CHAP. XI. The immediate consequences of our first Parents' eating of the forbidden tree: and the sentence which God passed upon the Serpent, on account of their transgression. a NO sooner had our first parents eaten of the tree forbidden them, but we are told their eyes were opened, and they knew they were naked. We must here ask, what sentiments could our first parents receive from what they had done, to affect them in this manner? And it is amazing how many writers have most absurdly trifled upon this topic:b If we would know truly what Moses here intended, we must carefully attend to what he himself has expressed. And here let us observe, that Moses does not say, that what the serpent had promised our first parents was fulfilled to them; they understood the serpent as telling them that some great advantage of sight would be given them; but the event certainly did not answer their expectations. The serpent had said unto them, your eyes a Gen. iii. 7. b Videtur ingenerâsse, nescio quo succo, vel quâ aliâ virtute, novos sensus pudoris et modestiæ, vel nuditatis ut dicitur; quasi nullum pudorem habuissent in rebus venereis ante lapsum, hodie tamen in rebus istiusmodi innocuos maximè comitatur pudor. Burnet. Archæol. p. 292. • Vide quæ sup. shall be opened: Moses observes, that their eyes were opened; so indeed they were, according to a true meaning of Moses' expression, though not at all according to what they hoped for. A fact, related by a heathen historian, may shew us the manner of speaking here made use of by Moses, in the case of our first parents. When the Lacedæmonians consulted the oracle at Delphos, whether they should make war upon the Arcadians; Herodotus tells us, that the oracle answered them, Δώσω του Τεγέην ποσσικρότον ὀρχησασθαι, That he would give them to march over the country of the Tegeans, and to measure its fair plains with a line. The Lacedæmonians expected that they should over-run and absolutely conquer Tegea, and divide and set out their lots in that country as they pleased. But the event was, that the Lacedæmonians were beaten and taken prisoners by the Tegeans; and were employed by them as their slaves, to measure their lands, and to labour in them; and, says the historian, measured with a line the Tegean plains; a remark severe, but true in fact, though not in the manner it had been expected, And this was Moses' observation upon our first parents; their eyes were indeed opened, in a true sense of Moses' expression; but in a manner very differ Herodot, lib. i. c. 66. ent from what they had conceived would have befallen them. f e What Moses here intended to say was the real event which happened to our first parents, must be gathered from the use he makes elsewhere of the expression, eyes being opened. We find it remarkably used in the case of Hagar, in the wilderness of Beersheba ; who had wandered there with her son Ishmael. The water she had brought with her in a bottle was all spent, and both she and her child, with her, were in danger of perishing for want of a supply. But Moses tells us, the Lord opened her eyes, and she saw a well. We are not to suppose a miracle here done; the well is not said to have been created at this time; for, undoubtedly, it was in the same place before she saw it, as it was afterwards; and her eyes might be, in reality, as open, before she saw the well, as when she espied it. But she now turned her eyes to the place where the well was, and saw what before she had not observed; and this, in Moses' expression, was having her eyes opened. In this sense, likewise, Moses writes it of our first parents; after eating of the tree, their eyes were opened; they saw a circumstance of their condition, which, before, they had not remarked, and which led them to a thought, as new to them, they knew that they were naked.1 The question now is, in what sense did they know themselves to be naked? And here, both later commentators, and many ancient and grave writers, have, as I e Gen. xxi. Ver. 19.. f Ver. 14. above hinted, immodestly trifled. It is generally thought, that nakedness now first became a shame; but Moses in no wise gives any such intimation: he tells us of a very different passion here raised by it; it gave them fear. Adam was not ashamed, but afraid, because he was naked, and therefore hid himself; and it is obvious to see the just reason he had for this sense of his condition. The word, which we render naked, has, indeed, in general, this, its most obvious signification; but it is used in other senses, by a sort of metaphor, in many places of scripture; and, in the place before us particularly, we ought to take it, as it is used in the Book of Job. Hell, says that writer, is (aarom) naked before him, and destruction has no covering * i. e. hell and destruction lie open, not concealed from the eye, nor in any way covered from the vengeance of God. This sense of the place is just and elegant, free from the shameful fooleries, which writers, not carefully considering, have ingrafted upon it. Adam and Eve had taken upon them, not to rest satisfied in what God had commanded; but to begin to think for themselves, contrary to what He had said to them. And their thoughts taking this turn, one sentiment brought on another; they were now to be wise for themselves, without, nay against, their Maker. Now, how natural was it for them, going in the paths of this theory, to be reminded, and consider how to guard against Him, who had severely threatened what they had committed? Alas! their eyes now told them they had no covering; neither could they think i Gen. iii. 7. VOL. IV.. k Job xxvi. 6. how to find a shelter, which might protect them. However, they attempted to do the best they could; they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons. They made themselves aprons. Here again Moses is supposed to say, what no one would have thought of, unless he imagined that our first parents had reasons of shame to cover some particular parts of their bodies. But Moses hints nothing like it: his words are, vajithperu aaleh teenah, vejaaashu lehem chaggoroth." We may observe, that the word which we render leaves, is, in the text, not plural, but singular; and, I apprehend, that both here, and in some other places of scripture, it should be rendered, not leaves, but a foliature, or intertwining of leaves, and that the whole paragraph should be thus translated: they wreathed together a foliature of the fig-tree, and made themselves enwrapments; i. e. they wrapped themselves up in them. As the text may be thus construed, Dr. Burnet's low ridicule of the beginning of the art of a seamstress, of their having neither thread nor needle, is without foundation. • En!' says he, primordia artis sutoriæ: sed unde illis acus, unde filum? Archæol. p. 293.-There was no want of any instruments to try to entwine tender boughs into one another, and it must seem a very natural thought for them to attempt a work of this nature. |