Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1: Luther on the CreationLuther, Martin
ReligionChristian
Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1: Luther on the Creation
Luther, Martin
Bible. Genesis -- Commentaries
This is one of the most difficult passages in the writings of Moses,
and one which has given rise to the greatest offense in unholy minds.
For the real state of the facts recorded, as they are now before our
eyes, cannot be denied. The description here given by the sacred
historian applies properly to India, which he here calls "Havilah,"
through which the river Pishon, or the Ganges, flows. The other three
rivers Gihon, Hiddekel and Phrath; that is, the Nile, the Tigris and
the Euphrates are also well known; and it is equally well known that
the Nile and the last two rivers have their sources very distant from
each other. The great question therefore that naturally arises is,
since the whole world well knows how far distant these rivers are from
each other, how can the account of Moses be reconciled with the facts,
when he says that all these rivers issued from one fountain; that is,
that they flowed from one source in the garden of Eden toward the
east? For with respect to the Nile, although its source is unknown,
yet the arguments and proofs are plain that it flows from a region in
the south. Whereas it is quite certain that the Ganges and the Tigris
and the Euphrates flow from the north; sources in the entirely
opposite direction.
The account of Moses therefore militates against sense and fact as
they now are. This state of things has given occasion to many to form
conjectures that Eden was the whole world. Though such conjectures are
certainly false, yet they would not of themselves, even if true,
reconcile the statements of Moses, nor make all plain when he here
says that the source of all these rivers was one and the same. And
although it is very probable that if Adam had remained in his
innocence and his posterity had greatly multiplied in that state of
innocency, God would have enlarged this garden correspondently; yet
even that consideration would not justify the supposition that Eden
was the whole earth originally; for the sacred text most plainly
separates Eden from all the rest of the earth. What shall we say
therefore concerning this passage of Moses, contrary as it is to sense
and experience, as things now are, and on that account so liable to
cause offense being taken; especially since Origen and others have
built upon it so many marvelous and absurd fables? Some commentators
pretend that there is no difficulty at all nor any liability to
offense being taken; and therefore they walk dryshod as it were over
this deep sea. Such lack of candor however is also highly unbecoming a
commentator.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account