072. I. Literal Sense Of Mosaic Narrative.
I. Literal Sense Of Mosaic Narrative.
1. Historic Style of the Narrative.—When the style is purely historical the contents must be accepted as literal, unless there be determining reasons for a different sense. This is a familiar and fully accepted principle of interpretation. Murphy states it thus: “The direct or literal sense of a sentence is the meaning of the author, when no other is indicated; not any figurative, allegorical, or mystical meaning.”[432]The law is just as valid for an extended narrative as for a sentence. The account of primitive man is clearly historic in style. There is no contrary intimation nor any thing in the contents to discredit the literal sense. Therefore the narrative must be accepted as historic. This conclusion cannot be discredited by regarding the narrative simply as the philosophic speculation of some devout Jew on the origin of moral evil. Such a view has gained more or less currency, particularly in German thought. “But we cannot adopt this hypothesis, for it requires a much later date to be assigned to the narrative than the language in which it is written—allowing the utmost latitude that modern criticism demands admits. It would, moreover, be very difficult to understand how the profound piety of a Jew, in dwelling upon the sacred traditions of his people concerning the progenitors of the race, could allow him to represent his theorizings as real history; or how, contrary to his purpose, such a misapprehension could arise.”[433] [432]
[433]
2. Historical Connections of the Narrative.—The narrative of primitive man is not an isolated part of Genesis, but a part thoroughly interwoven with its contents. If the facts which compose the body of the book are historical, so are the facts respecting man. All have a common ground. Any departure from historic verity is a surrender of the whole to allegoric uncertainty. “No writer of true history would mix plain matter of fact with allegory in one continued narrative, without any intimation of a transition from one to the other. If, therefore, any part of this narrative be matter of fact, no part is allegorical. On the other hand, if any part be allegorical, no part is naked matter of fact; and the consequence of this will be that every thing in every part of the whole narrative must be allegorical. . . . Thus the whole history of the creation will be an allegory, of which the real subject is not disclosed; and in this absurdity the scheme of allegorizing ends.”[434] With a simple historic style, with nothing to discredit an historical sense, with no intimation of any other, and with such consequences of any departure from that sense, we must adhere to the true historical character of this narrative.
[434]
3. Uncertainty of a Figurative Interpretation.—This account of primitive man must have been intended for the communication of important truth. In this again it stands in inseparable connection with the fuller contents of Genesis. One may deny such an intention for the whole, but only at the cost of reducing the book to the grade of a mere romance or groundless speculation. The cost is too great. Nor is there any compensation. The book itself would become utterly inexplicable. It could have no rational account as to either its origin or aim. Such a book must have an aim, and the only rational aim is the communication of important truth. With a literal sense such truth is given; without it, only myth or romance remains.
4. Scripture Recognition of a Literal Sense.—This recognition is given in clear references to leading events of the narrative. There is such a reference in the words of our Lord respecting the unity of husband and wife—such a unity as must bar all divorcement, except for the one reason which he allows (Matthew 19:4-6.). The reference is determined beyond question by a citation from the Mosaic narrative (Genesis 2:24). There could be no reference to such events, and particularly as the ground of so important a doctrine, without the reality of the events themselves. Such also is the reference to the serpent as the instrument in the temptation of Eve (2 Corinthians 11:3). Another instance is in the reference to the order of succession in the formation of Adam and Eve, and also to the facts that the woman was deceived and first in the transgression (1 Timothy 2:13-14). How could these events be made the ground of such a lesson of economical order unless they were regarded as real? There are references to still deeper truths. One is to the introduction of sin and death into the world by the sin of Adam (Romans 5:12-19). His sin and fall are thus brought into vital relation to the deepest truths of Christianity. Even the redemptive mediation of Christ is conditioned on the reality of these events. Without as much fullness of statement, there is the implication of the same deep truths in another reference of Paul (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). The historic character of the Mosaic narrative respecting primitive man thus stands clearly in the recognition of the Scriptures. This recognition, with the other evidences adduced, is conclusive of a literal sense.