x

Biblia Todo Logo
idiomas
BibliaTodo Commentaries





«

Genesis 2 - Carroll BH - Interpretation of the Bible

×

Genesis 2

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 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.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

5 and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

12 and the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 and the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

×

Genesis 2

VI

MAN IN PARADISE
Gen 2:4-25

We commence with the fourth verse which begins the new division of the analysis, to wit: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth," and that division extends to the close of Genesis 4, but our present chapter will discuss so much of it only as is found in the second chapter.

In reading this chapter one is impressed, even in the translation, by a marked difference in style between it and the first chapter of Genesis. How, then, do we account for this great difference in style? A sufficient and simple answer is that in every chapter the style corresponds to the subject matter. Some of you will recall a paragraph from Alexander Pope with this couplet:

When Ajax strives some rock's vast weight to throw, The line too labours, and the words move slow.

This essayist on style then goes on to show that in describing the nimble-footed Camilla there is no labor in the line, and no slow motion in the words. The first chapter of Genesis consists of terse, abrupt, sententious sentences, each as rugged as a granite mountain. The nature of the subject calls for that style. The second chapter, following the usual method of Genesis, takes up certain items tersely stated in the first chapter and enlarges or expounds the statement. This calls for a smoother and more flowing style.

A thinking reader will also note another change in the second chapter. The first chapter uniformly uses the word, "God," but the second chapter, "Jehovah God," and this change from the name of "God" to "Jehovah God" appears a number of times, not merely in Genesis, but in many succeeding books, and is just as marked in the psalms as it is in Genesis. The word "God" is employed when the Deity is spoken of in the abstract. The words, "Jehovah God," are employed when there is a revelation of the Deity spoken of in covenant relation. The name, "Jehovah," is always used when you want to show God's covenant relation with man, and you find both of these names, or titles, of God oftentimes in the same verse (see Gen 7:16; 1Sa 17:46-47; 2Ch 18:31). God in the abstract is Elohim, or just "God," but God in covenant relation is "Jehovah Elohim," or "Jehovah God."

As we look over this second chapter at first glance, there seems to be on the face of it another diversity from the first chapter in the order of creation. In the first chapter the chronological order is strictly followed, man coming last; in the second chapter the mind is fastened on the man who came last in the first chapter, first in dignity, and the other things and beings are discussed in their relation to him without intending to convey the idea that this is the chronological order of their creation. The radical critics have been accustomed to claim that these three marked changes between the first and second chapters indicate different authors and different documents. There is no convincing reason for accepting this explanation. The book of Genesis is not a patchwork of different documents by different authors crudely and artificially joined together; one purpose runs through the book. Whoever wrote one part of it wrote all the parts of it, from whatever source his materials were derived.

Just here it is important to call your attention to the uniform method of historic treatment in the book of Genesis. From the first sentence to the end of the book there is a designed descent from the general and comprehensive to the particular. For example, the first verse, in a few words, states that in the beginning God created the universe. The second verse descends to this particular: the condition of the created earth matter as being without form and void, and darkness over the face of the deep. The author does not attempt to state how much interval of time passed from the creation of the matter of the universe to this particular state of the chaos of the earth matter. Having thus shown what the chaotic state was he then shows the several steps by which this chaos, under the mighty energy of the Holy Spirit, is changed into order.

The first eleven chapters are a race history. Then there is a descent to a particular man and a family and a nation. Another uniform method of the book of Genesis is, that in tracing the kingdom of God all of the families of whom the elect line does not come are first given and then sidetracked. It gives the generations of Ishmael before it gives the generations of Isaac, and the generations of Esau before it gives the generations of Jacob.

In this second chapter, as has been said, following the methods of a descent from the general to the particular, the author takes up certain brief statements of the first chapter and sup- plies details that are not given in the first. Among the examples are these: In the first chapter, following a chronological; order, there is the bare statement that God commanded the earth to bring forth grass and the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit. But the second chapter supplies a detail that at first there was no rain but only a mist that went up from the earth and watered the face of the ground, and caused the seeds of things which had been created to germinate; then the first chapter states in general terms that God made man, male and female, without detail. This second chapter tells us how man's body was made from the dust of the ground, and how the spirit of man was communicated, and then it shows how the female was derived from the man. This is a detailed elaboration) or explanation, of the brief statement in the first chapter.

The second chapter then goes on to supply the detail of how God provided a garden for the man, and how he came under covenant law to God, and the stipulations of that covenant. This detailed information of the second chapter is very important as showing the dual nature of man, how that his body was formed from the dust of the earth. Here it is clear that the teaching is that man's body was not evolved from any lower form of animal life. There is an evolution clearly taught in the Bible, but it is an evolution of each seed according to its kind, and not the transformation of one kind into another kind. Whatever potentiality has been previously involved in any seed may be evolved out of that seed. From a seed of wheat there is first the blade and then the stalk and then the ear, and then the full or ripened ear, but barley is not evolved from a wheat seed. Each one is according to its own kind. No research of man has ever found an example of one kind being evolved from a different kind. It would destroy all law and take away from man the value of his reason in observing nature's course, or the course of the God of nature so as to profit by it. This second chapter is equally clear as to the origin of man's spirit. The spirit of the first man was not by any process of evolution derived from any spirit of beast or demon, but a direct creation of God, an impartation from God. Marcus Dods, in his book on Genesis, exceedingly lucid and brilliant, though many times tending to the theory of the radical critic, asks a question: "Was the first man a rude and ignorant savage or a highly civilized man?" You may rest assured that the first man was the highest and noblest of his kind, fresh from the hands of his Creator, created upright, in righteousness, knowledge and true holiness, wonderfully dowered and commissioned. He was superior not only to the rude and ignorant savage, but to the highest type of present civilization.

This leads to another thought, viz.: that the savage tribes to today are not merely ascending from a primeval degradation in the scale of beings, but are examples of a degeneration from a previous higher type. On this point the whole theory of Darwinian evolution is hopelessly at war with revelation and common sense, and also with all of the clearly proved facts gathered by man's research. This thought is further carried out by the fact that race memory has embodied in tribal and I national myths proofs that man has not ascended from a primeval cave dweller or a remote stone age to the present golden age of civilization, but that there has been, according to the teachings of history time and again, a descent from the primeval golden age to a silver, then a brazen, and then an iron and then a stone age. As an instance, take Ovid's "Metamorphoses" as embodying the classical idea of first a golden, then a silver, then a brazen and then an iron age, and this is in harmony with the myths and legends preserved among all people. By a kind of race memory they all look back to & higher and nobler position than that now occupied. This erroneous evolution theory goes a long way back and finds first, cave dwellers, or troglodytes, and an evolution from the cave dweller of the stone age to the present civilized time. But the Bible itself, as well as present history, shows that troglodytas or cave dwellers existed contemporaneously with higher types. The Horites mentioned in Genesis were troglodytes living in caves. This evolution theory begs the question and contradicts the facts as well, in demanding almost infinite periods of time between these several generations. Not long ago the phosphate beds of Ashley, South Carolina, were discovered, and in excavating for these phosphates there were found all mingled together the bones, skeletons of animals including man, that, under this theory, must have been separated in countless ages of time from each other.

We have in this second chapter a description of a garden, or paradise, in the district of Eden. I need not cite the words of this description, for you have the book before you. Captain Mayne Reid, in the Desert Home, describes a fertile, well watered valley, mountain locked on every side, full of flowers and fruits, that may convey to you some idea of paradise in a valley of the mountains. Or you may get some idea of paradise in a valley of the mountains from Johnson's Happy Valley of Rasselas. The record says that this park was fertilized by a river system, which, in leaving the garden, parted into fear beads that became mighty rivers. Two of these rivers -- the Euphrates and the Tigris - are easy to locate, and the other two may be easily inferred. In the Armenian mountains is yet to be seen a beautiful valley in which, from the same water system, four famous rivers rise, not far from each other. The springs of these rivers are not many miles apart. The Euphrates, leaving this valley, flows, in general terms, south, reaching the Indian Ocean through the Persian Gulf. The Tigris flows east and then south until it unites with the Euphrates before it reaches the sea. The Halys and the Araxes also rise in the same valley, one of them flowing northwest into the Black Sea, and the other, east into the Caspian Sea.

There were two remarkable trees in this garden, the tree of life and the tree of death. From what is said in the third chapter, and indicated by its own name, the object of the tree of life was to furnish the fruit that would ultimately eliminate the mortality of man's body so that long continuance in the use of this fruit would make his body as immortal as his soul. On the other hand, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil fruited unto death. Many of the commentaries have found in this story of the garden of Eden a mere allegory. All subsequent references to it in the Bible clearly prove that this account is strictly historical. By following out your marginal references abundant proof texts are to be found in both Testaments that the memory of this famous garden lingered long lathe minds of the race. In the New Testament, at the very close of it, paradise regained, with its water of life and the tree of life, is set forth as the antitype of the earthly garden of Eden. It is quite important to note that the man had duties in this garden. He was to tend the garden and, as in the commission stated in the first chapter of Genesis, he must subdue the earth. This shows that labor preceded sin and has in it a natural dignity not to be despised.

It is well to note that this man in this garden, without being at all startled, had direct communication with God; without fear or shame he met and communed with his Creator. The biblical account clearly shows that this man stood in covenant relations with his God. The very fact that some things are prescribed and other things proscribed is an evidence of a covenant relation, the Creator freely permitting some things, sharply prohibiting other things with severe penalties attached to disobedience. The prohibition not to eat of the tree of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, except on a penalty of death, is a stipulation of this covenant. Some have questioned the propriety of such a moral test. But a test in this form is more excellent than one like an ordinary law of nature demonstrating its own consequences.

Men have had some difficulty in locating the garden of Eden from the description given in this second chapter, but their difficulties arise from supposing there has been no change since primeval times. For example, the Hiddekel, or Tigris, is said to compass all the land of Cush, and commentators, keeping in mind the territory of Cush in Africa, experience a difficulty in locating this river. They should notice that the descendants of Cush first occupied the very territory which the Tigris compasses, and later some of them settled in Arabia and others of them in Africa. A passage in Ezekiel, which the reader must find, tells us that the garden of Eden was destroyed. By which is meant not the annihilation of its mountains and its rivers, but such a change as, were you now to see the location, you could not identify it from the description given in Genesis. Several curious theories of the location of the garden of Eden have been inflicted upon the people. A Methodist bishop is quite sure that it was near where Charleston, South Carolina, now is. Another says that it was at the North Pole and that the aurora borealis is still a reflection of its pristine glory, and that there is an opening into the hollow of the earth at the North Pole and paradise went down into that hole, and only the aurora borealis outshines and that God had hedged it about with impassable ice. The discovery of the North Pole, if it was a discovery, clearly disproves the existence of such a stake as the north pole.

One of the most suggestive thoughts in this chapter is the way in which God made the man sensible of his need of a companion, and of the kind of a companion that he must have. The animals in pairs passed before the man and he noticing that they were all in pairs - a lion and a lioness, a tiger and a tigress, and so on - thus suggesting the thought to him that these lower creatures had mates, and he had none, but further suggesting that because of his difference in nature, he being in God's image and infinitely above any lower animal, he could not find a mate among them. Having thus prepared man's mind to see the necessity of a companion, God, by a spiritual anesthetic, brings man's body into a state of painless insensibility, and while in that state takes from him a part of himself near his heart, and out of that fashions man's companion.

Here arises an important question: "Was the spirit of Eve a direct creation like Adam's, or was her spirit derived from him as well as her body?" This brings up two theological theories, one called the theory of direct creation of spirits, and the other the theory of derivation by traduction. It has always seemed to the author that the common theory, that the souls of men are all of them, each in its turn, a direct creation of God, is utterly incompatible with biblical facts. It would disprove hereditary depravity or the necessity of regeneration. Education only would be needed. When the companion was presented to man, Adam said, Isha, which means woman, and woman means derived from man. When she was presented to him she was presented to him in her entirety --body and soul - and he called her woman - i.e., derived from man. So that Eve was as much a descendant of Adam as you are. In other words the man, when created was the whole race in potentiality, and every other human being, including Eve, was derived from him. A very important doctrine will be seen to be dependent upon this when we come to the next chapter, when we come to the fall of man. If Eve was a descendant of Adam, race responsibility did not rest upon her. Her sin might bring death to her but only to herself, but Adam's sin would bring it to all to be derived from him.

God himself married this first pair, and our Lord, in the nineteenth chapter of Matthew, indicated the ceremony by the words which he quotes. In looking upon this first pair, we come upon a somewhat startling statement prefaced by "therefore": "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife." The usual idea seems to be that the right of the matter is that a man shall take her to his father's and mother's house, but the Bible says that a man shall leave his folk, and all the wives can understand why this is so. They cannot go to the father-in-law and mother-in-law and feel at home under the dominion of those who are practically strangers. She wants her home. She is willing enough to receive counsel in the home life from her mother, but not so well from his mother. So he should not always be telling her how well his mother could make biscuits and pies and coffee and desserts. Let her tell him how her mother used to do it. The truth is, when they marry, they had better go off to themselves.

In two of the finest passages of Milton's Paradise Lost is the poet's conception of the man's first consciousness after his creation and how Eve awoke and found herself. I once took the passage about Eve waking and finding herself, and made it the theme of an address before a college of young ladies. I suggest that every reader read these two passages.

When we come to the New Testament we find proof corroborating the Genesis account of the origin of the woman. It distinctly affirms that Adam was first formed, then Eve, and that the woman was made for the man and not the man for the woman, and that the man is the head of the family, from which are also derived some beautiful lessons about Christ the Second Adam, and the church derived from him; that as the first Adam slept while the woman was taken from his side so Christ died that from his death might come his companion, his spouse, his church; that Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it.

QUESTIONS
1. How do you account for the difference of style between the first and second chapters of Genesis?

2. What says Alexander Pope on the variation of style?

3. What is the style in the first chapter? The second?

4. What variation in the use of the names of God, and how do you account for it?

5. 1s this peculiar to the Pentateuch?

6. Why, in this section, is man's formation placed before vegetable and other animal life?

7. Does the first chapter or the second present the chronological order?

8. Is the second chapter an independent and conflicting account of creation?

9. What is the uniform method of historic treatment in the book of Genesis?

10. Of what do the first eleven chapters of Genesis consist?

11. What details are supplied in the second chapter not found in the first chapter?

12. Give an account of the origin of the first man's dual nature.

13. Was he, either in body or soul, developed from lower animals?

14. Was the first man a rude and ignorant savage, or the highest type of his kind?

15. Are the savage tribes of today merely ascending from primeval degradation in the scale of being, or are they examples of a degeneration from an original higher type?

16. Does race memory, as embodied in the tribal and national myths, indicate that man has ascended from cave dwellers of a remote stone age, or has descended from a primeval golden age to silver, brass, iron, and stone conditions?

17. Give a classic myth on this point.

18. Give Bible proof that troglodytes (cave dwellers) were not separated in incalculable periods of time from highly developed and civilized types, but were contemporaries.

19. What bearing have the phosphate beds of Ashley, South Carolina on the theory that immensely long periods of time separated the several forms of lower animal life from each other and from man?

20. What ideal homes in fiction may possibly represent how the garden of Eden was enclosed and safeguarded?

21. Locate and describe it. What curious theories about it?

22. How was this park fertilized?

23. What two remarkable trees were there?

24. The use or purpose of the tree of life?

25. Of the tree of death?

26. Is this garden story allegory or history?

27. Cite Old Testament proofs that the memory of this real garden lingered long in the minds of the race. (See Gen 13:10; Isa 51:3; Eze 28:13; Eze 36:35; Joe 2:3.).

28. Cite scripture proving its destruction. (See Eze 31:9; Eze 31:16; Eze 31:18.)

29. Man's duties in the garden?

30. Nature of his communion with God?

31. Scripture proof of Adam's covenant relations with God? (Hos 6:7.)

32. Was it a covenant of grace or of works?

33. What prohibition expressed its stipulation on man's part?

34. What is the excellency of this moral test?

35. How did God make man sensible of his need of a companion?

36. Origin of the woman's body?

37. Was her soul a direct creation as Adam's, or was it derived from Adam?

38. Who married the first pair, and what New Testament scripture indicates the ceremony?

39. The deep sleep that fell upon Adam and the woman's derivation from him therein were typical of what? New Testament proof?

40. If either be done, why should the man leave his folk for his wife rather than the wife her folk for the husband?

41. In their antitype show that both leave their folks.

42. Where in Paradise Lost do you find Milton's conceptions of how the man first consciously found himself and the woman herself? Sir Egerton Bridges Edition, pp. 297-8 and 205-6.

43. Cite New Testament corroboration of the Genesis account of the origin of woman.


VII

THE ANGELS

We have seen in the second chapter of Genesis the happy estate of the man and woman in paradise. We learn in the third chapter about the fall of man and his expulsion from that garden. No more fundamental subject can be considered by a Bible student, and we are not going to leave it until you are thoroughly grounded in the significance of the fall of man. But we are not prepared to commence the study of the fall until we consider somewhat the origin, nature, office, and history of another very distinct class of created beings called angels, through one of whom man was seduced to sin against God. So you see that the subject of this chapter is the creation of the angels, their relation to God and to man and the use of the serpent as an instrument in the temptation. Many Bible words of general signification take on by special usage a particular and official meaning; for example, the words, "apostle," "deacon," "church," or "angel." Primarily "apostle" means one sent. In this original meaning one sent by another is an apostle. Jesus was an apostle; so was Barnabas. But by special use the term is restricted to the highest office in the earthly church, and confined to the twelve apostles and to Paul. So "deacon" means primarily a servant. In this original sense any one who serves is a deacon. Jesus was a deacon. But by usage the term is restricted to a particular office in the apostolic church. The Greek New Testament term rendered "church" means primarily an official assembly called out for the transaction of secular business, but later designates a particular congregation of Christians. In like manner "angel" primarily means a messenger of any kind. Any one bearing a message from another is in this original sense an angel. Many passages in the Old Testament use the phrase, "angel of Jehovah," to designate a preliminary manifestation of the Son of God before his incarnation. In this original sense the pastors of the seven churches in Asia are called the angels of the churches. Yet this general term "angel" by abundant usage, designates a special class of created beings, neither human nor divine - above the one, below the other - appointed unto a distinctive office. These constitute the hosts of the heavens.

When, then, were they created? There was but one creative period, and that period is set forth in the first chapter of Genesis and in the second chapter down to the third verse. In that time were finished not only the heavens and the earth, but "all the hosts of them" (Gen 2:1). Now the hosts of the earth are the created beings that inhabit the earth. The hosts of the heavens are the angels. The order in which the earth's hosts - that is, the animals of sea, air, and land, culminating in man - were brought into being, has been set forth in previous chapters. But a consideration of the origin of "the hosts of the heavens" has been deferred until their contact with man brings them prominently into the earth history.

In the Psalm 148 all the creation, including the angelic hosts, are invoked to praise Jehovah, their Creator:

Praise ye him, all his angels:

Praise ye him, all his hosts. . . .

For be commanded, and they were created.

Here the creation of the angels is associated in time with the rest of creation. Even more particularly in this association set forth and attributed to Jesus Christ in Col 1:16 : "In him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him and unto him." It is true that the Son of God, by his incarnation, was subsequently made a little lower than the angels whom he created (Heb 2:7), but after his resurrection and ascension he was again exalted above them: "Who is on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him" (1Pe 3:22).

The hosts of heaven met Jacob at a later day (Gen 32:1) and are an innumerable company. "The Lord came from the myriads of holy ones" (Deu 33:2). "The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands upon thousands" (Psa 68:17). "Thousands of thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him" (Dan 7:10). "Innumerable hosts of angels" (Heb 12:22). "I heard the voice of many angels) . . . and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands" (Rev 5:11).

The creation of the angels preceded that of the universe matter, and of course, that of man. In other words, the first creation was when the angels were made. We know this to be the case, because in the Psa 104:4-5, these angels were employed in bringing the chaotic earth matter into order. From the passage, Job 38:7, we are told that the sons of God watched it, had participated in it, and when it was completed shouted for Joy over the world when it was created. They rejoiced over the beautiful consummation.

By nature the angels were incorporeal, i.e., pure spirit (Psa 104:4; Heb 1:14; Eph 6:12), and sexless (Mat 22:30), and immortal (Luk 20:36), possessed of superhuman and yet finite wisdom and power (2Sa 14:20; 2Pe 2:11; Mat 24:36; 1Pe 1:12; Eph 3:10). Angels are not a family, but a company. They are without ancestry or posterity. Each stands or falls in his own individuality. As they could not fall through a progenitor, nor become corrupt through hereditary law, they cannot, when fallen, become subjects of redemption through a second federal head (Heb 2:16). Of angels, therefore, we may say: They are created and therefore finite beings; by origin they are called the sons of God (Job 1:6; Job 2:7); by nature they are spirits (Psa 104:4) ; by character they are called "holy ones" or "saints" (Job 5:1; Psa 89:5-7; Dan 8:13; Jud 1:14). Later we shall find them ministrators of the law (Gal 3:19), heralds of the gospel (Luk 2:9-13), and servants of Christ's people (Heb 1:14).

ORIGIN OF SIN
Now we come to the origin of sin. From the most ancient times the origin of evil has baffled the inquisition of proud human philosophy. The Bible account of it is both simple and satisfactory. It originated with the angels. These angels were created free, moral agents, under law, on probation, with power to determinate choice, hence liable to fall. The greater number of them stood the test. In 1Ti 5:21, those who stood the test are called the elect angels. But many fell from their state of innocence. See 2Pe 2:4, and Jud 1:6 : "The angels which kept not their first estate." The leader and chief among them was Satan, who "stood not in the truth" (Joh 8:44), falling through pride (1Ti 3:6). He was first called Lucifer, which means "son of the morning." He loses that name and takes the name Satan. This chief of the fallen angels has many Bible names. As expressive of his primacy and supremacy over other evil spirits he is called Beelzebub. As indicative of his hostility to man he is called Satan, which means adversary. As descriptive of his methods of malignity against man his name is devil. In this word is the idea of one who sets at variance. Those whom he seeks to set at variance are God and man. When he approaches man he slanders God; when he approaches God he accuses man. Hence, in his work of variance he is both an accuser and a slanderer. When he approaches Eve he slanders God. When he approaches God he accuses Job. In view of the result of his work he is called Apollyon, the destroyer. He is never a constructionist, but eminently a destructionist. He does not build; he demolishes. Because of the form he assumed in the temptation of man, he is called the Serpent, the Dragon. Very sinuous, tortuous, slimy, and subtle are his ways. On account of his rage and predatory character he is compared to a roaring lion. He is called the tempter because he incites to evil. He is called the receiver because he tempts by lies. That he may deceive he comes as an angel of light, and that he may trap the unwary he sets cunning traps as a fowler who ensnares birds. But all the time he is a liar and a murderer, and the father of lies and murders. He is the father of all false religions. He uses the lusts of the flesh, the pride of life, and the course of the world in turning men away from God. He first blinds, then binds and then stupefies, and so he keeps his goods in peace. He is an awful and hideous reality, apart from God the most stupendous factor in the universe. He is limited in power and in the time allotted him to work his evil deeds. Now, as I stated, the angels, like man, were on probation. The best statement of that case that I have ever seen is in Milton's Paradise Lost, fifth book, commencing at the 520th line: Raphael said to Adam:

“Son of heaven and earth, Attend: that thou art happy, owe to God; That thou continuest such, owe to thyself, That is, to thy obedience; therein stand. This was that caution given thee; be advised. God made thee perfect, not immutable; And good he made thee; but to persevere He left it in thy power; ordained thy will By nature free, not over-ruled by fate Inextricable, or strict necessity: Our voluntary service he requires, Not our necessitated; such with Him Finds no acceptance, nor can find; for how Can hearts, not free, be tried whether they serve Willing or not, who will but what they must By destiny, and can no other choose? Myself, and all the angelic host, that stand In sight of God, enthroned, our happy state Hold, as you yours, while our obedience holds; On other surety none: freely we serve, Because we freely love, as in our will To love or not; in this we stand or fall.”

Now comes a much more serious question. What was the occasion that led the devil to sin? God did not make a devil; he created him a good angel, but created him free to act, to stand or fall. Now, the devil sinned, and we find his sin to be pride or ambition, but we have not yet found the occasion for that sin. If you are familiar with Paradise Lost you will see that Milton says the occasion was this: That God introduced his Son to the angels, and announced that from that time he was to be king of the angels and that they were to serve him. Milton bases his statement on the passage in the first chapter of Hebrews, "When he bringeth his only Begotten into the world again he said, Let all the angels of God worship him." Now, Milton makes that take place before there was any universe. A fair interpretation of that scripture is that when Jesus died and rose again - that was bringing his Begotten into the world again - God said, "Let all the angels worship him." That is the true explanation, that they were to worship not the Son of God in original divinity, but the Son of God in raised humanity. So Milton was mistaken about the occasion. Jesus Christ made the angels, all of them. He made the one that became the devil, and I don't suppose that the devil's pride or ambition would ever have led him to rebel against the one who created him through any desire to succeed him. The question is, What was the occasion that excited the pride of the devil? Now, the Bible does not say, but I am going to give you my own opinion, and you can take it as an opinion. My opinion is that, in one of those meetings in heaven like that described in Job at which all the angels at stated times come up into the presence of God, he announced to them that he was going to create this world and make man in his image and likeness, and that this man through obedience, - if he observed the commandments of God and should eat of the tree of life, - would become immortal and be lifted up above the angels, and that it should be the office of the angels to serve this man. Now I think there is where the devil protested. He was willing enough for God to be over him, but he was unwilling for a creature, made originally lower than himself, to have a destiny that would one day put any being above him. Every saved soul will be far above any angel. That is my opinion. If I had time I believe I could show you inferentially, of course not specifically, for I would then have to give you scriptures.

Now, in the second book of Paradise Lost Milton tracks the Bible out much more clearly about how sin originated. When the devil, after being cast out of heaven, is leaving hell to go back to find on earth this people that were to be created below him and one day were to be above him, he meets at the gate of hell Sin and Death, both horrible. And Just as he and Death are about to fight, Sin intervenes. Sin is a beautiful woman from the waist up, and a snake from the waist down. She says to Satan: "Death is thy son. I am Death's mother. I am not only Death's mother, but I am thy daughter. Don't you remember that time in heaven when your pride was excited, that fearful pain came in your head and it was opened and out I leaped full grown like a beautiful woman? And every angel said, 'Sin, Sin, Sin.' But, looking at my beauty, they became enamoured of me, and especially thou, and thy espousal to Sin produced the progeny, Death, and Death's espousal to Sin produced the progeny of the hellhounds of remorse." That is Milton's idea, powerfully set forth, marvelous. That coincides with what we were discussing in the New Testament about sin. There is first enticement, then desire, then will, then sin) and sin when it is full grown bringeth forth death. That part of Milton's work is true.

We are now compelled by the facts of the Bible story about to be considered to take some note of a great mystery. And that is the power of spirit over matter and over less powerful organisms of life. "Unquestionably, when permitted, Satan can stir up a cyclone, or electric storm that leaves death in its path (Job 1:16-19); or incite to robbery and murder (Job 1:15-17 and 1Jn 3:12). He can hypnotize inferior animals (Mat 8:30-32), and make them obey his will. He can, by consent of the subject, take possession of man's mind and make it his servant. Hence, the demoniacal possessions of the New Testament. One of the clearest revelations of Scripture is the immediate influence of spirit over matter and the immediate impact of spirit on spirit. We could not otherwise understand Gen 1:2; Gen 2:7; Psa 104:30; 1Pe 1:21; Joh 3:3; Luk 1:55; Joh 8:27; Act 5:3, and many other passages. The formation of the earth, the communication of man's soul, the incarnation of our Lord, the quickening of regeneration, the resurrection, inspiration, demoniacal possession, the preparation of dying infants for heaven, the stampeding of cattle, panics in armies, mesmerism, hypnotism and a thousand other mysteries find their only explanation in the doctrine of immediate impact of spirit on matter or on another spirit.

The account of Genesis speaks of the serpent, the instrument, only. But fairly interpreted it implies what is elsewhere so forcibly taught, that the serpent was merely the instrument of a mighty spiritual power in the temptation of Eve. That grandest of all epics, Paradise Lost, reveals throughout a profound study of the whole Bible. It thus sets forth a possible method of the entrance of Satan into the serpent:

So saying, through each thicket dank and dry, Like a black mist low creeping, he held on His midnight search, where soonest he might find The serpent: him, fast sleeping soon he found In labyrinth of many a round self-rolled, His head the midst, well stored with subtle wiles: Not yet in horrid shade or dismal den, Nor nocent yet; but, on the grassy herb, Fearless unfeared he slept: in at his mouth The devil entered; and his brutal sense, In heart and head, possessing, soon inspired With act intelligential; but his sleep Disturbed not, waiting close the approach of morn.

Just as the devil can take possession of a man and make him demoniac, so the devil took possession of the serpent. The use of the serpent as a means, and the most suitable means, arises out of his power and his cunning. I will quote what Richard Owen says about the serpent: "He out climbs the monkey, out swims the fish, out leaps the zebra, outwrestles the athlete, and crushes the tiger." In Ruskin's "Queen of the Air" we find: "There are myriads lower than the serpent, and more loathsome in the scale of being . . . but it is the strength of the base element that is so dreadful in the serpent; it is the very omnipotence of the earth. . . . It is a divine hieroglyph of the demoniac power of the earth, of the entirely earthly nature. As the bird is the clothed power of the air, so this is the clothed power of the dust; as the bird is the symbol of the spirit of life, so this is the grasp and sting of death."

You will notice that after the curse was pronounced upon him, because of what he had done, the serpent was condemned to crawl, evidently implying that he had not crawled before. In two or three books of the Bible we have an account of fiery, flying serpents, and beyond all question the particular serpent that tempted Eve was a flying serpent. That only shows that his power was greater then than it has been since. He was condemned to crawl and clipped off his wings. Nataerialists will tell you that there were serpents with wings, and all tradition represents the dragon with wings. So that the Bible, nature and tradition agree in the representation that the serpent employed for the temptation of Eve was winged so that he had power in the air as well as power on the land. EP After the curse was pronounced upon him he must crawl and ' pick his food up from the ground as I have seen them do. I have seen a rattlesnake swallow a mule-eared rabbit. He licks him all over and covers him with saliva, rolls him over in the sand and then swallows him whole with the dust that is on him. That is how the serpent eats dust.

SUMMARY
We have seen the creation of the angels. We have seen that a part of these angels kept not their first estate. We have seen the sin which they committed, pride, and we have seen that Satan is the chief of the fallen spirits that were cast out. We have seen why he came to earth, to slander God and accuse man, to make them sin, to keep them from attaining to the position that they would be above him and bring them to the position that they would be under him. But, "Know ye not," says Paul, "that the saints shall Judge angels?"

QUESTIONS
1. Why defer to this connection the account of the angels?

2. Illustrate the special or official meaning of the several Bible words of general signification.

3. What the literal or etymological meaning of the term "angel"?

4. What the special meaning?

5. Scriptural proof of their creation and by whom?

6. Before or after man's creation?

7. Why the Bible account of their creation less particular than that of man's?

8. What can you say of their number?

9. What their work in the creation of the earth?

10. The nature of the angels as distinguished from man?

11. Why may not sinning angels have a savior?

12. Give statement of these beings from the following viewpoints:

(1) As to creation;

(2) As to origin.;

(3) As to nature;

(4) As to character;

(5) As to service.

13. With what beings did sin originate?

14. With which one of the angels did sin originate?

15. According to the New Testament, what was his particular sin?

16. Give several names of this chief of the fallen angels, and their meanings.

17. What Milton's misconception of the occasion of sin?

18. What probably the real occasion?

19. What Milton's conception of the origin of sin?

20. Give Bible proof of the impact of spirit on spirit, and the influence of spirit over matter.

21. What was the instrument of the temptation, and Milton s description of the entrance of Satan into it?

22. What was the state of the serpent at first, and what the change in that state in the curse?

23. New Testament proof of the nature and extent of their punishment?

24 Why delay the final punishment of the angels!

25. Scripture proof that the angels good and bad must report then work regularly to God?




»

Rights in the Authorized (King James) Version in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown. Published by permission of the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge Univ. Press & BFBS
Follow us:



Advertisements