p. 156 | THE FALL OF MAN by Editor

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 2, 1860

THE FALL OF MAN.

By Editor

OBJECTIONS TO A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF GEN. III.

Bro. SMITH: I have just been perusing a newspaper handed me by one of my neighbors, entitled the New Church Herald, published in Cincinnati, Ohio, in which I find a sermon by the Rev. Dr. Bagley on the fall of man, in which he labors to show great absurdities in understanding the account given by Moses, in a literal sense, and as Peter said concerning Paul's testimony, there are some things hard to be understood, so it may be with those of Moses; and as I do not wish to wrest them to my own destruction, neither am I willing to abide by the Dr.'s interpretation, I refer them to some one that is better acquainted with the rules of interpretation than myself. As his interpretation is quite lengthy, I shall only give a few of his objections brought to bear against our view.

Objection First. If the seducer was a literal serpent, a beast of the field, which the Lord God had made, as recorded in Gen. iii, 1, and the Devil a fallen angel, how is it that the Devil, the real delinquent, escapes without a word, while the serpent, his innocent tool, is punished.

Objection Second. If the serpent's punishment is to be understood literally, why does he refuse to eat dust any more than other carnivorous animals?

Objection Third. If the serpent was a literal one, are we not to understand it to be the one spoken of in verse 15, of whom it is said, The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head, and he shall bruise his heel. Then did the serpent live four thousand years, until the coming of the Messiah?

Objection Fourth. If the eating of a literal apple was the transgression of Eve, how can that be harmonized with the words of our Saviour, where he says, It is not that which goeth into the mouth that defileth a man, but that which cometh from the heart.

Objection Fifth. If a literal death was all the penalty inflicted upon Adam and his posterity, for violating his law, and Christ died to redeem us from under that curse, why is it that death has pervaded the human family from that time to this?

I send these objections to get a satisfactory explanation, hoping that our opponents may be benefited also. Yours seeking after truth. J. F. Ballenger.

REPLY.—The doctrine of the fall of man and the curses pronounced upon the guilty parties at the time of the transgression, look to us harmonious and consistent, and the more so, the more thought we bestow upon the subject, and the more minutely we examine the record. We can state in few words why we think the questions proposed by Dr. Bagley constitute no real objection to our view.

In regard to the first objection, why the curse was pronounced upon the serpent to the disregard of the real offender, the Devil, we answer: The Devil had previously been concerned in a greater transgression than the deception of man; and his sentence had already been pronounced upon him. It would be absurd to follow up the Devil, and pronounce sentence upon every individual act of malignity which he might commit, when his doom had already been fixed since his first rebellion in heaven. He, with his angels, is reserved under darkness to the judgment of the great day, destined to that fire which is prepared for him and them. Jude 6; Matt. xxv, 41. In this connection it would only be proper to pronounce sentence upon him as far as his connection with the world is concerned, and that was done, as we shall presently see.

But why pronounce sentence upon the serpent, his "innocent tool?" Answer: The law of expediency sometimes requires judgments to be executed upon certain animals. Why under the laws regulating the Jewish polity was the ox that gored a person, put to death? Ex. xxi, 28. It was because the animal was unruly and dangerous, and it was not expedient that it should live. So with some animals at the present day. Safety demands that they be deprived of their powers of doing mischief; and no one questions the justness or propriety of such a course.

So with the serpent in the beginning: He occupied a position in advance of the rest of the animal creation; and his superior powers were employed in accomplishing the greatest and most fatal deception that ever took place; and it was not expedient that he should be permitted to retain those powers longer. So far as the literal serpent is concerned, we believe that the sentence only contemplated the depriving him of his elevated position, and was fulfilled in that act. But why does he refuse to eat dust any more than other carnivorous animals? We reply that it is not necessary to the literal character of the narrative as a whole, to understand this expression in its most literal sense. Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat, denote doubtless the humiliating position to which he has been reduced. Just as a writer would describe the success of a warrior, by saying that he made his enemies "lick the dust," or "bite the sod," not denoting that he literally made them do these acts, but overcame or humbled them; and no one would think of questioning the literality of the narrative on account of these expressions.

Did that serpent then live till Christ? Ans. We understand that the curse of verse 15 refers directly to the Devil, as he is connected with this world. A glance is made from the literal to the figurative, and a curse pronounced through the serpent directly upon the Devil. Such use of language is not uncommon. Similar instances are frequently to be met with in the Scriptures. See, for example, the prediction against Babylon, in Isa. xiii. This was addressed to the literal city on the banks of the Euphrates; much of it has its application there; yet the prophetic eye strikes forward to the more comprehensive and stupendous judgments of mystical Babylon, which tower up in the back ground, and of which the literal city and its punishment, was a fitting and instructive figure. Compare Isa. xiii, with Rev. xviii. So the sentence pronounced upon the serpent, glances from him to that greater being whose instrument he was, and whose fitting representative he therefore became.

In regard to the fourth objection, we can only ask in astonishment, if indeed the Dr. wrote that! It is enough to put folly to the blush, to see men whose names are top-heavy with the titles of Reverend Doctor, descend to such puerilities. It was transgressing God's command that brought guilt upon our first parents; and any other act besides eating of the forbidden tree, would have brought them into equal condemnation, if God had forbidden it, and they had transgressed his command.

The fifth objection inquires why death has pervaded the human family till the present time, if literal death was the penalty of Adam's sin, and Christ died to redeem us from under that curse. The reason is simply this: Christ did not die to annul the sentence pronounced upon Adam, but to redeem us from its effect; and this he will do in bringing the whole race back to life from the death which we now die through the sin of our first parents.