Do Commentators have a form of Literary License regarding use of Scripture?

[ChristopherPaul]

This question was inspired by Andrew's "Puritan Quotes on Marriage" thread.

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Matthew Henry:

(Note) that the woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be loved.

What sort of "œlicense" do commentators have with such interpretations? Can we conclude that God revealed such intentions with making woman from the rib and not the foot? Or is this some form of permissible literary license in making a positive and instructive point using such a pericope?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Matthew Henry's comment, poetically expressed, is the standard Protestant interpretation of the significance of Gen. 2.21ff, in which the intimate connection between the creation of woman and the institution and purpose of marriage is bound together.

Here is his comment in context, along with other similar examples on this text:

Matthew Henry:

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.

Here we have, I. The making of the woman, to be a help-meet for Adam. This was done upon the sixth day, as was also the placing of Adam in paradise, though it is here mentioned after an account of the seventh day's rest; but what was said in general (ch. i. 27), that God made man male and female, is more distinctly related here. Observe, 1. That Adam was first formed, then Eve (1 Tim. ii. 13), and she was made of the man, and for the man (1 Cor. xi. 8, 9), all which are urged there as reasons for the humility, modesty, silence, and submissiveness, of that sex in general, and particularly the subjection and reverence which wives owe to their own husbands. Yet man being made last of the creatures, as the best and most excellent of all, Eve's being made after Adam, and out of him, puts an honour upon that sex, as the glory of the man, 1 Cor. xi. 7. If man is the head, she is the crown, a crown to her husband, the crown of the visible creation. The man was dust refined, but the woman was dust double-refined, one remove further from the earth. 2. That Adam slept while his wife was in making, that no room might be left to imagine that he had herein directed the Spirit of the Lord, or been his counsellor, Isa. xl. 13. He had been made sensible of his want of a meet help; but, God having undertaken to provide him one, he does not afflict himself with any care about it, but lies down and sleeps sweetly, as one that had cast all his care on God, with a cheerful resignation of himself and all his affairs to his Maker's will and wisdom. Jehovah-jireh, let the Lord provide when and whom he pleases. If we graciously rest in God, God will graciously work for us and work all for good. 3. That God caused a sleep to fall on Adam, and made it a deep sleep, that so the opening of his side might be no grievance to him; while he knows no sin, God will take care he shall feel no pain. When God, by his providence, does that to his people which is grievous to flesh and blood, he not only consults their happiness in the issue, but by his grace he can so quiet and compose their spirits as to make them easy under the sharpest operations. 4. That the woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved. Adam lost a rib, and without any diminution to his strength or comeliness (for, doubtless, the flesh was closed without a scar); but in lieu thereof he had a help meet for him, which abundantly made up his loss: what God takes away from his people he will, one way or other, restore with advantage. In this (as in many other things) Adam was a figure of him that was to come; for out of the side of Christ, the second Adam, his spouse the church was formed, when he slept the sleep, the deep sleep, of death upon the cross, in order to which his side was opened, and there came out blood and water, blood to purchase his church and water to purify it to himself. See Eph. v. 25, 26.

II. The marriage of the woman to Adam. Marriage is honourable, but this surely was the most honourable marriage that ever was, in which God himself had all along an immediate hand. Marriages (they say) are made in heaven: we are sure this was, for the man, the woman, the match, were all God's own work; he, by his power, made them both, and now, by his ordinance, made them one. This was a marriage made in perfect innocency, and so was never any marriage since, 1. God, as her Father, brought the woman to the man, as his second self, and a help-meet for him. When he had made her, he did not leave her to her own disposal; no, she was his child, and she must not marry without his consent. Those are likely to settle to their comfort who by faith and prayer, and a humble dependence upon providence, put themselves under a divine conduct. That wife that is of God's making by special grace, and of God's bringing by special providence, is likely to prove a help-meet for a man. 2. From God, as his Father, Adam received her (v. 23): "This is now bone of my bone. Now I have what I wanted, and which all the creatures could not furnish me with, a help meet for me." God's gifts to us are to be received with a humble thankful acknowledgment of his wisdom in suiting them to us, and his favour in bestowing them on us. Probably it was revealed to Adam in a vision, when he was asleep, that this lovely creature, now presented to him, was a piece of himself, and was to be his companion and the wife of his covenant. Hence some have fetched an argument to prove that glorified saints in the heavenly paradise shall know one another. Further, in token of his acceptance of her, he gave her a name, not peculiar to her, but common to her sex: She shall be called woman, Isha, a she-man, differing from man in sex only, not in nature--made of man, and joined to man.

Compare with John Calvin:

Gen 2:21. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall, etc. Although to profane persons this method of forming woman may seem ridiculous, and some of these may say that Moses is dealing in fables, yet to us the wonderful providence of God here shines forth; for, to the end that the conjunction of the human race might be the more sacred he purposed that both males and females should spring from one and the same origin. Therefore he created human nature in the person of Adam, and thence formed Eve, that the woman should be only a portion of the whole human race. This is the import of the words of Moses which we have had before, (Gen 1:28,) "God created man ... he made them male and female." In this manner Adam was taught to recognize himself in his wife, as in a mirror; and Eve, in her turn, to submit herself willingly to her husband, as being taken out of him. But if the two sexes had proceeded from different sources, there would have been occasion either of mutual contempt, or envy, or contentions. And against what do perverse men here object? 'The narration does not seem credible, since it is at variance with custom.' As if, indeed, such an objection would have more color than one raised against the usual mode of the production of mankind, if the latter were not known by use and experience.[47] But they object that either the rib which was taken from Adam had been superfluous, or that his body had been mutilated by the absence of the rib. To either of these it may be answered, that they find out a great absurdity. If, however, we should say that the rib out of which he would form another body had been prepared previously by the Creator of the world, I find nothing in this answer which is not in accordance with Divine Providence. Yet I am more in favor of a different conjecture, namely, that something was taken from Adam, in order that he might embrace, with greater benevolence, a part of himself. He lost, therefore, one of his ribs; but, instead of it, a far richer reward was granted him, since he obtained a faithful associate of life; for he now saw himself, who had before been imperfect, rendered complete in his wife.[48] And in this we see a true resemblance of our union with the Son of God; for he became weak that he might have members of his body endued with strength. In the meantime, it is to be noted, that Adam had been plunged in a sleep so profound, that he felt no pain; and further, that neither had the rupture been violent, nor was any want perceived of the lost rib, because God so filled up the vacuity with flesh, that his strength remained unimpaired; only the hardness of bone was removed. Moses also designedly used the word built,[49] to teach us that in the person of the woman the human race was at length complete, which had before been like a building just begun. Others refer the expression to the domestic economy, as if Moses would say that legitimate family order was then instituted, which does not differ widely from the former exposition.

Gen 2:22. And brought her, etc. Moses now relates that marriage was divinely instituted, which is especially useful to be known; for since Adam did not take a wife to himself at his own will, but received her as offered and appropriated to him by God, the sanctity of marriage hence more clearly appears, because we recognize God as its Author. The more Satan has endeavored to dishonor marriage, the more should we vindicate it from all reproach and abuse, that it may receive its due reverence. Thence it will follow that the children of God may embrace a conjugal life with a good and tranquil conscience, and husbands and wives may live together in chastity and honor. The artifice of Satan in attempting the defamation of marriage was twofold: first, that by means of the odium attached to it he might introduce the pestilential law of celibacy; and, secondly, that married persons might indulge themselves in whatever license they pleased. Therefore, by showing the dignity of marriage, we must remove superstition, lest it should in the slightest degree hinder the faithful from chastely using the lawful and pure ordinance of God; and further, we must oppose the lasciviousness of the flesh, in order that men may live modestly with their wives. But if no other reason influenced us, yet this alone ought to be abundantly sufficient, that unless we think and speak honorably of marriage, reproach is attached to its Author and Patron, for such God is here described as being by Moses.

Matthew Poole:

Gen 2:21. 1. God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, that he, who was without sin, might feel no pain in the taking away of his rib. And in this sleep some think Adam was in an ecstasy, wherein he saw what was done, together with the reason and mystery of it.

2. He took one of his ribs, together with the flesh upon it, Gen 2:23; or, one of his sides, for the Hebrew word signifieth a side as well as a rib, which may be taken synecdochically, for a part of one of his sides, viz. a rib and the flesh upon it; or, for one part out of each of his sides; as if the two ribs clothed with flesh were taken out of the man, because he saith, Gen 2:23, This is bone of my bones, not, of my bone. The woman was taken out of this part, not out of the higher or lower parts, to show that she is neither to be her husband's mistress, to usurp authority over him, 1 Tim 2:12; nor yet to be his slave, to be abused, despised, or trampled under his feet; but to be kindly treated, and used like a companion, with moderation, respect, and affection. Question. How could a rib be taken from Adam, but it must be either superfluous in Adam, while it was in him, or defective afterwards, both which reflect upon the Creator? Answer 1. It was no superfluity, but a conveniency, if Adam had at first one rib extraordinary put into him for this purpose. 2. If Adam lost a rib upon so glorious an occasion, it was but a scar or badge of honour, and no disparagement either to him or to his Creator. 3. Either God created him a new rib, or hardened the flesh to the nature and use of a rib, and so there was no defect in him.

William Gouge:

Of All That are Inferiors, the Wife Comes Nearest to a Parity

The reason whereof seems to be that small inequality which is between the husband and the wife: for of all degrees wherein there is any difference between person and person, there is the least disparity between man and wife. Though the man be as the head, yet is the woman as the heart, which is the most excellent part of the body next the head, far more excellent than any other member under the head, and almost equal to the head in many respects, and as necessary as the head. As an evidence, that a wife is to man as the heart to the head, she was at her first creation [Gen 2:21] taken out of the side of man where his heart lies; and though the woman was at first of the man [1 Cor 11:12] created out of his side, yet is the man also by the woman. Ever since the first creation man has been born and brought forth out of the woman's womb: so as neither the man is without the woman, nor the woman without the man: yea, as the wife has not power of her own body, but the husband, so the husband has not power of his own body, but the wife. [1 Cor 7:4] They are also heirs together of the grace of life. [1 Pet 3:7] Besides, wives are mothers of the same children, whereof their husbands are fathers (for God said to both, multiply and increase) [Gen 1:28]) and mistresses of the same servants whereof they are masters (for Sarah is called mistress [Gen 16:4]) and in many other respects there is common equity between husbands and wives; whence many wives gather that in all things there ought to be a mutual equality.

Thomas Boston:

2. The woman's body was formed of the man's, Gen 2:21-22, of a rib of the man's side; but not a bare rib, but flesh on it, Gen 2:23, which was taken out of his side while he was in a deep sleep, into which God cast him; so that he felt no pain. And it is not improbable that, in that deep sleep, God revealed to him what he himself afterwards declares concerning Eve, and marriage in general, Gen 2:23-24 Whether Adam had more ribs than other men, is not determined. If he had, it was not superfluous to him as the origin of mankind, though it might be as a private person; and therefore Eve being made of it, there was no more use for it. If he had not more ribs than other men, yet he sustained no loss thereby, which was otherwise made up, Gen 2:21, either by a new rib, or hardening the flesh to the use of a rib. In this, the wisdom of God doth illustriously appear.

(1.) The woman's body was made of nobler matter than the man's, to be some ballast to the man's excellency in respect of his sex, that he might not despise but honour her. The word rendered made, Gen 2:22, is in the Hebrew built. He made the man, but he built the woman, as a stately palace, or house, where all mankind draw their first breath.

(2.) It was made of the man's body, to teach men to love their wives as their own flesh.

(3.) It was not made out of man's head, to shew her that she is not to be her husband's mistress, nor usurp authority over him, 1 Tim 2:12; nor out of his feet, to shew him that she is not to be his slave, to be trampled on by him; but out of his side, near his heart, to shew him that she must be treated as his companion, loved, nourished, and cherished by him.

(4.) Lastly, The mystery of the church drawing her life out of Christ's sleeping the sleep of death on the cross, Eph 5, seems to have been here intended and shadowed forth.

The bodies of both our first parents were far more beautiful, handsome, and graceful than our bodies are now. We are begot of men, but they were the immediate workmanship of God. The author being more excellent, the workmanship must be so too. And so Adam signifies to be ruddy, and to shine, Lam 4:7. So that to Eve in particular may justly be applied the following lines of a celebrated poet:

A woman loveliest of the lovely kind,

In body perfect, and complete in mind.

Benjamin M. Palmer:

Such, then, is the broad doctrine of the husband's supremacy grounded in love. It receives additional emphasis from the two-fold argument by which the Apostle enforces it upon the conscience. The first is the consideration of the wife's identity with her husband. The allusion, of course, is to the mystery of the woman's original derivation from the body of the man. She is, therefore, his other self. "And He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man. 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." Gen 2:21-23. Though now existing apart from him, with a personality of her own, she is restored by marriage to a mystical reunion with him. The rib, which was taken out of his side, is replaced by the living form which is the complement of himself, so that he "who loveth his wife loveth himself." And as "no man ever hated his own flesh," so in "nourishing and cherishing her," he simply "loves his own body." There is a depth of tenderness in this, which just floods the heart with soft and blessed sympathies. It is love itself which puts the crown of headship upon man; who, in the splendour of this majesty, folds within himself the gentle counterpart of his own being, who wreathes the garland around his brow. She is henceforth one with him in a mystical unity, holier and closer than that which was broken when the flesh was closed over the cleft in his side.

Fisher's Catechism:

Q. 10.8. How was the first woman formed?

A. Of a rib taken from the man's side, Gen 2:21-22.

Q. 10.9. Of what was this a figure?

A. Of Christ and the church, Eph 5:31-32.

Q. 10.10. In what respect was the formation of the woman a figure of these?

A. In as much as the church was, as it were, taken out of the pierced side of Christ, when the Lord God caused the deep sleep of death to fall upon him; first, typically, in the sacrifice; and then actually, in his decease which he accomplished at Jerusalem.

Q. 10.11. Why was marriage instituted of God before the fall?

A. To show that it belongs to the law of nature; and that mankind, as such, have a title to it. Heb 13:4, "Marriage is honourable in all."

Adam Clarke:

Verse 21. The Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, &c.] This was neither swoon nor ecstasy, but what our translation very properly terms a deep sleep.

And he took one of his ribs] It is immaterial whether we render [lx tsela a rib, or a part of his side, for it may mean either: some part of man was to be used on the occasion, whether bone or flesh it matters not; though it is likely, from verse ver. 23, that a part of both was taken; for Adam, knowing how the woman was formed, said, This is flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bone. God could have formed the woman out of the dust of the earth, as he had formed the man; but had he done so, she must have appeared in his eyes as a distinct being, to whom he had no natural relation. But as God formed her out of a part of the man himself, he saw she was of the same nature, the same identical flesh and blood, and of the same constitution in all respects, and consequently having equal powers, faculties, and rights. This at once ensured his affection, and excited his esteem.

Jamieson, Fausset and David Brown:

21. took one of his ribs--"She was not made out of his head to surpass him, nor from his feet to be trampled on, but from his side to be equal to him, and near his heart to be dear to him."

[Edited on 7-28-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Matthew Henry's comment, poetically expressed, is the standard Protestant interpretation of the significance of Gen. 2.21ff, in which the intimate connection between the creation of woman and the institution and purpose of marriage is bound together.

Thanks Andrew. I do not question the standard Protestant interpretation of the significance of Genesis 2:21. I wonder what sort of literary freedom can be expressed by these commentators when it comes to the significance God using a rib over another part of the body. I mean we just don't know if God meant all of what MH said about the significance of the rib over the foot - or do we?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Matthew Henry's comment, poetically expressed, is the standard Protestant interpretation of the significance of Gen. 2.21ff, in which the intimate connection between the creation of woman and the institution and purpose of marriage is bound together.

Thanks Andrew. I do not question the standard Protestant interpretation of the significance of Genesis 2:21. I wonder what sort of literary freedom can be expressed by these commentators when it comes to the significance God using a rib over another part of the body. I mean we just don't know if God meant all of what MH said about the significance of the rib over the foot - or do we?

Biblical expositors are to guide us (Acts 8.30-31) and give us the sense of Scripture (Nehemiah 8.8), to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim. 2.15), to make inferences and applications that are warranted by the whole counsel of God (Acts 20.27) and grounded therein. I think that Henry, et al. have done that with this passage.

[Edited on 7-28-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[MW]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Biblical expositors are to guide us (Acts 8.30-31) and give us the sense of Scripture (Nehemiah 8.8), to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim. 2.15), to make inferences and applications that are warranted by the whole counsel of God (Acts 20.27) and grounded therein. I think that Henry, et al. have done that with this passage.

That is very true. The sense is what counts. It is the mind of the Spirit that an interpreter should convey.