or to a thing, but always to a person. 3. Not l, but b would have been added to xAw@r/wind to show the cause which would be carrying the voice back to their ears. 5 This voice appears 1

Jeremiah 46:22a: “The voice (h@lfwOq/sound) thereof shall go (K7l'y"/walk) like a serpent . . .” 2 Shelomoh ben Melech was a Spanish Jew, living in Constantinople, where he penned The Perfection of Beauty (1554), a detailed commentary upon the Hebrew Bible. 3 Exodus 19:19a: “And when the voice (lwOq) of the trumpet sounded long (K7l'wOh/ walked), and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake.” 4 Genesis 8:3a: “And the waters returned from off the earth continually (bwO#$wF K7wOlhf, with the infinitive absolute form of K7lahf serving to communicate that the action of the mainverb was ongoing).” 5 Genesis 3:8a: And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool (xAw@rl;, in the breeze) of the day.” b is frequently used to indicate means or instrument; l is frequently used to indicate the time of an occurrence.

193

to be heard at a distance (thus not that slight sound as of one walking on grass), from which they have the opportunity to remove themselves (Fuller’s Sacred Miscellany 3:5). Others refer this to God, the voice of God, while He was walking (Onkelos in Fagius, Septuagint, Samaritan Text, Montanus, Oleaster, Piscator, Syriac, and Arabic); the voice of the speech or of the word of God walking abroad (Fagius, Targum Jerusalem). He indicates that it was not a simple voice, but of the sort by which He strikes the conscience by the proclamation of the Law, and, on the other hand, He encourages by the publication of the Gospel. He describes in detail the voice of grace rolling down: For just as, with the word of God cast off, death entered, so also, with the word rolling down, and also received into the soul, life is renewed (Fagius). Perhaps at that time God appeared in the form of a man, as in Genesis 18 (Piscator, Oleaster). Others refer this to Adam, that is, while he was walking about in the garden (certain interpreters in Fagius). God was walking in some created similitude (Lyra). It is probable that both the body and the voice were formed through angelic agency (Estius). The voice of the Lord God, mentioned in Genesis 3:9, or rather the sound, as the word voice is often taken in Scripture, as Psalm 93:3; Revelation 10:3; 19:6. Either God the Father, or rather God the Son, appeared in the shape of a man, as afterwards he frequently did, to give a foretaste of his incarnation. [About the time of the breeze after midday, MwOy%ha xAw@rl;] About the time of the wind of the day (thus Aquila, Rabbi Salomon in de Dieu, Munster, Fagius, Ainsworth, Junius and Tremellius); that is, close to the evening, when the wind usually stirs itself up (Fuller’s Sacred Miscellany 3:5, Fagius, Vatablus). In the evening, the west winds blow (Fagius, Menochius), which Aristotle also observes (Fuller). Others: In the quiet of the day (Onkelos, Fagius). (I believe that he takes xAw@r/wind for xwFrE/respite; which I refuse to receive, because it supposes that the Bible was formerly without vowel points [Fuller].) That is, after the heat of the day had seethed (Fagius). Onkelos, I suppose, understands evening; because at that time, as the winds used to become still, so also men are weary from labors; the heat at that time likewise slackens (Drusius’ Of Sacred Observations 16:25). About the time of the evening (Septuagint). With the day retiring (Syriac). In the movement of the day (Arabic). About the time of the breeze of the day (Malvenda). Others: About the time of the wind of that day (Junius and Tremellius, Piscator, Picherel); that is to say, the voice of God was carried to the ears of Adam by the wind blowing on that day (Piscator out of Junius). With respect to the wind having risen on that day, it was a sign and witness of the indignation of God, certainly of his presence (Picherel). The sound of a violent wind was likewise a witness of the advent of the Holy Spirit, Acts 2:2. Others: About

194

the time of the exhalation of the day; so it is in Rabbi Jonah, 1 that is, during the

time in which there was the exhalation and cooling of the day, that is, the cooling of the air (Fagius). Thus MwOy%ha xAw@rl;, the cool of the day, is opposite to MwOy%ha Mxok;@, while the day grows hot, in Genesis 18:1 (Fuller’s Sacred Miscellany 3:5). Rabbi Salomon has it thus: About the time of the wind of the day, namely, that wind from where the sun sets, which is westerly (de Dieu). Gerundensis: The wind which blew in Paradise was pleasant and gentle, but then it began to stir more boisterously (Fagius). A certain, unusual motion is signified, which is a sign of the divine presence (Menochius, Grotius), as in 1 Kings 19:12 and Acts 2:2 (Grotius). I render it, about the time of the breeze, and MwOy%ha is after midday or at midday (Vulgate, Grotius). The principal part usually assumes the name of the whole. At that time of day the Greeks also expected visions. Theocritus’ 2 Idyll 1: Ou0 qe/mij, w} poima_n, to\ mesambrino\n, ou0 qe/mij a!mmin Suri/sden: to_n Pa~na dedoi/kamej, It is

not the will of heaven, O shepherd, now about midday, it is not the will of heaven for us to play the flute: we fear Pan. Ovid, Festivals 3 4: Let us see neither wood nymphs, nor the lips of Diana, nor Faunus, when he tramples the plains in the midst of the day (Grotius). The Hebrews say that in the tenth hour of the day (which is to us the fourth past noon [Drusius’ Of Sacred Observations]) this occurred (just as also in this hour they rebelled, says Raschi, that is, Rabbi Salomon) (de Dieu). Fuller thus explains it as, the voice of God, who was walking toward the wind (or in the direction of the wind) of that day, or, toward the breeze, I understand, which is worthy to be earnestly desired, as men are wont to do. Thus it denotes, not so much a time, but motion toward a place. 0Anqrwpopaqw~j/anthropopathically these things are attributed to Christ, who here appeared in human form (Fuller’s Sacred Miscellany 3:5). Theodotion translates: e0n tw|~ pneu/mati pro_j kata&yucin th~j h9me/raj (concerning which interpretation, see Fuller’s Sacred Miscellany 3:5), that is, in the breezing blowing for the cooling of that day (Fuller, likewise Drusius). This is not without mystery, for God reveals Himself by means of His voice, in the midst of the wind, and about the time of the evening, so that He might foreshadow the advent of Christ (who is the Voice of heaven), in the evening of the day, that is, in the last days, whose it is to refresh the conscience. Also about the time of the evening the dove returned to Noah 4 (Fagius). Thus they are panicstruck, so that they, in clear daylight, were afraid on account of the 1

Jonah ibn Genach (c. 990-c. 1050) was a Spanish rabbi. He exerted a heavy influence upon Jewish exegesis of the Scriptures through his works in Hebrew grammar and lexicography. 2 Theocritus was a Greek poet, who labored during the third century BC. 3 Fasti. 4 Genesis 8:11.

195

sound of the wind. What if He had come in darkness and night? They lost faith in God (Munster). Foolishly, they flee Him whom they are not able to escape (Munster, Fagius), rather to whom they ought to flee (Fagius). About evening, the time when men use to walk abroad to recreate themselves, when there was a cool and refreshing wind, whereby also the voice of the Lord was more speedily and effectually conveyed to Adam and his wife. Adam and his wife hid themselves: being sensible of God’s approach, and filled with shame and conscience of their own guilt, and dread of judgment, instead of flying to God for mercy, they foolishly attempted to run away from him, whom it was impossible to avoid. [In the midst of the tree, Ng@Fha C(' K7wOtb;@] Some refer this to the tree in relation to which they had failed, as if they would hide themselves under the same (Fagius). But tree is put for trees through an enallage of number (Menochius, thus Fagius, Vatablus, Drusius). Verse 9: And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? [He cried out 1 ] Not, He said, but, He called. It carries emphasis, according to the Hebrews, to signify that man is separated from God by a great distance, and is to be called with shouts (Fagius). [Where are you?] He asks, not because He is ignorant, but so that He might chide (Lyra), so that He might compel him unto the acknowledgment and confession of his sin (Fagius). There are some who maintain that this is a taunt, so that thereupon he might know from how great a blessedness he had fallen. For thus we are accustomed to cry out to those, who, having rashly undertaken matters which are beyond men, either give up decency, or throw themselves into danger (Fagius). Saint Ambrose’s Concerning Paradise 2 14: Where is (he says) thy confidence that thou hast a thorough knowledge of yourself? This fear is an admission of fault; thine hiding place is an admission of transgression. Where art thou then? Not in what place, I ask, but in what condition; to what place has thy sin led thee, that thou wouldest flee from thy God, whom previously thou soughtest (Menochius)? Where art thou? Is not

the whole world manifest before me, darkness as well as light? And how thinkest thou that thou art able hide from my face? (Targum Jerusalem). The Hebrew is hk@fyE%)a. It appears to be a composite from y)/alas and k/thee; that is, woe unto thee, or, alas, where art thou? The pronoun carries emphasis: Thou, with so many and so great benefits liberally bestowed by me (Picherel). The Lord God called with a loud voice: Thou whom I have so highly 1 2

)rFq;y%IwA, He called. De Paradiso.

196

obliged, whither and wherefore dost thou run away from me, thy Friend and Father, whose presence was lately so sweet and acceptable to thee? In what place, or rather in what condition, art thou? What is the cause of this sudden and wonderful change? This he asks, not that he was ignorant of it, but to make way for the following sentence, and to set a pattern for all judges, that they should examine the offender, and inquire into the offence, before they proceed to punishment. Verse 10: And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself (Gen. 2:25; Ex. 3:6; 1 John 3:20). [I heard] What things are obvious, he admits, but he keeps back the cause, namely, sin, as the Hebrews note (Fagius, Piscator, Ainsworth). He confesseth his nakedness, which was evident, but saith nothing of his sin; which, if possible, he would have hid: see Job 31:33. And he is grieved for the shameful effects of his sin, but not yet sincerely penitent for his sin. [And I hid, )b'xf)'wF] The w/and is posited for therefore (Vatablus). I hid myself, out of reverence to thy glorious majesty. Verse 11: And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? [Naked] With respect to the whole body (more than the genitals alone), which arouses shame in the sight if only of the honorable man (Bonfrerius). [Who told] Namely, that your nudity is shameful (Lyra). He was not ignorant previously that he was naked, but he was not experiencing that which made nudity shameful, namely, the shameful motion of the reproductive members (Estius). That thou wast naked; or, that thy nakedness, which lately was thy glory, was now become matter of shame. [Of which I had commanded] He holds forth the precept, so that he might acknowledge sin. For this use of the precept of God is for the sake of transgressors (Fagius). Whereof I commanded thee; concerning which I gave thee so severe a charge upon pain of death. [That thou shouldest not eat, lkf)j yt@il;bil;] yt@il;bil; has the same signification as )$l@#e$, that not, which the Hebrews observe (Fagius). Before condemnation, He questions them. No one ought to be condemned without an inquisition. He did not question the serpent, because the Devil, who was speaking in the serpent, would have already been damned for sin (Lyra on verse 13).

197

Verse 12: And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me (Gen. 2:18), she gave me of the tree, and I did eat (Job 31:33; Prov. 28:13). [The woman] Upright in the beginning, he is his own accuser: Before us Adam goes to seek excuses for his sins (Menochius out of Lapide). [Whom thou gavest to me as a companion, ydIm@f(i] With me (Septuagint, Chaldean, Munster, Pagnine, Montanus). So that she might be with me (Syriac, Fagius, Oleaster, Ainsworth). It carries emphasis, from dma(f, to stand (namely, in order to minister; in which sense Abraham was standing under the tree in Genesis 18 and before the Lord 1 ); that is to say, so that she might stand at hand, serve, show obedience; waiting upon me (Malvenda). Now, h@m@f(i (not ydIm@f(i) is used of the man; she gave to her husband who was with her (verse 6). For in one way Adam was obliged to attend to his wife, namely, as her head; in another way, she was obliged to attend to her husband, namely, as an attendant and servant. But they both perverted this order (Fagius). The ydIm@f(i denotes: 1. accompaniment and union. It has respect to the communion and bond of marriage; that is to say, whom thou hast joined to me by indissoluble matrimony. 2. Rule over something: as in Psalm 50:11, it is ydIm@f(i/mine, what, just before this, yt@i(;dAyF, I knew, and, in verse 10, yli, is mine; 2 that is to say, All things are mine; I have power over them. Thus it could be translated with me and before me, in my presence, just as one might regard the word wOd@g:nE, suited to him, in Genesis 2:20 (Picherel). He shifts the sin to God, as if He were miserly or insufficiently provident (Fagius). Thou shouldest not have made such an alluring mate: thou wert obliged to foresee (Menochius). Thus sin, by its own weight, always draws unto sin, so that the sinner would rather accuse God than acknowledge his sin (Munster). I have eaten, not by my own choice and inclination, but by the persuasion of this woman, whom thou gavest to be with me, as a meet help, a faithful friend, and constant companion, supposing that it was not good for me to be alone, which the event shows would have been much better for me. Thus Adam excuseth himself, and chargeth God foolishly with his sin. I did eat, out of complacency to her, not from any evil design against thee. Verse 13: And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that 1

Genesis 18:8, 22. Psalm 50:10, 11: “For every beast of the forest is mine (yli), and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know (yt@i(;dAyF) all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine (ydIm@f(i).”

2

198

thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat (Gen. 3:4; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14). [He said] He disregards the excuse of Adam as frivolous and worthy of punishment (Menochius). [Why hast thou done this?] Thus it is rendered by Munster, Pagnine, and Tirinus, as if hmf/what had been put for hm@flf/why (Piscator). What hast thou done? (Arabic). What is this thou hast done? (Montanus, Septuagint, Chaldean, Samaritan Text). What is this that thou hast done? (Junius and Tremellius, Syriac), with the pronoun r#$e)j/that supplied. I do not reject this (Piscator). I translate it, What is it which thou hast done? And why didst thou do it? I add this because the woman responds to the latter question, not to the former, What hast thou done? that is to say, Thou hast admitted such grave calamity! But why thou didst thou admit it? (Picherel). How great a crime thou hast perpetrated! It is to be read with amazement (Vatablus). [This] In as much as you have both transgressed the Law and lured your husband (Fagius). t)oz/this, that is, this thing, stated without further qualification, as in Psalm 27:4, txa)a/one is put for one thing, I have asked. Question: Why does He speak to Eve, since not Eve, but Adam, had received the Law? The Hebrews respond that the Law was also given to Eve, for she was bone of his bones, etc., and because He wished her to acknowledge her sin, not to cast it upon another (Fagius). How heinous a crime hast thou committed! What a world of mischief hast thou by this one act brought upon thyself and all thy posterity? Or, why hast thou done this? What causes or motives couldst thou have for so wicked an action? What need hadst thou of meddling with this forbidden fruit, when I had given thee so large and liberal an allowance? [The serpent] Which thou (also certainly a shift) didst create and permit to live here in our midst (Menochius). [He deceived me, ynI)ay#$%ihi] He urged, persuaded (Fagius, Drusius). He caused me to err (Pagnine, Onkelos, Targum Jerusalem in Fagius). He seduced (Malvenda). He led me astray (Pagnine), namely, from truth and virtue (Malvenda). Others: He encouraged me into vain pride and into an appetite for the knowledge of good and evil. Others: He oppressed, or, he robbed me, from h)f#$f, to smash into ruins. Others: He effected in me, he obtained what he desired. Others: He duped me (Malvenda). [And I ate, lk')owF] This is a present, masculine participle, not without mystery; in as much as it teaches: 1. that the soul of the woman was masculine and proud for the purpose of sinning, 2. and that one and the same sin was to the man and to the woman, which was especially masculine, for, if Eve alone had sinned, it would not have harmed the race (Malvenda).

199

And the woman said, The serpent, a creature which thou hast made, and that assisted by a higher power, by an evil angel, for such I now perceive by sad experience there are, beguiled me, a weak and foolish woman, whose seduction calls for thy pity, not thine anger; and I did eat, being surprised and over-persuaded against my own judgment and resolution. Verse 14: And the LORD God said unto the serpent (Ex. 21:29, 32), Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life (Is. 65:25; Mic. 7:17). [He said unto the serpent] That is, unto Satan. For it is a common synecdoche, inasmuch as we might understand the author under the name of the instrument (Munster). Through metonymy, He addresses the thing containing in the place of the the thing contained; for He addresses the Devil, who was in the serpent; that is to say, Devil, most cursed one, who speaketh words in the cursed serpent. He pronounced the serpent cursed because of the Devil, as that in which he had deceived our first parents. Thus the waters are cursed in Numbers 5:18, 19, with respect to their effect; and earth is cursed because of Adam, Genesis 3:17; 8:21. The Devil is cursed on account of his crime. Thus the signification of the malediction of the serpent differs somewhat from the signification of the malediction of the Devil; both are maledictions, but not the same, nor similar. Similar twists occur elsewhere. Job 1:21: I came from the womb of my mother, that is, my own, particular mother, and I shall return thither, namely, into the womb of my mother, that is, the common mother, that is, the earth. Additionally, I translate rw@r)f ht@f)a, thou cursed one, by means of the vocative case continuously unto the end of the verse (and so I render the whole verse: Because thou hast done this,

thou most cursed of all animals, even of wild beasts, thou who art about to go upon the ground during the entire time of thy life and to eat dust: then follows verse 15, On account of it, enmity, etc.). So it is in Genesis 49:8, hdFw@hy: ht@f)a, thou Judah, they shall praise, etc., which others translate, Judah, they shall praise thee. Thus the su\ ought to be rendered by means of the vocative case in Acts 4:24: De/spota, su\ o9 Qeo_j o9 poi/hsaj, etc., that is, Lord God, thou who didst make; and, in Luke 1:28, when he had saluted her, Xai~re, kexaritwme/nh, Hail, thou highly favored, he doubles his salutation with other words, o9 Ku/rioj meta_ sou, eu0loghme/nh su\ e0n gunaici/n, The Lord be with thee, O thou most blessed among women. Thus Psalm 2:7 can be translated, My Son, whom I have begotten today, demand from me. For

insofar as it is cited differently in Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5, in this they follow the Greeks (Greek interpreters), who add ei0, Thou art (Picherel’s On

200

Creation). These things, in an allegorical sense, but in a sense especially

intended by the Holy Spirit, are suited to the Demon: literally to the serpent, whom He punishes, as a devoted father and judge destroys the dagger, by which the robber murdered his son (Tirinus); as a judge damns the forger with the pen, and the mule with the man, in Leviticus 20:15, and the goring ox with his master, in Exodus 21:28, 29 (Bochart’s A Sacred Catalogue of Animals 1:1:4:30:40). Unto the serpent; or rather, this or that serpent, which, as was said before, Genesis 3:1, was no ordinary serpent, but a serpent acted and assisted by the devil; and therefore this sentence or curse is pronounced against both of them: 1. Against the serpent itself, which though an unreasonable creature, and therefore not subject to a law, and consequently not capable of guilt or sin, Romans 4:15, yet, being the instrument of the devil’s malice, is rightly punished; as other beasts being abused by man’s sin did suffer together with him, Exodus 32:20; Leviticus 20:15, 16, not for their crime, but partly for the punishment, and partly for the benefit of man, who is their lord and owner, Psalm 8:6; for whose sake seeing they were made, it is not strange if they be punished for his use, that in their punishment man might have a demonstration of God’s anger against sin, and a motive to repentance. See on Genesis 6-7. 2. Against the devil, who is here principally intended, though as he lay hid in the body of the serpent which he possessed and used, so his curse is here mentioned under the cover of the serpent’s curse, and under the disguise of such terms as properly and literally agree to the serpent, but are also mystically to be understood concerning the devil; with whom the Lord entertaineth no conference, as he did with Adam and Eve, whose sin was less than his, and whom God meant to bring to repentance; but immediately denounceth the curse against him, as one that sinned against much greater knowledge, and from far worse principles, not from mistake or misinformation, but from choice and rebellion, from hatred of God, and from mere envy and implacable malice against men. [Because thou hast done this] He immediately curses the serpent, for he committed that evil of himself through jealousy and malice, without anyone instigating. From this place, the Hebrews gather that to the tysim', 1 that is, to the one inciting others to idolatry, a place for excuses is not to be given, according to Deuteronomy 13. The Hebrews say, in the age to come, all things will receive healing and restoration, except the serpent and Gibeonites. By the Gibeonites, they understand hypocrites, for by deceit they forced themselves upon the Israelite people. They also say: Three sects do not see the face of God: hypocrites, mockers, and liars or imposters (Fagius). 1

tysim', the one alluring, is derived from tw@s, to incite, allure, instigate.

201

[Cursed] Within this curse the Hebrews gather that it labors for a longer time, and they assert that its womb bears for seven years (Fagius). Rather, within this curse it is, that what was formerly raised up now creeps upon the groud (Fagius, Munster), upon thy breast thou shalt go, with thine agility repressed (Grotius); that what was previously eating herbs and the fruit of trees is eating dust (Fagius). See Isaiah 65:25 (Grotius). Those things were previously natural to the serpent (for He would not destroy the natural characteristics of the serpent, who did not destroy the natural characteristics of sinning men and demons [Tirinus]); but now they are turned into punishment and infamy (Menochius, Tirinus, Bochart’s A Sacred Catalogue of Animals 1:1:4:23). In the same way, the Rainbow was natural, but afterwards a sign of covenant (Menochius). Thus, what things were natural to Adam and Eve become punishments: the wife was placed under her husband, they feed upon herbs, the ground brings forth thorns, etc. (Tirinus). Others maintain that previously the serpent was gifted with feet (Piscator). In Paphos, 1 a biped serpent was sighted: Apollonius 2 out of Aristotle (Menochius). This does not satisfy (Bochart’s A Sacred Catalogue of Animals). It is not sufficiently certain that any snake was a biped. Aristotle, On the Progression of Animals, 3 satisfies many that neither two, nor four feet can suffice for the serpent because of the great length of its body; neither is it able to have many: from which he concludes that it is necessary that, in relation to the serpent, there is th\n a)podi/an, the absence of feet (Bochart’s A Sacred Catalogue of Animals 1:1:4:23:52). The serpent was previously most beautiful and pleasing to man (Munster, Piscator); now hated and detested by man (Fagius, Estius, Menochius, Tirinus). For this cause, Hypereides 4 said that all serpents are worthy of hatred (the Suda, 5 under Parei=ai o1feij, Reddish-brown Snakes), and to hate just as if they were snakes is a proverb in Plautus’ 6 Mercator 4. See Theocritus’ Idyll 15. 7 See also Artemidorus, 8 The Interpretation of Dreams 2. 9 1

Paphos is on the southwestern coast of Cyprus. Apollonius of Dyscolos (second century AD) was a Greek grammarian of considerable ability and of lasting influence. He lived and worked in Alexandria, Egypt. 3 De Incessu Animalium. 4 Hypereides (c. 390-322 BC) was Greek rhetorician, speech-writer. 5 The Suda is an encyclopedia containing more that 30,000 entries concerning the ancient Mediterranean world. It was probably composed in tenth-century Byzantium. 6 Titus Maccius Plautus (254-184 BC) was a Roman playwright. Only 21 of his nearly 130 comedies survive. 7 Theocritus’ Idyll 15: “But from a child I feared horses and slimy snakes.” 8 Artemidorus Daldianus, or Ephesius, was a second century professional diviner, interpreter of dreams, and compiler of divination methods. 9 Oneirocritica, from the second of five volumes: “A snake signifies sickness and an enemy. The way in which the snake treats the dreamer determines the way in which 2

202

See the allegorical sense in Micah 7:17; Psalm 72:9; Isaiah 49:23 (Grotius). Insofar as this aims at Satan, it denotes that he is confounded and cast down (Fagius), and consumes dust only, that is, earthly men (Lyra, Fagius); and considers earthly and lowly things only, not heavenly things, as formerly (Menochius). [Among all living things] Therefore, also all things were cursed, in accordance with Romans 8:22 (Fagius). The punishment to this proud one is great, for inferior and mean things are placed before it (Lyra). [Upon thy breast, K1n:xog:@-l(a] Upon thy belly (Cajetan, Junius and Tremellius, Piscator, Ainsworth, Malvenda, Oleaster, Chalden, Samaritan Text, Syriac), or, breast (Ainsworth, Piscator, Arabic, Oleaster), breast and belly (Septuagint in Ainsworth), that is, with difficulty thou shalt go (Ainsworth). [Earth] Hebrew: dust, inasmuch as he was previously eating herbs (Oleaster). Dust, that is, vile and foul food: it likewise denotes a most mean condition (Ainsworth), and the difficulty of acquiring nourishment (Piscator, Ainsworth), which will be such that it will be compelled to fill its belly with dust. Otherwise it feeds on frogs and fish (Piscator). With food it deceived our first parents, with food it is punished (Malvenda). Not that it would eat dust alone; but that, since it creeps upon the earth, it cannot but bring dust into its mouth simultaneously with its other food (compare with Psalm 102:9, 10); for, lying prone in ashes, he was eating bread, which was thrown down upon the ground. The Chersydrus snake, nevertheless, with water failing, feeds upon dry furrows, as Nicander testifies in Theriaca 372. 1 And a certain serpent of India lives on dust alone, says Philo, On Creation 59. Other animals feed upon this same food: worms (Plautus in Casina 1), beetles (Al-Jahiz 2 ), and scorpions, as testify Bardisanus, 3 in Eusebius’ Preparation for the Gospel 6 (Bochart’s A Sacred Catalogue of Animals 1:1:4:27, and Pliny, in Natural History 10:72, and moles (in Gate of Heaven 4 22), and wolves (Pisida 5 in Hexameron), namely, ravenous wolves (Aristotle in The History of Animals 6 8:5). the sickness or enemy will also treat him.” Nicander was a second century BC Greek poet and physician. Theriaca is a poem on venomous animals. 2 Al-Jahiz (c. 776-868) was an Arab scholar of Basra and Baghdad. He wrote a Book of Animals, which draws heavily upon Aristotle’s Historia Animalium. 3 Bardisanus, or Bar Daisan, or Bardesanes (154-222), was an Assyrian Gnostic interested in science and philosophy. 4 Porta Cœli is an ancient Hebrew work. 5 George of Pisida was a seventh century Byzantine poet. His Hexameron is on the creation of the world. 6 Historia Animalium. 1

203

Because thou hast done this, deceived the woman, and tempted her to this sin, thou art cursed; or, shalt be from henceforth, both really and in the opinion of all mankind: or, be thou. Every beast of the field; as in other respects, so particularly in that which here follows; upon thy belly shalt thou go. If the serpent did so before the fall, what then was natural, is now become painful and shameful to it, as nakedness and some other things were to man. But it seems more probable that this serpent before the fall either had feet, or rather did go with its breast erect, as the basilisk at this day doth; God peradventure so ordering it as a testimony that some other serpents did once go so. And so the sense of the curse being applied to this particular serpent, and to its kind, may be this: Whereas thou hadst a privilege above other kinds of serpents, whereby thou didst go with erected breast, and didst feed upon the fruits of trees and other plants; now thou shalt be brought down to the same mean and vile estate with them, upon thy belly (or rather, breast, as the word also signifies) shalt thou go, etc. as they do; and dust shalt thou eat. Dust is the food, as of earthworms, scorpions, and some other creatures, so also of some serpents, as appears both from Isaiah 65:25; Micah 7:17, and from the testimony of Nicander, Theriaca 372, and Philo, an Arabic writer. 1 Or, the dust is the serpent’s sauce rather than his meat; whilst creeping and grovelling upon the earth, and taking his food from thence, he must necessarily take in dust and filth together with it. These two clauses being applied to the devil, signify his fall from his noble state and place to earth and hell; the baseness of his nature and of his food, his delight being in the vilest of men and things, it being now his meat and drink to dishonour God and destroy mankind, and promote the esteem and love of earthly things. [All the days of thy life] The days of the life of Satan are the season lasting unto the consummation of the age (Fagius). Verse 15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed (Matt. 3:7; 13:38; 23:33; John 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:8) and her seed (Ps. 132:11; Is. 7:14; Mic. 5:3; Matt. 1:23, 25; Luke 1:31, 34, 35; Gal. 4:4); it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel (Rom. 16:20; Col. 2:15; Heb. 2:14; 1 John 5:5; Rev. 12:7, 17). [I will put enmity] Verse 14 speaks of the punishment of the serpent, the instrument; verse 15 speaks of Satan, the author of the sin, and his punishment (Helvicus’ The Paradisiacal Protevangelium 64). The Hebrews crassly understand this of the bare and natural hatred between man and serpent (Fagius, Helvicus’ The Paradisiacal Protevangelium 64). [Against those Helvicus undertakes to prove two things; 1. that the serpent, who is 1

This is likely a reference to the previously mentioned Al-Jahiz.

204

mentioned in this chapter, was not a simple serpent, but that the Devil was operating through the serpent as an instrument.] It is demonstrated: 1.

Because this serpent speaks and reasons exquisitely. Objection: The serpent, in the beginning, was intelligent. This is the position of Ibn Ezra. Response: These are fantasies. For in verses 1 and 14, it is called a beast of the field, and a brute: However, that intellect is proper to man, not common to the brutes, many of the Rabbis acknowledge; Rabbi Saadias Gaon, Rabbi Moses ben Jacob, 1 Rabbi Bechai [whose words see in Helvicus]. 2. If this serpent was conversing from an innate duna&mei/ability, there would have been no symmetry between the sin and the punishment: For above all the soul escaped; the grinding of the head, etc., regards only the body, and it affects very few; moreover, most are not observed by man. Then the man, who, being deceived, sinned, would be punished even more gravely than the serpent, who deceived and sinned out of malice (which is absurd). For eternal death was imposed upon the man: What is even the loss of reason compared to this, if it should be imposed upon the serpent? 3. Many eminent (old, more sincere by far than the rest in the interpretation of the Scriptures [Fagius]) Hebrews acknowledge this, especially the Kabbalists, who assert that this serpent was Satan, even the Angel of death. This is the position of Rabbi Judah, 2 Rabbi Samuel, 3 Rabbi Bechai [whose words see in Helvicus], and Rabbi Moses the Egyptian, 4 who thus writes in his Guide for the Perplexed 2:30: 5 In the Midrash (old commentaries; he understands uncritically Moses Haddarsan 6 ), they record that the serpent in

Genesis 3 would have been ridden, and that it would have been the size of a camel, and that the rider was he who deceived Eve, namely, Samael, 7 that is Satan (Helvicus’ The Paradisiacal Protevangelium 64). 2. [Helvicus undertakes to prove this, that this enmity, etc., is not the natural hatred between men and serpents, but the victory of Messiah Himself over Satan.] He demonstrates: 1. 1

Rabbi Moses ben Jacob Cordovero, also known as Ramak (1522-1570), was one of the great Kabbalistic scholars of his age. He lived and labored in Safed of Galilee, which was a center of Kabbalistic studies. 2 Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel (1525-1609) was a Torah and Talmudic scholar and a leading public figure among the Jews at Prague. He composed works of philosophy and exegesis (in particular, Gur Aryeh, Young Lion, a commentary on Rabbi Salomon’s commentary on the Pentateuch), all touched with mysticism. 3 This is probably a reference to Rabbi Samuel Barzani (died c. 1630). He was responsible for the founding of Jewish schools and seminaries in Kurdistan. His daughter, Asenath, is recognized as the first female rabbi. 4 That is, Maimonides. 5 More Nevochim. 6 Moses Haddarsan (eleventh century) was a French rabbi. He was an expert in rabbinical tradition. His midrashic and haggadic comments on Scripture survive only in the quotations of others (Rabbi Salomon, for example). 7 Samael is common name for the deceiver in the Talmud.

205

Otherwise, Satan, the author of sin, would not have been punished, which is absurd. 2. Christ alone is able to crush the head (that is, the power) of the serpent (that is, Satan). 3. It is evident that these words in verse 15 are set forth for the consolation of Adam and Eve and vengeance upon the serpent. But neither of these would be of surpassing excellence, if in this only the enmity should be placed, that man and snake might injure one another; nor would any solace or remedy have been bequeathed to Adam and Eve (nor to their posterity before Moses) against the wrath of God. 4. God Himself thus explains and teaches in Genesis 22; 26; 28; Psalm 72:17 that Messiah is that blessed seed. 5. The Septuagint translates it au0to_j, He Himself, referring to an individual. Who is this except the Messiah? 6. It is evident that this battle will not be physical: For one who would attack a serpent attacks, not with his feet, but with a spear or club. 7. Concerning the remedy, both Targums agree that it is to be provided by the Messiah. [Helvicus provides these in The Paradisiacal Protevangelium. What he adds only take Calvin and Pareus into

consideration, not the subject matter; therefore, I gladly pass on. Let us finally hear Master Mede setting these things thus in order:] There are four views

(says he) concerning the object of this malediction. 1. Some think that the malediction is brought forward against the serpent alone (for the serpent is comprehended with the other beasts), not against the Devil, for he was cursed previously. 2. Others: against the Devil only, because a brute serpent could not be justly punished. 3. Others apply verse 14 to the serpent and verse 15 to the Devil. But certainly the thou and the thee have the same referent in both verses. 4. Others judge that it is brought forward against both, which view I judge to be most true. For: 1. The Devil, not as a bare spirit, but in the form of a serpent, seduced man; therefore, under the same form, he received punishment, and the composition of the punishment is suited to the condition of a serpent: for God usually brands the punishment with some mark of the sin itself, as in Judges 1:7, so that the sinner might understand both what and why he suffers. 2. Because the Devil bewitched the woman with the form of a most sagacious animal, God was pleased to alter the exemplar, to obliterate that unhappy character, and to cast the serpent down from his position; so that that covering, by which the Devil had hidden his own wickedness, might be made a spectacle in which man might view its malice perpetually. In accordance with both of these causes I understand this malediction, that it applies in a literal sense to the serpent, but thus, that it actually includes the malediction of the Devil also. But here it is to be further inquired: Question 1: How was it just for God to punish the serpent, which was a a)proai/reton/non-purposing instrument, which had neither a knowledge of the matter nor a will to sin; especially if the Devil assumed only the form of a serpent? This argument moves some, so that they think that this is delivered concerning the Devil

206

alone. But this reason does not suffice. For the earth is cursed, verse 17, and the beasts are wiped out because of the sin of man, Genesis 6:5, 7. And certainly that law in Leviticus 20:15 is just, in which the beast was to be destroyed with the man. Therefore, the difficulty is to be resolved in another way. 1. We know that all creatures were made for the use of man. 2. The use of the creatures would have been more excellent and more proper, if man had persisted in innocence; but it was made lower and meaner by our sin. Now, therefore, the creatures are subservient to man, sometimes for punishment (inasmuch as they sometimes attack and kill him), sometimes for the remedy of misery, so that they might be warnings of the anger of God (and indeed stimuli of repentance) and, at the same time, of the condition of the Devil, so that men might abhor him and draw the hope of his conquest. Thus the serpent was both made and punished for the use of man. Question 2: Was this punishment denounced against: 1. the one serpent, or 2. all serpents, or 3. a particular species of serpent? The first cannot be affirmed because mention is made of the seed, and because this memorial was destined to be for all the posterity of Adam. 2. The second is not able to be affirmed because the diversity of snakes is not less than the diversity of quadrupeds. Neither do I doubt but that a great many serpents were going upon the belly before the fall. 3. Therefore, I understand this of one kind of serpent, and that by far the most noble, which surpassed, with respect to beauty and sagacity, not only other serpents, but all the rest of the animals, although it is now made meaner than the rest. Consequently, it could not have been the basilisk (as some maintain), which they say is as a king among serpents: For this one still proceeds, standing erect from its middle, as Pliny, Natural History 8:21, and Solinus, The Wonders of the World 28, testify, since the Scripture expressly asserts the contrary concerning this serpent. But now let us come to the malediction. In relation to its genus, the serpent is cursed, even indeed in comparison with the others, because it was made viler than all with respect to even its inherent perfections, and most destitute of external supports for preserving life. In relation to its kind, however, it is said concerning it, first, thou shalt go -l(a K1n:xog:@, which they translate, upon thy belly. And by this interpretation, this passage is made difficult. For, if the same form was to the serpent which is to it today, then it could not have proceeded in any other way except upon its belly. Hence, some have affirmed that it indeed proceeded in this way previously, but now this is changed into a punishment: which, as most remote from the text, I have never been able to believe. I would prefer to follow Jerome’s, or rather the Vulgate Version, Upon thy breast thou shalt go. The breast is the upper part of the body, from the navel to the head: Therefore, this serpent was previously going in an upright posture. And this perhaps the Septuagint translators were wishing to insinuate, thus rendering the expression, e0pi\ tw|~

207

sth/qei kai\ th|= koili/a| sou, upon thy breast and belly. The word NwOxgF appears to favor this sense, which is from the Chaldean Nxag:, to be curved, which denotes the inclination of the head and chest toward the earth, as in 1 Kings 18:42, where the Targum has Nxg. And in Mark 1:7, in the place of ku/yaj, stooping down, the Syriac Version has Nxg, which is the same. In addition, it is evident that this is not impossible, 1. because serpents often raise themselves, both when they attack man, and when they swim in the water. 2. And the basilisk proceeds in this way at the present day. And perhaps God willed this one to go in this manner, so that there might be a memorial of the truth of this malediction. Just as He willed that there were some giants after the Flood, in testimony of the greater stature of man before the Flood. And this will be more credible, if we affirm with Basil, Ephræm Syrus, 1 Moses Bar Cephas, 2 and others, that the serpent once had feet, which certainly do not at all pertain unto its essence. And he who can accept a miraculous mutation both of man and of the earth after the fall, why would he judge that such a change would be incredible in the serpent, especially when God had decided to leave behind a perpetual memorial in the serpent? Finally, this will be, not only possible, but probable, if we carefully consider, 1. that among the creatures, a thing is more noble, the more it inclines upward and raises itself; a thing is more ignoble, the more it inclines downward. We see this among the elements. For fire ascends, etc. For this cause, He gave to man an elevated face, etc. Also, heroic men proceed more erect than others. Thus, a lion walks with his head and chest erect. In the case of the serpent, therefore, a singular shrewdness raised the body, and it is probable that even the movement of the body was changed by means of the change of nature. Likewise, his own fall debilitated the man to such a degree, that, if education did not hinder, it is believed (and confirmed by experience) that he would walk upon his hands and feet, just like a quadruped. Consequently, I understand this part of the malediction in this way, that the Scripture in this place, as is its habit, insinuates the cause by sensible effect, even the fall of the serpent by the prostration of its body; just as the removal of human perfections is called nakedness. The second part of the malediction is, dust thou shalt eat. This argues both the meanness of the nature which could be sustained by such food, and its continuance in this most vile condition; for food, as it is either better or worse, produces a similar 1

Ephræm Syrus was the most influential Syriac Church Father of the fourth century. From monastic seclusion, he composed commentaries on most of the books of the Old Testament, which commentaries demonstrate a knowledge of both the Syriac Peshitta and the Hebrew original. 2 Moses Bar Cephas (813-903) was a monk and a bishop in Syria. He wrote commentaries on the entire Bible, but only framents of Genesis, the Gospels, and Paul’s Epistles survive.

208

quality of body. The third part follows, I will put enmity. This part, without doubt, more directly regards the Devil: nevertheless, it ought to be explained in respect to the brute serpent also. To which experience also testifies. It is the happiness of the creature to enjoy the favor and goodwill of its lord, that is, of man. But the serpent is most despised by man. Likewise, the serpent dreads to see man, especially naked (as those specializing in the natural sciences affirm): as if a natural instinct should recall to it the time of the malediction, when it and the naked man stood before God to receive the sentence of enmity. The venom of the serpent is poison to man; just as the spittle of man is to the serpent. Add that this enmity is more vehement in the feminine sex. Rupertus affirms that, if the bare foot of a woman should even minimally press the head of a serpent, he will immediately die. Finally, note the uneven outcome: for the serpent does not prevail against man, except by stealth and by surprise, and with respect to the lowest part (see Genesis 49:17); but man crushes its head. And the serpent (when man is about to strike him) immediately coils its body around its head, as if remembering this malediction. But now let us see how these things were fulfilled with respect to the Devil. Upon the breast to go denotes the casting down of the nature of devils. To eat dust denotes this, that, just as that joy, springing from the contemplation of God, is food to the good Angels, by which their spiritual life is preserved (see Luke 15:7, 10), so also joy in those things which are contrary to God and His glory is food to devils: This is his spoil which he persues, 1 Peter 5:8. By the seed of the serpent, I understand, 1. all devils, whom Satan allured into the fellowship of his own wickedness, over whom, therefore, he takes the supremacy; 2. impious men, John 8:44; 1 John 3:10. See John 6:70 and Acts 13:10. To these the woman and her seed are opposed. The woman is named, although the man is not excluded. And the reason of this uncommon form of speech, by which a race is called from the weaker sex, is in the following words concerning the seed, in which is contained the great mystery of the Incarnation. For our head was going to be the seed only of the woman, Isaiah, 7:14. Whence also some understand seed of Christ alone, for Paul thus takes seed in Galatians 3:16. But the reasoning is unequal. For here the seed of the woman is opposite to the seed of the serpent, which is taken collectively. Therefore, the seed of the woman is in like manner Christ mystical, the head with His members. Christ is the seed of the woman kata_ fu/sin, by nature; those, kat 0 e0fa&rmosin, that is, by engrafting in him, and in a spiritual manner. The head of the serpent is the dominion of the Devil, which is called the principate of death, both objectively (for those only are under this who are obnoxious to death, both spiritual and eternal) and effectively. Its scepter is sin. But the seed of the woman destroyed the works of the Devil, 1 John 3:8. And Michael (that is, Christ) cast him out, Revelation 12. But what is to be understood by this, thou

209

shalt bruise his heel? I could say that a slight wound is acknowledged, even that

the Devil would assail the body of Christ through treachery. But this, although true, is not sufficient. It could appear to signify hypocrites among Christians, against whom the Devil prevails. For, if permission might be granted to me, why would not, just as souls in heaven are the upper part of the mystical body of Christ, and saints upon earth the inferior part, the bodies of the saints (which rightly pertain to this body, granted that they are distinguished from souls) be had for a heel? With this admitted, immediately it will appear what this grief of the heel was, after the head of the Devil was crushed (for the text insinuates that the grief of the heel follows the crushing of the head). Read Revelation 13. In that passage, after the victory of Michael, the Devil forms a new instrument of the wounded Roman Empire, with the help of which, under the pretext of honor rendered to the remains of the martyrs, he infused the venom of the worship and invocation of the saints; on account of which wound the Church hitherto limps. [These things are found in Mede’s Diatribe “Discourse” 37, 38, and 39. Which things it seemed more fitting to exhibit with the author’s

method and singular perspective, than to break them up into scraps, and to apply them to individual parts of the text.] [I will put enmity, hbfy)'w:] And enmity. But because I refer this to the preceding words, because thou hast done this, I render the w, therefore, as

in Psalm 116:2, 1 and in Genesis 2:3 2 compared with Exodus 20:11. 3 Unless you prefer to translate it, also, or thus, with the therefore understood. However, it is more satisfying to refer this to those preceding words; for now, for the first time, the punishment appears properly and suitably to be denounced against the Devil. That is, once thou wert on good terms with the woman; but after this, thou shalt not be. Thou stirred up enmity between me and the woman: and, therefore, I will stir up enmity between thee and the woman. For if anyone should prefer that to creep upon the earth and to eat dust should belong to the beginning of the punishments prescribed against the Devil, and also here to translate, and enmity, I will not greatly object. However, God does not address the Devil figuratively in relation to this 1

Psalm 116:2: “Because he hath inclined his ear unto me, therefore will I call upon him as long as I live ()rFq;)e ymayFb;w@, with the w being translated as therefore).” 2 Genesis 2:2, 3: “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. Therefore blessed (K7rEbfy:wA, with the w being translated as therefore) God the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” 3 Exodus 20:11: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: therefore (Nk@'-l(a) the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

210

enmity, but openly. Just as Paul, in Romans 9:33, and Peter, in 1 Peter 2:6, cross suddenly from the stone signifying Christ to the Christ signified; and Daniel, in 4:22, from the tree signifying, to Nebuchadnezzar signified. Such is the crossing in Luke 2:34 and in Luke 9:62 (Picherel). [I will put enmity] Irreconciliable; po/lemon a@spondon, implacable warfare (Helvicus); open and bursting out into the act of injuring (Menochius). Jehovah takes from the Devil the right of dominion and of possession, after which he was striving with respect to man, and which, even now, he celebrated, as if he had obtained his end; and He made the man, in the capacity of a slave, into a deadly enemy (Helvicus’ The Paradisiacal Protevangelium 64, 70). The enmity is a perpetual warfare of flesh and spirit, and also of the wiles of Satan, with which he assails us (Fagius). [Between thee and the woman, h#$f%)ihf] Although she is a weak vessel (Fagius). This is done for the affliction of the Devil (Helvicus). The Hebrews say, td@Ami dgEnEk; hd@Fmi, Measure corresponding to measure: By what things anyone sins, by those things he is also punished: By the woman, as he seduced, so also is he ruined (Fagius out of Munster). The woman is more frightful unto such than the man. See the allegorical sense in Revelation 12 (Grotius). [h#$f%)ihf] The h is demonstrative: This woman herself, whom you abused (Fagius). It can be referred to the Virgin Mary (Lyra, Fagius), of whom He was born, who trampled it under foot (Fagius). Rather, to Eve, yet not with Adam, nor their posterity, excluded (Helvicus). h#$f%)ihf, that woman, differs from that h#$f%)ihf which was previously so called, the wife of Adam herself, as it were. Mary kat 0 e0coxo\n, with respect to preeminence, is called woman in Galatians 4:4. However, the antithesis is agreeable: just as death came forth through the earlier h#$f%)ihf, so also life through the other. Moreover, this hatred against the woman is foretold, not properly because of her, but because of her Son. Thus it is said that Mary is blessed because of her Son, Luke 11:27 (Picherel). Though now ye be sworn friends, leagued together against me, I will put enmity between thee and the woman; and the man too, but the woman alone is mentioned, for the devil’s greater confusion. 1. The woman, whom, as the weaker vessel, thou didst seduce, shall be the great occasion of thy overthrow. 2. Because the Son of God, who conquered this great dragon and old serpent, Revelation 12:9, who came to destroy the works of the devil, 1 John 3:8, was made of a woman, Galatians 4:4, without the help of man, Isaiah 7:14; Luke 1:34, 35. [And between thy seed and her seed 1 ] Here, the w expresses, and her 1

Hebrew: h@(fr:zA Nyb'w@ K1(jr:zA Nyb'w@.

211

seed, in the place of, it is her seed (Vatablus). [Thy seed] That is, the whole race of serpents. Allegorically, it refers

to the impious, Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:8 (Grotius). He understands other evil angels, those similar with respect to nature and malice (Lyra). The progeny of the Devil (Helvicus). Those who obey the Devil, John 8:44 (Fagius). Those are called sons who are devoted and obliged to someone, and who imitate him (Helvicus). Thy seed; literally, this serpent, and, for his sake, the whole seed or race of serpents, which of all creatures are most loathsome and terrible to mankind, and especially to women. Mystically, that evil spirit which seduced her, and with him the whole society of devils, (who are generally hated and dreaded by all men, even by those that serve and obey them, but much more by good men), and all wicked men; who, with regard to this text, are called devils, and the children or seed of the devil, John 6:70; 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:8. [And her seed] This seed is Christ and all believers (Fagius). The seed of the woman, or all men are born of woman except Adam, Job 14:1; 15:14; 25:4; Matthew 11:11; Luke 7:28. Allegorically, the woman is the Church, and her seed are those who pertain to the Church, Galatians 4:26 (Grotius). It is not without emphasis that seed is singular. For these things meet exactly and properly in Christ alone, who was rightly and truly the Son of woman (not of man), the Son of a virgin. On the other hand, the son of the serpent is Antichrist, with all of his members (Fagius). The seed of the woman is here to be taken, not collectively and plhquntikw~j, in the plural, of all men, but e9nikw~j/singly and monadikw~j/individually, of one Christ (Helvicus). For, 1. the following )w@h/he (which we will demonstrate that it is to be taken of Christ alone) is referred back to this h@(fr:zA, her seed. Therefore, the seed is the same in both places (Helvicus’ The Paradisiacal Protevangelium 67). 2. If it is taken collectively, then all men will fight that serpent (for it is said, He will crush thee, not, thy seed), and all men will crush his head; or (if you take it of the Devil) all men will overcome the Devil (Helvicus’ The Paradisiacal Protevangelium 27, 28). 3. Christ alone was able to crush the head of the serpent, and this is ascribed to Him alone, Psalm 2:9; 110:1, 6; 68:18. 4. This very passage is selected and related to the Messiah, 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:14; Revelation 12:9; 20:2, 3; 1 John 3:8; Romans 5:11, 12, 15; Hebrews 2:14, 15 (Helvicus’ The Paradisiacal Protevangelium 27, 28). You will say: Do not all faithful men carry enmity against the seed of Satan? 1. Certainly, but it does not follow that that enmity is expressed by these words to the letter. 2. Therefore, it is not absurd that Adam and their posterity are comprehended in Eve. Therefore, thus the warfare of the former expression is between our first parents, with their posterity, and Satan, with his seed. The

212

warfare of the latter expression is between Christ alone and Satan, with his entire kingdom. Nevertheless, we refuse to condemn the other opinion, which would take the seed of the woman in the prior place collectively, if only it would be taken individually of Messiah in the latter place (Helvicus). [And her seed] That is, her Son, namely, Christ. Seed, in the prior place, signifies the many, or rather their posterity, but it signifies in the latter place one, or rather Messiah. Thus the word sons is attributed to those who are sons by creation, like Adam in Luke 3:38, or by generation, like the rest; indeed it spoken of a son in law in Luke 3:23. It is not new for (rAzE/seed to be taken for one son. It is used in this way in Genesis 4:25 and 21:13. And what in Deuteronomy 25:5 is Nb@', a son, is spe/rma/seed to the Greeks, as in Matthew 22:24, 25 and Mark 12:19, 20, 22. And in Genesis 27:29, thy mother’s sons is spoken of one, even Esau, gathered out of verse 37; and in Hosea 2:1, sisters is used of one sister (Picherel). [She herself will crush, )w@h] The Vulgate has she herself, as if it were spoken of the woman, with a sense not ill (Grotius). It is referred to Eve, or to the Virgin Mary, because both are going to be made that through Christ, who is to be born of them (Estius). It especially designates Mary (Tirinus), who, by giving birth to the Christ, crushed the head (Tirinus, Brugensis’ Notations on the Varying Passages of Sacred Scripture). But this extenuation is unsuitable: For, in this sense, Eve, Sarah, Rebekah all crush the head, etc., although they apply these things to Mary alone, and blasphemously sing antiphonally, This is the woman of virtue, who crushed the head of the serpent, etc.; 1 and from this place they take an argument for the adoration of Mary. But these things are separated by the entire breadth of heaven, that Mary crushed the head of the serpent, and that Mary bore Him who crushed. Add that the h/that in h#$%f)ihf, that woman, points the finger toward Eve, and to her it would more likely refer. [Against that rendering of the Vulgate, they argue in this way:] 1. The most ancient Latin exemplars read he himself; thus two exemplars (Brugensis). Robertus Stephanus 2 testifies to the same. Therefore, in a more recent exemplar, which was produced by the order of Sixtus V and Clement VIII, 3 it was restored to he himself (Helvicus). 2. All of the old interpreters read he himself (Onkelos, Jonathan, Targum Jerusalem). And the rest of the 1

The Magnificat Antiphon was sung at vespers during the Roman Catholic Feast of the Immaculate Conception. 2 Robertus Stephanus, or Robert Estienne (1503-1559), was a printer in Paris, with skill in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. He employed his considerable talents in the production of multiple editions of the Bible in each language. His work on the Greek text of the New Testament was particularly important in the formation of the Textus Receptus, and he did important critical work on the Vulgate. 3 Namely, the Clementine Vulgate.

213

Hebrews [see Helvicus] and the Septuagint translate it, au0to_j/he (although spe/rma/seed precedes, with a joining pro_j to_ shmaino/menon, to the thing signified, with a congruent sense, not a congruent word 1 [Grotius]). So it is in Jerome and Irenæus 2 (Helvicus), and Cyprian 3 (Grotius). Thus Malvenda: I prefer (says he) the masculine or neuter over the feminine reading, so that the glory of redemption, in keeping with the figure, might be kept to Christ (Malvenda). Thus Pope Leo, 4 in Concerning the Nativity of the Lord, 5 says, He was announcing to the serpent the future seed of the woman, who would crush the lifting up of his noxious head by His own strength. However, the slip from he himself to she herself was easy, especially since upon first sight it was not evident to what the masculine he was referring, since the feminine woman had preceded. But there is agreement in this place, as in the writings of the Greeks, with the thing, not with the word; as in Terence, 6 Where is that wickedness, who destroyed me?, 7 and in Matthew 28:19, maqhteu/sate pa&nta ta_ e1qnh, bapti/zontej au0touj, teach all nations, baptizing them. 8 In Hebrew, there is no difficulty. For both (rAzE/seed and )w@h/he are masculine. Nevertheless, ou[toj, he himself, is able to be referred to seed, if only you understand spo/roj/seed in the place of the spe/rma/seed. 9 Just as in Luke 8:5, on the other hand, A sower went out to sow to\n spo/ron au0tou~, his seed; next he adds o# me\n, as if he had previously used to_ spe/rma; 10 and finally in verse 11 he returns to his own masculine, o( spo/roj. Thus, in Proverbs 4:13, hfrEc;@nI, keep her is in the place of wOrc;nI, 1

au0to\j/he and spe/rma/seed agree in sense, having but one referent, but they agree not in gender. 2 Irenæus was a second century Church Father, born near Smyrna, but serving as Bishop in Lyon. He was a disciple of Polycarp, who was in turn a disciple of the Apostle John. 3 Cyprian (d. 258) served as Bishop of Carthage. He is noted for his refusal to readmit into the Church those who had “lapsed” under persecution. 4 Leo the Great (400-461) is esteemed by some as the first Pope. Leo is noted for increasing the power of the Roman see, singlehandedly turning back the invasion of Attila, and, through his famous Tome, providing a resolution to the problem, being adjudicated by the Council of Chalcedon, of the relationship between the two natures of Christ. 5 Nativitate Domini. 6 Andria 608. 7 Although scelus/wickedness is neuter and qui/who is masculine, it is clear that they have the same referent. 8 Although e1qnh/nations is neuter and au0touj/them is masculine, it is clear that they have the same referent. 9 spo/roj can stand as a masculine substitute for the neuter spe/rma. 10 Luke 8:5a: “A sower went out to sow his seed (to_n spo/ron, masculine): and as he sowed, some (o3, neuter) fell by the way side . . .”

214

keep him: for rsfw@m/instruction is in the masculine gender. 1 These things are found in Picherel [and he himself is papist]. Others translate it as it (Pagnine,

Vatablus, Tigurinus, Syriac, Oleaster, Malvenda, Samaritan Text, Junius and Tremellius, Munster, Ainsworth), whom many papists, even Andradius, 2 Cano, 3 Cajetan, etc., follow (Helvicus), bringing it into conformity with the seed of the woman (Oleaster). 3. All things are masculine; K1p;w@#$y:, He will crush thee, not K1p;w@#$t@;, she will crush thee, and the suffix is masculine, w@n@pew@#$t;@, thou shalt bruise Him. These things are a)nanti/r0r(hta/undeniable. 4. The Massoretes 4 have noted no diversity of readings in this place (Helvicus). Evasion 1: Bellarmine 5 finds )yhi/she in one codex. Response: This is contrary to the credit and consensus of all exemplars which have appeared. He himself or another forger has, without doubt, thus corrupted it (Helvicus). Evasion 2: This enallage, the masculine in the place of the feminine, is common (Bellarmine). Response: What is the reason that I should change )w%h/he into )yhi/she; then K1p;w@#$y:, He will crush thee, into K1p;w@#$t@;, she will crush thee; then w@n@pew@#$t;@, thou shalt bruise Him, into hn@Fpew@#$t;@, thou shalt bruise her. If Bellarmine were playing with dice, perhaps deceits of this sort could be endured, but not in Theology, etc. (Helvicus). And her seed, her offspring; first and principally, the Lord Christ, who with respect to this text and promise is called, by way of eminency, the seed, Galatians 3:16, 19; whose alone work it is to break the serpent’s head, i.e. to destroy the devil, Hebrews 2:14. Compare John 12:31; Romans 16:20. Secondly, and by way of participation, all the members of Christ, all believers and holy men, who are called the children of Christ, Hebrews 2:13, and of the heavenly Jerusalem, Galatians 4:26. All the members whereof are the seed of this woman; and all these are the implacable enemies of the devil, whom also by Christ’s merit and strength they do overcome. [He shall crush (Samaritan Text, Montanus, Munster, Pagnine, 1

Proverbs 4:13: “Take fast hold of instruction (rsfw@m@ba@, masculine); let her not go: keep her (hfrEc@;nI); for she is thy life.” 2 Jacobus Andradius (1528-1575) was a Portuguese theologian. He was appointed to the Council of Trent, and he ably defended its doctrine in his Defensio Tridentinæ Fidei. 3 Melchior Cano (1525-1560) was a Spanish Dominican theologian. He held the theological chair at the Salamanca, and his abilities are amply demonstrated in his De Locis Theologicis. 4 The Massoretes were mediæval Jewish scribes, responsible for the preservation and propagation of the traditional text of the Hebrew Scriptures. 5 Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) entered the Order of the Jesuits in his late teens. Bellarmine became one of the great theologians of his era, a Cardinal, and, after his death, a Doctor of the Church.

215

Oleaster, Ainsworth), K1p;w@#$y:] He shall crush thee (Fagius, Vatablus, Helvicus); thrh/sei, He shall watch against (Septuagint), or perhaps it is to be translated, He shall observe. But in the Complutensian edition of the Septuagint, 1 it reads teirh/sei, He shall crush (Nobilius 2 ). He himself shall graze thee, the head (Malvenda); He shall trample (Syriac, Tirinus); He shall pound, beat, shatter (Fagius). [Thy head, #$)$r] Or it is an ellipsis of the b/in, in the place of #$)$rb;@, in the head (Piscator, Helvicus, Fagius, Vatablus, Ibn Ezra and Kimchi in Helvicus); just as in 2 Chronicles 34:30 tyb'@/house is in the place of tyb'b;@, into the house. 3 Not incorrectly. Such is also Habakkuk 3:15 4 (Helvicus). Other examples show the suffix in this place to be managed by a word in the accusative case; as ynIp'w@#$y: in Job 9:17 5 and Psalm 139:11 6 (Piscator). Or, He shall crush thee, the head, that is, in a manner consistent with the head, kata_ kefalh/n. This is familiar to the Greeks. Thus it is in Habakkuk 3:9, 7 Thou didst cleave the earth, the rivers, that is, in a manner consistent with rivers (Helvicus). Now, the head is the power, excellence, and authority (Helvicus, Fagius); the power of the Devil, which consists of sin and death (Helvicus). To trample the head is a note of contempt, Ezekiel 34:18. Thus to trample the asp, Psalm 91:13; Luke 10:19. The greatest power for evil is in the head of a serpent (Grotius). With an uninjured head, a serpent rarely succumbs; wherefore in a fight almost the whole matter rests in this, that he remove his head from danger: Tzetzes’ 8 Book of Histories 9:263, Epiphanius, etc. 1

The Complutensian Polyglot (taking its name from the university in Alcalá [Complutum, in Latin]; 1514) contained the first printed edition of the Septuagint, Jerome’s Vulgate, the Hebrew Text, Targum Onkelos with a Latin translation, and the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament. The labor of the scholars was superintended by Cardinal Francisco Ximénez de Cisneros. 2 Flaminius Nobilius (d. 1590) was a Roman Catholic text critic, who labored in the reconstruction of the Itala, the Old Latin version. 3 2 Chronicles 34:30a: “And the king went up the house (tyb'@, with b/into clearly needing to be supplied) of the Lord.” 4 Habakkuk 3:15: “Thou didst walk in the sea (MyF%ba, with the preposition) with thine horses, the heap of great waters (Mybi@rA MyIma rmexo, the preposition in to be supplied from the previous clause).” 5 Job 9:17a: “For he breaketh me (ynIpew%#$y:, the first person suffix is rendered in the accusative case) with a tempest.” 6 Psalm 139:11: “If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me (ynIpew%#$y:, the first person suffix is rendered in the accusative case); even the night shall be light about me.” 7 Habakkuk 3:9c: CrE)f-(q@Abat@; twOrhfn;. Woodenly: Rivers thou didst cleave the earth. 8 John Tzetzes was a twelve century poet and grammarian, living in Constantinople.

216

(Bochart’s A Sacred Catalogue of Animals 1:1:4:24). Onkelos explains it in a completely different way, He himself shall beware with regard to thee (or, he will be mindful with regard to thee) of that which thou didst to him in the beginning, in antiquity: Time will not cause to be forgotten this evil. In like manner, he explains what follows, and thou shalt beware with regard to him until (or, unto) the end. The sense can be twofold: either thus, without intermission, all the way unto the end of the age, thy hatred towards Christ and His members will endure; or that it might be referred to the end of days when Christ came, 1 Corinthians 11. For at that time he drove Christ unto the cross (Fagius). Thus both Targum Jonathan and Targum Jerusalem. To them (that is, the sons of the woman) there will be a remedy (not to thee), and they will

withdraw the bite in the heel, in the end of days; namely, in the days of Messiah

(Fagius, Helvicus). The days of Messiah are everywhere called the last, Hebrews 1:2; 1 John 2:18 (Helvicus). [Thou shalt lie in wait for his heel, bq'(f w@n@pew@#$t@;] Thou shalt crush (Pagnine, Septuagint in Lapide, Ainsworth, Piscator, Oleaster); thou shalt bruise (Rabbi Salomon in Lapide); thou shalt strike (Syriac, Rabbi Abraham 1 in Lapide, Oleaster); thou shalt oppress (Tigurinus) with regard to him the heel (Pagnine, Tigurinus). Thou shalt graze, or blow upon, him with respect to the heel, understanding b/on before bq'(f, on the heel (Vatablus). The serpent, about to strike, blows, that is, hisses (Malvenda out of Vatablus). They say that Pw@#$nF, from the cognate words P#$anF, to blow, and hpf#$f, to sweep bare, is quickly to overwhelm with breathing, or, with panting. Some maintain that by this word God alludes to the name NwOpypi#$;, horned snake, 2 which is the most poisonous kind of snake, for it would overwhelm with its breath, like the basilisk; and, consequently, it is supposed that this is the kind which seduced Eve. That is to say, Thou art NwOpypi#$;, overwhelming with thy breath: but the seed of the woman shall overwhelm with his breath with regard to thee the head; and thou shalt overwhelm with thy breath the heel (Malvenda). It is aptly said, his heel; for the serpent, trampled by the foot, has nothing nearer to hand than, if he is able, to strike the heel, and send forth the venom, which he has in his teeth, into that part by which he is injured (Bonfrerius). It signifies that the wound is not lethal to Christ and to the elect, and that the affliction is not going to continue forever (Piscator). The head of Christ is His divinity, the heel His humanity, which, inasmuch as the Demon struck and killed it, was killed (Lapide). By the bruised heel or foot he understands the ways of Christ, which Satan tries to check through afflictions, and the death of Christ for our sins, foretold here, as it is clear from the regard which other passages of Scripture 1 2

This is likely Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra. Genesis 49:17a: “Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder (Npoypi#$;) in the path.”

217

have unto this prophecy, Psalm 56:6; 89:51; 49:5; 22:16; 2 Corinthians 13:4; 1 Peter 3:18 (Ainsworth). Pw@#$, which is put here in both places (It shall crush the head, and thou shalt bruise the heel), is not taken in the same way. In the first, it signifies to crush or to trample, and that by means of the feet, from Romans 16:20 and Luke 10:19. But it cannot mean this in the second place, for the heel would not be trampled by, nor be placed under, feet. It rather signifies here, to bruise, or to beat, and to grind, to pierce, to wound, to bite; inasmuch as grief, grinding, piercing might be to the heel by the bites or hisses of the venomous snake. These things are found in Picherel. [He in the end produces similar passages in which the same words are taken in diverse ways.] In this way, Mylik@'ha, the equipment, is doubled in 1 Samuel 17:22: 1 in the prior place it signifies David’s pack, which he was carrying with his arms; in the other, the heavy baggage of war. Thus nekroi\, the dead, in Matthew 8:22, and o( qerismo\j, the harvest, in John 4:35. Indeed a single word not repeated, ai1rein, to take, is taken in various ways in John 11:48. They will take away both our place and nation; that is, they will destroy, they will empty, the place, and they will deport the nation. Thus the Hebrew xtapf% and the Greek a)noi/gesqai, Luke 1:64, signify both to open and to loosen. Whence to one both deaf and mute Jesus said, e1ffaqa (htp) in Chaldean), that is, dianoi/xqhti, that is, be opened, Mark 7:35. Now, with these words God reverts to an allegory; that is, That seed shall do to thee, Devil, what is usually done to a serpent, that it might be destroyed, namely, that its head is crushed or lopped off: however, conversely, thou shalt do to the seed what a serpent does, which attacks from an ambushment the heel of the incautious; thou shalt strike, etc., but the wound will not be lethal (Picherel’s On Creation). Targum Jerusalem, and indeed that of Jonathan, has these things: When the

sons of the woman shall give attention to the Law, and will have performed the precepts, then they will strive with regard to thee to crush the head, and they will kill thee: and when they desert the words of the Law, thou shalt give attention so that thou mightest bite (or pierce) them in their heels (Fagius, Helvicus). Some shall cause to others grief in the heel in the end of days (thus

Fagius out of Targum Jerusalem). The head is the principal instrument both of the serpent’s fury and mischief, and of his defence, and the principal seat of the serpent’s life, which therefore men chiefly strike at; and which being upon the ground, a man may conveniently tread upon, and crush it to pieces. In the devil this notes his power and authority over men; the strength whereof consists in death, which Christ, the blessed Seed of the woman, overthroweth by taking away the sting 1

1 Samuel 17:22: “And David left his carriage (Mylik@'ha) in the hand of the keeper of the carriage (Mylik@'ha), and ran into the army, and came and saluted his brethren.”

218

of death, which is sin, 1 Corinthians 15:55, 56; and destroying him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, Hebrews 2:14. The heel is the part which is

most within the serpent’s reach, and wherewith it was bruised, and thereby provoked to fix his venomous teeth there; but a part remote from the head and heart, and therefore its wounds, though painful, are not deadly, nor dangerous, if they be observed in time. If it be applied to the Seed of the woman, Christ, his heel may note either his humanity, whereby he trod upon the earth, which indeed the devil, by God’s permission, and the hands of wicked men, did bruise and kill; or his saints and members upon the earth, whom the devil doth in diverse manners bruise, and vex, and afflict, while he cannot reach their Head, Christ, in heaven, nor those of his members who are or shall be advanced thither. Verse 16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children (Ps. 48:6; Is. 13:8; 21:3; John 16:21; 1 Tim. 2:15); and thy desire shall be to thy husband (or, subject to thy husband), and he shall rule over thee (1 Cor. 11:3; 14:34; Eph. 5:22-24; 1 Tim. 2:11, 12; Tit. 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1, 5, 6). [hb@er:)a hb@fr:ha] hb@fr:ha is written irregularly in the place of 1 hb'r:ha, as Buxtorf testifies, I will multiply, etc. Multiplying I will multiply (Pagnine, Vatablus). Exceedingly, or greatly, I will multiply (Junius and Tremellius, Piscator). The repetition denotes certitude and frequency. Thus the infinitive is used to strengthen the action, as the Hebrews say (Fagius). With many retributions I will afflict thee with pain, namely, as often as thou wilt give birth (Vatablus). I might prefer to translate it, Increasing I will increase; for, hb'r:ha signifies this, and it holds the notion of magnitude more than of multitude (Gataker’s Cinnus 207). I will greatly multiply, or certainly, as the repetition of the same word implies. [Thy labors and thy conceptions, K7n"roh'w: K7n"wObc@;(i] Thy pain and thy conception (Pagnine). Thy pain, even of thy conception (Junius and Tremellius). Two substantives conjoined, the second of which in Latin would be in the genitive case without the copula; likewise the singular is in the place of the plural, pains of conceptions (Vatablus). It is, therefore, e3n dia_ duoi~n, an hendiadys (Fagius, Vatablus, Piscator, Grotius, Lapide, Picherel). Thus Matthew 4:16, in the region and shadow of death, from Job 10:21, that is, in the region of the shadow of death. Thus what in Genesis 2:7 is pnoh_ zwh~j, the breath of life, is read, zwh\ kai\ pnoh/, life and breath, in Acts 17:25. Thus what is often judgment and justice is in Deuteronomy 16:18 the judgment of 1

The latter is the normal pointing for the infinitive absolute.

219

justice, that is, just judgment. 1 Thus in Virgil, unto the shallows and the sandbanks, the boulder and the mountains, etc., 2 Servius interprets, unto the shallows of the sandbanks, the boulder of the mountains (Picherel). He bites the gold and the bridle, that is, the golden bridle (Lapide). See what things we

have noted in John 3:5 (Grotius). Moreover, that nearly all translate the NwOrh' as conception, I do not approve. And indeed who ever heard of the pains of conception? In conception, pleasure is wont to be greater; in gestation and delivery, anxiety. I do not understand by the name of conception synechdochically the whole time of bearing in the womb, as if it is the former limit of this period of time; for, not from conception, but after the tenth day, as Pliny testifies in Natural History 7:6, do women enter into the inconvenience of pregnancy. But neither do I understand by the name of conception the offspring or thing conceived, although NwOyrFh' is thus used in Ruth 4:13, 3 and the word conception is thus used in Latin, whence comes the expression dead conception in Pliny’s Natural History 20:22. For these pains are not for the offspring conceived, but for the one bearing and bringing forth. Accordingly, Oleaster, not at all absurdly, renders it, heaviness with child: I might prefer, pregnancy. hrFhf properly is to be pregnant, Genesis 16:4, 4 11; 5 Judges 13:3. 6 Which hrFhf, in Isaiah 7:14, 7 is e0n gastri\ e3cei, shall hold in the womb, in Matthew 1:23. Hence, I understand these of pregnancy or childbearing pains, which are longer-lasting, but more leisurely; to which parturitive pains, shorter, and sharper, succeed (Gataker’s Cinnus 2:3). To the Hebrews, NwOrh' does not so much signify conception, as it does bearing in the womb, that is, that distress which a woman experiences from conception up until birth (Fagius out of Kimchi, Vatablus). He immediately makes Himself clear, when He says, in pain thou shalt bring forth children. It includes whatever of worry women sustain on account of which they begin to be 1

Deuteronomy 16:18b: “And they shall judge the people with just judgment (qdEce-+p%a#$;mi, judgment of justice).” 2 Æneid 1. 3 Ruth 4:13b: “And when he went in unto her, the Lord gave her conception (NwOyrFh'), and she bare a son.” 4 Genesis 16:4: “And he went in unto Hagar, and she became pregnant (rhata@wA): and when she saw that she had become pregnant (htfrFhf), her mistress was despised in her eyes.” 5 Genesis 16:11a: “And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art pregnant (hrFhf), and shalt bear a son.” 6 Judges 13:3b: “But thou shalt become pregnant (tyrIhfw:), and bear a son.” 7 Isaiah 7:14b: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive (hrFhf), and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

220

weighed down, namely, the loathing of food, whims, exhaustion, etc., up until birth (Vatablus, likewise Munster, Fagius). It is evident that there are many evils in pregnancy (Grotius). Observe that NwObc;(i, toil, is a genus, of which conception and birth are species. However, nurture and education the Hebrews also refer to parturition. 1 Furthermore, the termination NwO [in NwObc;(i], although it constitutes the diminutive form, yet sometimes it confers an augmentation (Fagius). The Hebrews note that these punishments answer to the pleasure in eating of the tree (Fagius). Oleaster translates, I will multiply straits, or compressions. This is bc(. Among all living things, the woman is the most vexed in childbirth, as Aristotle testifies in The History of Animals 7:9 (Grotius). And thy conception, in diverse pains and infirmities peculiar to thy sex; i.e. Thou shalt have many, and those ofttimes, false and fruitless conceptions, and abortive births; and whereas thou mightest commonly have had many children at one conception, as some few women yet have, now thou shalt ordinarily undergo all the troubles and pains of conception, breeding, and birth, for every child which thou hast. Or, thy sorrows and thy conception, by a figure called hendiaduo, are put for thy sorrows in conception, or rather in childbearing, which the Hebrew word here used signifies, Genesis 16:4; Judges 13:3. Aristotle, in his History of Animals 7:9, observes, that women bring forth young with more pain than any other creatures. Bring forth children, or bear, for the word notes all the pains and troubles which women have, both in the time of childbearing, and in the act of bringing forth. Sons, and daughters too, both being comprehended in the Hebrew word Sons, as Exodus 22:24; 2 Psalm 128:6. 3 [Thou shalt be under the power of thy husband] Hebrew: To thy husband. 4 [hqfw@#$t@;] Desire (Chaldean, Munster, Pagnine, Montanus, Oleaster Ainsworth, Junius and Tremellius, Drusius, Grotius, Kimchi in Fuller, Hebrews in Drusius). Thy hastening toward, hastening forth (Malvenda). Thy turning (Septuagint, Samaritan Text, Syriac). Thine impetus (Jerome in Nobilius). Some understand this of the appetite for union unto procreation; thou shalt desire union with him, although it is a cause of pain to thee. Hence, 1

There appears to be a shift at this point from the primary definition of bca(f, to hurt, to the secondary definition, to fashion or shape. 2 Exodus 22:24b: “And your wives shall be widows, and your children (Mkeyn"b;w@, your sons) fatherless.” 3 Psalm 128:6: “Yea, thou shalt see thy children’s children (K1ynEbfl; MynIbf, sons to thy sons), and peace upon Israel.” 4 Hebrew: K7#$'y)i-l)e.

221

the love of women exceeds other loves, 2 Samuel 1:26. To love him, who does evil to thee, is contrary to nature (Fagius). This does not satisfy Vatablus or Fuller. Since this appetite is common to both, it does not at all affect the masculine preeminence or feminine submission (Fuller’s Sacred Miscellany

3:15). Others understand it of obedience (Fagius out of Ibn Ezra, Vatablus, Grotius). There is nothing to be desired for thee except what thy husband will desire: thou shalt hang upon his nod, thou shalt not be thine own master (Grotius, likewise Oleaster, Piscator, Ainsworth), similar to Genesis 4:7, to that one thy desire, supply shall be subordinate (Oleaster). They will often command what things displease you; nevertheless, it is to be obeyed (Grotius). Thou shalt cleave to thy husband impatiently; unwillingly thou shalt suffer his rule. It shall be to thy husband. What is under the power of the other, unto that very thing she will always aim; she will always earnestly desire that (Fagius). Some render it in this way: The appetite of the woman shall be in the power of her husband, and subject to him. This is (if I am not mistaken) an absurd opinion. Others understand it of the appetite by which the married woman aspires to dominion. And yet she would not strive after this yoke. And if this expression reveals an appetite for dominion, Christ would have been receiving to Himself the Church as domina, a female-head. For thus the Church speaks of Christ in Song of Songs 7:10, wOtqfw@#$t;@ yla(fw:, and towards me is his desire; in which place no more than the marital enthusiasm and eagerness is indicated. Therefore, the Septuagint Version has always satisfied me, to thy husband will be a)postrofh/, thy returning, that is, retreat or refuge, especially in dangers; thou shalt take shelter in his protection, and shalt seek his assurance, counsel, help. Protection is a manly duty, as the lawyers say. To this what follows beautifully squares, He shall rule over thee. For surely this power or authority is due to the man, on account of this protection. Verbs, geminate and middle weak, usually are of the same significance. Therefore, as qqa#$f signifies continual walking about or rushing about, so also does qw%#$. Hence, hqfw@#$t@; sometimes signifies care (when it is extended from the more powerful to the weaker), sometimes obligation (when it is of the weaker to the more powerful), as it is in this place (Fuller’s Sacred Miscellany 3:15). Others: To thy husband shall be thy rushing (Oleaster), or, thy running (Malvenda). Thou shalt refer all bustling activities, affairs, and proposals to thine own husband; thou shalt do nothing without him (Malvenda). Others explain it in this way: Thou shalt depend upon thy husband and his help in all things (Fagius). Thy will shall depend upon thy husband; Hebrew: And unto thy husband, supply shall be: without him thou shalt do nothing (Picherel). Thy desire shall be to thy husband; thy desires shall be referred or submitted to thy husband’s will and pleasure to grant or deny them, as he sees fit. Which sense is confirmed from Genesis 4:7, where the same phrase is used

222

in the same sense. And this punishment was both very proper for her that committed so great an error, as the eating of the forbidden fruit was, in compliance with her own desire, without asking her husband’s advice or consent, as in all reason she should have done in so weighty and doubtful a matter; and very grievous to her, because women’s affections use to be vehement, and it is irksome to them to have them restrained or denied. Seeing, for want of thy husband’s rule and conduct, thou wast seduced by the serpent, and didst abuse that power I gave thee together with thy husband to draw him to sin, thou shalt now be brought down to a lower degree, for he shall rule thee; not with that sweet and gentle hand which he formerly used, as a guide and counsellor only, but by a higher and harder hand, as a lord and governor, to whom I have now given a greater power and authority over thee than he had before, (which through thy pride and corruption will be far more uneasy unto thee than his former empire was), and who will usurp a further power than I have given him, and will, by my permission, for thy punishment, rule thee many times with rigour, tyranny, and cruelty, which thou wilt groan under, but shalt not be able to deliver thyself from it. See 1 Corinthians 14:34; 1 Timothy 2:11, 12; 1 Peter 3:6. Verse 17: And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree (Gen. 3:6), of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it (Gen. 2:17): cursed is the ground for thy sake (Eccles. 1:2, 3; Is. 24:5, 6; Rom. 8:20); in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life (1 Sam. 15:23; Job 5:7; Eccles. 2:23). [Because thou hast heard the voice, etc., lwOql;] It is one thing to hear a voice, another thing to hearken unto a voice. This is, by a Hebraism, to comply, to obey (Fagius). Hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, i.e. obeyed the word and counsel, contrary to my express command. [Cursed is the ground in relation to thine employment, K1rEw@b(jba@] Because of thee (Chaldean, Aquila), that is, because of thy sin (Lyra, Fagius, Piscator, Menochius); or, as far as thou art concerned (Piscator, Grotius): it will be troublesome to thee. The Greeks translate it, e0n toi=j e1rgoij sou, in thy labors. They were misled by the similarity of the letters, and they understood it as K1d:wOb(jba 1 (Fagius’s Comparison of the Principal Translations). But this Buxtorf completely denies, and he renders the Greek in this way, in relation to thy works, that is, sins, says Jerome, in On Genesis; 2 in 1

rw@b(f is a preposition, meaning for the sake of; hdFbo(j is a noun, meaning labor. It is easy to see how the r might have been mistaken for a d. 2 Liber Quæstionum Hebraicarum in Genesin.

223

relation to thy transgression (Theodotion). They were reading it with a r, not with a d. hrFybi(j is sin, from rba(f, to pass over. Thus, K1rEw@b(jba@ is able to signify either, because of thy transgressing, or, because of thee (Buxtorf’s Vindication of the Integrity of the Hebrew 2:2). There is a proverb of the Jews: If a man should prove most villainous, they (men) curse the breasts which gave him suck. Therefore, rightly did God curse the earth (by the

breasts of which man is fed) for the sake of the great wickedness of man (de Dieu out of Rabbi Salomon). The entire earth was created only for the sake of man; therefore, it was cursed for the sake of man (Hebrews in Fagius). [Thou shalt eat of it, hn@Flek;)$t@] Thou shalt eat it, that is, the fruit of it: metonymy 1 (Piscator, Bonfrerius). It is a pithy mode of expression of the Hebrew language, just as in 1 Kings 2:7, eating of thy table, that is, thy food (Fagius). Cursed is the ground, which shall now yield both fewer and worse fruits, and those too with more trouble of men’s minds, and labour of their bodies; for thy sake, i.e. because of thy sin; or, to thy use; or, as far as concerns thee. In sorrow; or, with toil, or, grief. Verse 18: Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth (Heb. cause to bud) to thee (Job 31:40); and thou shalt eat the herb of the field (Ps. 104:14). [Thorns, CwOqw:] CwOq is a larger thorn; rdAr:dA is a smaller thorn (as Ibn Ezra testifies), so called from rw@d/inhabiting, because it springs up here and there in the midst of good herbs (Fagius). [Thorns and thistles] Not as before, few and in few places, but copiously and everywhere (Menochius). The Hiphil form 2 denotes great abundance (Malvenda). The thorn and the thistle (de Dieu). And the earth would have brought forth none except these, if God had not blessed it anew, says Rabbi Eliezer (Fagius). [And thou shalt eat the herb of the field] Expressly stated; with beasts of burden and wild beasts, the nature of which he had approached, he has herbs in common (Fagius, Lapide); herbs of less quality than the fruits of Paradise (Menochius, Fagius, Grotius, Piscator, Oleaster, Ainsworth). Here b#oe('/herb is bread which is prepared from grain (Ibn Ezra in Fagius). b#oe(' comprehends the grain within it. From this place it appears that it could be evinced that man made use, not of butter, sheep, and meat, etc., but of vegetables (Munster). Thorns also and thistles, and other unuseful and hurtful plants, 1

Metonymy is the exchange of one word for another closely associated with it. Genesis 3:18a: “Thorns also (CwOqw:) and thistles (rd@Fr:dFw:) shall it bring forth (xaymic;ta@, in the Hiphil form) to thee.”

2

224

synecdochically contained under these, shall it bring forth to thee, of its own accord, not to thy benefit, but to thy grief and punishment; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field, instead of those generous and delicious fruits of Paradise, which because thou didst despise, thou shalt no more taste of. See Genesis 1:29. Verse 19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread (Eccle. 1:13; 2 Thess. 3:10), till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art (Gen. 2:7), and unto dust shalt thou return (Job 21:26; 34:15; Ps. 104:29; Eccles. 3:20; 12:7; Rom. 5:12; Heb. 9:27). [In the sweat of the face] There sweat comes forth more plentifully (Menochius). Hebrew: In the sweat of the nose, etc. 1 He calls the greatest exertion, the sweat of the nose, on account of which exertion sweat, produced on the forehead, runs down along the nose drop by drop. See Psalm 128:2 (Picherel). [t(az'b;@] They think that it is from (zAyF, to sweat, Ezekiel 44:18. Others translated it, in great agitation of the face and spirit, from (Aw@z, to agitate (Oleaster). [Thou shalt eat bread] Bread signifies any food (Fagius, Ainsworth, Menochius). The precept is general, from which no one who fears God ought to exempt himself. Woe, therefore, to idle and lazy bellies (Fagius). However, this is a judgment, not an injunction. Necessary labor or assiduity is not being enjoined here, which was obtaining even before the fall; to necessary labor a familiar, future companion is now to be adjoined, toil, exhaustion, weariness. Wherefore, those who hurl this summary at lazy men, spread a weak foundation for a most just censure (Gataker’s Cinnus 2:3). In general, a punishment will answer to the sin. In relation to food, as man sinned, so also he is punished (Grotius). In the sweat of thy face, i.e. of thy body: he mentions the face, because there the sweat appears first and most. Or, with labour of body or brain, Ecclesiastes 1:13, and vexation of mind, shalt thou get thy food and livelihood: bread being put for all nourishment, as Genesis 18:5; 28:20. [Till thou return] That is, all the way up to death (Fagius). [Dust thou art (thus Kimchi in Fagius)] Although he might have in himself the four elements, nevertheless earth is the principal part of him (Fagius). Dust thou art, namely, to the extent that thou art body, Genesis 2:7, not spirit, Ecclesiastes 12:7 (Piscator). Behold, the punishment of sin is death, Wisdom of Solomon 2:23 2 (Menochius). Targum Jerusalem has these words: 1 2

Hebrew: K1yp%e)a t(az'b@;. Wisdom of Solomon 2:23, 24: “For God created man to be immortal, and made him

225

Because dust thou art, and in the dust thou are to be awakened, so that thou mightest give the judgment and reason of all things which thou hast done, in the day of the Great Judgment. [Dust thou art] Genesis 18:27; Psalm 103:14; Ecclesiastes 12:7. [And unto dust shalt thou return] Psalm 104:29; 146:4; 22:15. Thus Euripides, in The Suppliants: pneu=ma me\n pro_j ai0qe/ra, to_ sw~ma d 0 ei0j gh~n (the spirit unto heaven, the body unto the earth): Nearly the same words

used in Ecclesiastes 12:7 (Grotius). Dust thou art, as to the constitution and original of thy body. See Genesis 18:27; Job 1:21; Psalm 103:14. Though upon thy obedience I would have preserved thy body no less than thy soul from all mortality; yet now, having sinned, thou shalt return unto dust in thy body, whilst the immortal spirit shall return unto God who gave it, Ecclesiastes 12:7. Thus thy end shall be as base as thy beginning.

Verse 20: And Adam called his wife’s name Eve (Heb. Chavah; that is, living); because she was the mother of all living. [He called] Insofar as Adam imposes a name on her, it teaches that

more power was given to him (Fagius). [Eve, hw@Fxa] The Greek translators render it zwh//Zoe/Life. Rightly, for this is a woman’s name among the Greeks (Grotius). Others maintain that she is thus named from hwFxf, which in the Chaldean is to announce, for with the serpent she spoke unprofitable words, and thereupon they call her tynrbd, that is, Talkative. But certainly the Scripture relates that she was named after life, because, she was the mother of all living, that is, of men (for it is a synecdochical expression [Fagius]). Adam comforts himself and his wife, both condemned by God to death, for he would bring forth through Eve living descendants, in whom they themselves, the parents in the children, so to speak, were going to live perpetually (Menochius). It is not doubtful that he regarded the promised seed, and therefore calls her hw@Fxa, that is to say, giver of life (Fagius, Piscator), for the race of dead men was to be made alive through her childbearing (Fagius). [She would be, htfy:hf] That is, she was going to be. The past is put for the future tense (Vatablus). The word signifies either living, or, the giver or preserver of life. Though for her sin justly sentenced to a present death, yet by God’s infinite mercy, and by virtue of the promised Seed, she was both continued in life herself, and was made the mother of all living men and women that should be to be an image of his own eternity. Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it.”

226

after her upon the earth; who though in and with their mother they were condemned to speedy death, yet shall be brought forth into the state and land of the living, and into the hopes of a blessed and eternal life by the Redeemer, whose mother or progenitor she was. Verse 21: Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. [The Lord also made] He created either by the ministry of Angels or out of nothing, or Adam took them from living beings (Menochius). God Himself made, namely, by His own command, these garments (Piscator). [Skin-garments, rwO( twOnt;k@f] Garments of skin; garments clinging to the skin (Onkelos), upon the skin of their flesh. Others: garments taken from skin, that is, woolen, or made from skins (Piscator, Oleaster, Ainsworth, Fagius); namely, of beasts slaughtered at the command of God for sacrifices. See Genesis 4:3, 4; 8:20. Of the skins of beasts. Thus He pronounces them more similar and closer to brute animals, with whose hides they were being clothed, than to the divine majesty, whose image already they had cast off (Gataker’s Cinnus 202). Of the skins of dead animals, for a sign of their own mortality, and against the intemperance of the air (Lyra). Others translate, skins of dignity (thus the Chaldean), namely, whereby they cover their nudity, which had now been made shameful (Fagius). [And He clothed them] Let us consider two things in this place. 1. That man was clothed with the hides of cattle to signify how great a happiness he had been deprive of, and how he approached the innate character and nature of the brutes. 2. The immeasurable goodness of God, which provides for sinful man, not only food, but also clothing. Thus divine providence bestows in season necessary things upon us, even upon the thoughtless (Fagius). The Lord God, either by his own word, or by the ministry of angels, made coats of skins, of beasts slain either for sacrifice to God, or for the use of man, their lord and owner; and clothed them, partly to defend them from excessive heats and colds, or other injuries of the air, to which they were now exposed; partly to mind them of their sin, which made their nakedness, which before was innocent and honourable, now to be an occasion of sin and shame, and therefore to need covering; and partly to show his care even of fallen man, and to encourage his hopes of God’s mercy through the blessed Seed, and thereby to invite him to repentance. Verse 22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil (Gen. 3:5; like Is. 19:12; 47:12, 13; Jer. 22:23): and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life (Gen. 2:9), and eat, and live for ever . . .

227

[He said] To the Angels (Grotius). Others: to the other persons of the Godhead (Lapide, Bonfrerius out of Augustine, Piscator, Ainsworth). [Behold, Adam, etc.] Man, male and female. He rebukes their arrogant expectation, to serve as a medicine for their disease and a caution for the future (Menochius). [Behold, the man, MdF)fhf] It is appellative, because of the article h, which, both here and in verse 24, 1 signifies man of common stock, Adam and Eve: that is to say, Behold, men. For also, in Genesis 5:2, both are called Adam; and the serpent foretells this of both in Genesis 3:5 2 (Picherel). [Become as one of us, etc.] This is irony, by which God moves the man to consider his loss (Fagius). That is to say, the reality is otherwise (Vatablus). See how the serpent promised true things, how thou hast become equal with God (Fagius). Others read it interrogatively, with this sense: How is his condition changed from that in which We created him? (Malvenda). This does not satisfy, because of the adverb Nh'/behold, which is affirming (Piscator). [One of us, w@n@me@mi] It can be translated either, of him (so that it is third person, singular), or, of us (so that it is first person, plural) (Fagius). All our interpreters read, of us; that is to say, like God, knowing good and evil (Fagius’ Comparison of the Principal Translations). To know many things is godlike and angelic (Grotius). Onkelos reads, from him, or, of himself, as the Complutensian Polyglot has it: The sense of which version is can be twofold. The first is this: Behold, Adam alone in the world is made after Him (that is, God), so that he might know good and evil. Rabbi Salomon: Just as I alone in

the heavens know good and evil, so also man alone in the earth is gifted with a similar knowledge. The other sense is such: Of himself, or, of him, that is, of

Adam, or of man, this is, that he might know good and evil. Hence the Hebrews gather and establish the free will (which also is a principal doctrine to them). For if He had approved of this sin, there would have been collusion on the part of that good One (Fagius’ Comparison of the Principal Translations). The Lord God said, either within himself, or to the other persons of the Godhead, Adam and Eve both are become such according to the devil’s promise, and their own expectation. This is a holy irony, or sarcasm, like those, 1 Kings 18:27; Ecclesiastes 11:9: q.d. Behold! O all ye angels, and all the future generations of men, how the first man hath overreached and conquered us, and got the Divinity which he affected; and how happy he hath made himself by his rebellion! But this bitter scorn God uttereth not to insult over man’s misery, but to convince him of his sin, folly, danger, and calamity, 1 2

Genesis 3:24a: “So he drove out the man (MdF)fhf, with the article).” In Genesis 3:5, note the second person plural pronouns.

228

and to oblige him both to a diligent seeking after, and a greedy embracing the remedy of the promised Seed which God offered him, and to a greater watchfulness over himself, and respect to all God’s commands for the time to come. As one of us, i.e. as one of the Divine persons, of infinite wisdom and capacity. Here is an evident proof of a plurality of persons in the Godhead; compare Genesis 1:26, and 11:7. If it be said, God speaks this of himself and the angels; besides that as yet not one word hath been spoken concerning the angels, it is an absurd and unreasonable conceit that the great God should level himself with the angels, and give them a kind of equality with himself, as this expression intimates. To know all things, both good and evil. [Now, therefore, ht@f(aw:] This word is never put down, except where repentance is set forth, say the Hebrews. They prove this out of Deuteronomy 10:12, ht@f(aw: (Fagius). [Lest perhaps] Certain Hebrews think that this speech is cropped, thus to be completed: And now it is suitable that he be driven out, lest perhaps, etc. (Fagius). It is left unsaid, just as in Matthew 25:9, mh/pote ou0k a)rke/sh|, lest there be not enough, 1 and Romans 11:21, mh/pwj ou0de/ sou fei/shtai, lest He also not spare thee 2 (Castalio). This is an aposiopesis 3 of haste (Grotius, Picherel). Understand either, This is to be guarded against by us (Vatablus, Piscator, Grotius); thus Genesis 22:12 and Exodus 4:4 (Piscator), either, Be on your guard, O ye Angels, lest he put forth his hand, etc. (Vatablus), or, He is to be expelled from Paradise (Lapide); or, It is to be considered (Junius and Tremellius), or, It is a danger (Tirinus, Castalio), or, And it is only right that he should go forth from the garden, etc. (Arabic). It is an ellipsis, such as in Genesis 11:4, let us consider lest we be scattered, Genesis 42:4; Matthew 25:9; Acts 5:39 (Piscator, Ainsworth). [Lest he put forth his hand, and eat, and live] This is in the place of, so that he might eat and live. And is often put for so that, and it denotes the purpose of the action. Thus 2 Samuel 21:3; 4 2 Kings 3:11; 5 Lamentations 1:19 6 (Ainsworth). It is likely that Adam (and also the Devil) did not know 1

Matthew 25:9: “But the wise answered, saying, Lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.” 2 Romans 11:21: “For if God spared not the natural branches, lest he also spare not thee.” 3 An aposiopesis is a sudden breaking off of dialogue. 4 2 Samuel 21:3b: “What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless (w@kr:bfw@, and ye bless) the inheritance of the Lord?” 5 2 Kings 3:11a: “But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord, that we may enquire (h#$fr:d:niw:, and we enquire) of the Lord by him?” 6 Lamentations 1:19b: “My priests and mine elders gave up the ghost in the city,

229

where the tree of life was situated; by which ignorance God mercifully looked after him, lest he who was about to be miserable should be made miserable forever (Menochius). It is to be noted that this is the word of God to the Angels (Lyra). [And live forever, MlfwO(l; (thus the Septuagint, Chaldean, Samaritan Text, Syriac, Ainsworth)] Unto the ages (Arabic, Munster, Pagnine, Oleaster, Junius and Tremellius), that is, for a great period of time. Thus the Hebrews and the Latins. For, if he had not sinned, by eating of the tree of life he would have continued living unto a great many years, until he had gradually been transformed unto immortality. But after the fall, it was good for man soon to die. Thus was the mercy of God, that He banished man from Paradise. For this (as the Hebrews say) made known to him the paths of repentance. Thus He took from the man the occasion of sinning, and admonished him concerning sin and practicing repentance (Fagius). Live forever. Which power the fruits of the tree were able to grant to him (Menochius). He proceeds to speak ironically; that is, Lest it should seem to him, according to his own foolish conviction, that he is going to live forever by eating of this tree (Lyra, Piscator). When He condemned him to death, He removed the symbol of the promise of life and immortality, which was able to be to him a source of confident hope; lest he should delight in a vain expectation (Vatablus). Lest he put forth his hand: the speech is defective, and to be supplied thus, or some such way. But now care must be taken, or man must be banished hence, lest he take also of the tree of life, as he did take of the tree of knowledge, and thereby profane that sacrament of eternal life, and fondly persuade himself that he shall live for ever. This is another scoff or irony, whereby God upbraideth man’s presumption, and those vain hopes wherewith he did still feed himself. Verse 23: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground (Gen. 4:2; 9:20) from whence he was taken. [And He sent forth, w@hx'l;@#$ay:wA] He expelled ignominiously (thus xla#$f, to send forth, with a following m/from signifies, 1 as Ibn Ezra testifies) and violently (Fagius, Menochius); as in Jeremiah 15:1. 2 It signifies to send forth in such a way, that thou mightest never return. For the Law of divorce

while they sought their meat to relieve (w@by#$iyFw:, and they relieve) their souls.” Genesis 3:23a: “Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden (Ng@Ami) of Eden . . .” 2 Jeremiah 15:1b: “Cast them out of my sight (ynApf%-l(am' xl@a#$a), and let them go forth.” 1

230

uses this word 1 (Fagius). It is probable that this was done on the same day on which he sinned. How long a time he was in Paradise, it is not agreed. It appears that the space of a few days was needed, so that he might experience in some measure that blessed state (Menochius). I cannot acquiesce to the common opinion, in accordance with which it is asserted that man, on the same day in which he was created by God, fell and was ejected from the garden. I pass over asking whether other living things were created on that day. I limit myself to man, concerning whom Moses relates that these things were accomplished before the ejection: On the sixth day, he is created outside of the garden and led into the garden; the tree of life and the tree of knowledge are pointed out to him; the Law is given; the animals are caused to stand before him so that he might consider each one separately and give a name in accordance with the nature of each species; the man falls asleep, and a rib is removed from the sleeping man; the woman is made, is brought to her husband, and is claimed by him. These all occur on the sixth day. After these, as if a new beginning had been taken up, those things, which pertain to the fall of man, etc., are narrated. Satan assails the woman, and various discussions are held between the woman and Satan, and indeed between the woman and the man. The things that followed are added to these: the girdles made, the hiding place selected, the majestic summons, the inquiry and judicial censure, garments newly devised and presented to them both, and finally the expulsion of them both. These things so constrain me that I cannot not postpone the defection of man until a time more distantly separated from their first beginning, and to insert a pause in the primæval state, a pause at least more lasting than one little day (Gataker’s Cinnus 192). For prevention thereof, the Lord God sent him forth, or expelled him with shame and violence, and so as never to restore him thither; for it is the same word which is used concerning divorced wives. [So that he might work the earth] So that, by means of perpetual misery, he might be reminded of sin and the loss incurred. [From whence he was taken] Therefore, he was created outside of Paradise, because he was sent unto the earth outside of it. To till, to wit, with toil and sweat, as was threatened, Genesis 3:17, the ground without Paradise; for he was made without Paradise, and then put into it, as was noted before. Verse 24: So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden (Gen. 2:8) Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way (Ps. 104:4; Heb. 1:7), to keep the way of the tree of life. 1

Deuteromomy 24:1b: “. . . then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house (wOtyb@'mi h@xfl@;#$iw:).”

231

[He drove out, #$r"gFy:wA] Properly this means to repudiate, just as a husband rejects his wife. 1 For God had associated Himself with man as with a spouse. Thus God changes eternal into temporal death, and promises a deliverer: and the Hebrews speak correctly that always greater and more ample is MymixjrAhf td@Ami, the measure of grace, than Nyd@Iha td@Ami, the measure of judgment (Fagius). Memory of this fact was preserved among the Gentiles: For this was among the oracles of the Chaldeans, Seek Paradise, the glorious fatherland of the soul (Ainsworth). [And He placed before Paradise, NgAl; MdEqe@mi] Onkelos translates in this way, before the garden of Eden was. Angels were created on the second day, Paradise on the third (Hebrews in Fagius). But the simplest version is, to the east of the garden (Fagius, Rabbi Salomon and Ibn Ezra in Fagius, Montanus, Tigurinus, Syriac, Arabic); from the anterior part of the garden of Eden (Targum Jerusalem). The east of the garden, where the entrance into it was, the other sides of it being enclosed or secured by God to preserve it from the entrance and annoyance of wild beasts. Or, before the garden, i.e. near to the garden; before any man could come at the garden any way. [Cherubims, Mybiw@rk;@ha] I translate, select Cherubims, because of the article h (Picherel). Ibn Ezra says that Cherubims is a generic term for every figure, but that here those noted Angels are signified (Fagius). Others of the Arabs derive it from k, just as, and )ybr/boy, for they have the form of boys (Kimchi in Fagius). But this conjecture is foolish, not squaring with philological analogy (de Dieu). Rabbi Salomon explains Cherubim as destroying angels (Fagius). No one doubts that Angels are understood, says Loius de Dieu. [But Grotius appears to doubt it, as we shall see.] All the Hebrews attribute to the Cherubim in Moses the form of boys: which is received among the learned. Whence they are called is not proven. To us bw@rk@; is the same as bw@kr:, a chariot carriage. I approve this, 1. because bw@rk@; is put for clouds, insofar as God uses them as a chariot; as in Psalm 18:10, He was carried upon bw@rk@;, a cherub; which is said in Psalm 104:3, who maketh the clouds wObw@kr:, His chariot. 2. Angels are here and there called the carriage of God, as in Psalm 68:17 and Ezekiel 10:1, 5, 17; and therefore, they are described with wheels, for they are the chariot of God. See also Zechariah 6:1. 3. Because bw@rk@; is to the Arabs a transport ship, on account of carrying. 4. Therefore, in Ezekiel 10:14, that living being which had the face of an ox is said to have the face of a 1

For example, Leviticus 21:7b: “Neither shall they take a woman put away (h#$fw@rg:@) from her husband.”

232

Cherub: because among those four living beings the ox alone could have the function of a vehicle (de Dieu). They compare bw@rk@; with bkerE/chariot, so that they are, as it were, swift, winged, carrying a rider, conveying (Malvenda). [Cherubim] Angels, so called on account of their excellent knowledge.

He mades these as defenders of the omniscience of God, which Adam and Eve had sought to obtain (Tirinus). By Cherubim, the ministry of the Word is signified (as it is gathered out of Ezekiel 3), by which it would be exhibited to man that the approach to the tree of life was closed, neither is there a return to it, except through Christ (Fagius). Cherubims, i.e. angels, so called from their exquisite knowledge, and therefore fitly here used for the punishment of man, who sinned by affecting Divine knowledge. [And a sword, etc.] Elsewhere such swords are likewise attributed to Angles, Numbers 22:23; 1 Chronicles 21:16, 27 (Menochius). [And a flaming, etc., brExeha +hala t)'w:] Flame (blade [Syriac], point [Montanus, Pagnine], flash [Arabic]) of a sword (Malvenda, Ainsworth, Junius and Tremellius, thus many others), that is, a sword of flame, that is, setting on fire. Thus e0n flogi\ puro_j, in a flame of fire, in Acts 7:30, and flaming fire, in 2 Thessalonians 1:8, signify. However, I take the singular for the plural, for there were several Cherubs (Picherel). Some translated, flaming sword (Vulgate, Septuagint, Fagius, Grotius, Menochius, Tirinus). Others: blade of a sword (Munster, Fagius), that is, a polished sword which appears to cast forth flame, for +hala is both flame and blade (Fagius, Munster). That flaming sword, either, 1. is to be taken properly for a physical sword of iron, or air, etc. (Bonfrerius, Menochius). Thus swords are called flaming by the Poets (Bonfrerius). Thus Virgil in the Æneid 8: helmets, terrible with plumes, casting flames; and in Book 4, and from the sheath he draws the sword of lightning (Malvenda). Or, 2. metaphorically, namely, for the angelic power and might (Tirinus). Or, 3. for a flame molded into the form of a sword (Menochius, Malvenda). [Flaming] Glittering and sharp to such a degree, that having been brandished it appears to spew forth flames and lightening (Menochius). [Cherubim and a flaming sword] It is e4n dia_ duoi=n, an hendiadys, for a Cherub, that is, a flaming sword (Grotius); or, for a Cherub with the flame of a sword (Piscator). (It is the custom of the Hebrews to call all the extraordinary works of God Angels, such as winds and fire, Psalm 104:4.) The Hebrew is flame of a sword, that is, of division; for the sword in Matthew 10:34 is translated division in Luke 12:51. The sense is that Paradise was encircled by an impenetrable fire. There is in Babylon a region of naphtha (which has a great affinity to fire) or full of pitch (concerning which Pliny, in Natural History 2:109, says, The plain in Babylon is burning by day, etc.;

233

Plutarch, in The Life of Alexander; Strabo, in Geography 15; and Curtius, in History of Alexander the Great). Therefore, among these sites was Paradise. And the pitch there is not less than that near Sodom, the remnants of a fire divinely sent (Grotius). This sword, flaming and sharp, bears a twofold type of the Word of God; fire, Luke 12:49, and sword, Hebrew 4:12. According to the Rabbis, it adumbrates the eternal punishments of the wicked (Fagius). Some think that the singular is put for the plural, and that there were a multiplicity of Angels, who appeared in human form, and were brandishing and waving a multiplicity of drawn swords, standing guard after the custom of the military (Vatablus, likewise Piscator, Malvenda, Picherel). For since there were a multiplicity of Cherubim, it is likely that each held a sword (Piscator). The Hebrews relate that the high priest under the Law, if he did not conduct himself rightly, was consumed by a flaming sword proceeding from the midst of the Cherubim, and thus he died. It is well known from the writings of the Hebrews that a number of high priests (especially those of the Sadducees) perished in the sanctuary (Fagius). [Revolving (Cajetan, Vatablus, Samaritan Text, Oleaster, Septuagint), tkep%ehat;mi@ha] Turning itself (Chaldean), which would have been spinning most rapidly and nimbly (which the Hithpael form denotes), which would have been whirled around by the Cherubim (Malvenda). Others: two-edged; and they understand it to be sharp in both directions (Fagius out of Ibn Ezra, Munster, Bonfrerius). Others conjoin both, that is, suited to be turned in every direction, because two-edged (Melvenda, Tirinus). tkep%ehat;mi@ha 1 is not rightly connected with +hala/flame, which is masculine, but with brExe/sword, which is feminine. Translate, a flame of a revolving sword, not, as others less aptly, revolving edge of a sword (as Pagnine), or, turned, or, turning itself (Malvenda). Of a sword brandishing itself (Junius and Tremellius), turning, or turning itself (Ainsworth, Malvenda, Junius and Tremellius). Which sword was turning itself, that is, it was revolving itself around. It is attributed to the instrument, what belongs to the one making use of the instrument (Picherel). [To guard] To keep men and demons away; lest the latter, having entered, should pluck and give to man; and, with such an amulet, and with the hope of immortal life, they should seduce senseless men unto their own subservience and idolatry (Bonfrerius, Menochius, Tirinus). Through Christ, the faithful are given the ability to eat of the tree of life, Revelation 2:7; 22:14 (Picherel). And a flaming sword in the cherubims’ hands, as it was upon other occasions, Numbers 22:23; Joshua 5:13; 1 Chronicles 21:16, 27. And this was either a material sword, bright, and being brandished, shining and glittering 1

tkep%ehat;m@iha is a feminine participle.

234

like a flame of fire; or flaming fire, in the shape of a sword. Or, flaming swords, because there were divers cherubims, and each of them had a sword; the singular number for the plural. Or, a two-edged sword, which turned every way, was brandished and nimbly whirled about by the cherubims; which posture was fittest for the present service, to keep the way that leads to Paradise, and so to the tree of life, that man might be deterred and kept from coming thither.