So the snake was the bad feeling in Eve's heart. And their Father took
them by the hand, and said: "Tomorrow, when it is dawn, you will have to
leave this place. In this beautiful Paradise no one can stay who has
once disobeyed. You, Adam, must learn to labor; and, you, Eve, to be
patient and self-denying for others. And, perhaps, after a long, long
time, some day, you will come back with me into Paradise again."
It is a free rendering, I admit. I have filled in the details so as to
bring it down to the level of children's minds, but the outlines, I
think, are there. The points I have developed are all suggested in the
Bible. The temptation begins when the snake says with characteristic
exaggeration: "Is it true that of _all_ the fruit you are forbidden to
eat?" Exaggerating the hardships of the moral command is the first step
on the downward road. The second step is Eve's approach to look at the
fruit--"and she saw that it was good for food, and pleasant to the
eyes." The third step is the actual enjoyment of what is forbidden. The
fourth step is the desire for companionship in guilt, so characteristic
of sin--"and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat."
The next passage describes the working of conscience, the fear, the
shame, the desire to hide, and then comes the moral verdict: You are
guilty, both of you. You have lost your paradise. Try to win it back by
labor and suffering.
NOTE.--I would add to what has been said in the text, that the
pupils are expected to return to the study of the Bible, to read
and re-read these stories, and to receive a progressively higher
interpretation of their meaning as they grow older. If in the above
I have spoken in a general way of a Father and his two children, it
will be easy for the Sunday-school teacher to add later on that the
Father in the story was God.
_Cain and Abel._
In teaching the story of the two brothers Cain and Abel the following
points should be noted. The ancients believed that earthly prosperity
and well-being depended on the favor of God, or the gods, and that the
favor of the gods could be secured by sacrifice. If any one brought a
sacrifice and yet prosperity did not set in, this was supposed to be a
sign that his sacrifice had not been accepted. On the other hand, to say
of any person that his sacrifice had been accepted, was tantamount to
saying that he was happy and prosperous. Applying this to the story of
Cain and Abel, we may omit all mention of the bringing of the
sacrifices, which presents a great and needless difficulty to children's
minds, and simply make the equivalent statement that Abel was prosperous
and Cain was not.
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