“Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.”
Eccl. 7:29
“And God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…’ So God created man in his own image… And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.”
Gen. 1:26-27, 31
.
.
Subsections
Image of God
Internal Relations of Adam’s Soul in Original Righteousness
Covenant of Works
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 6+
Quotes 2
Historical 2
Innate Original Righteousness 4
Could Adam Believe in Christ 3
Adam would Not have Died 3
Whether Adam ate Meat 6+
Could God let Adam Suffer?
Latin 4
.
Articles
1500’s
Calvin, John – 15. ‘State in which man was created. The faculties of the Soul—The Image of God—Free Will—Original Righteousness’ in Institutes of the Christian Religion tr. Henry Beveridge (1559; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), vol. 1, bk. 1, pp. 214-30
Beza, Theodore – A Brief & Pithy Sum of the Christian Faith made in Form of a Confession (London, 1565), Ch. 3
7. Why it was necessary that the first man should be created good and pure
9. How God has created men good
Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (d. 1571; London: Veale, 1573), The Exposition of the Preface of the Law
Zanchi, Girolamo – ch. 5, ’Of the Creation of the World, of Angels & of Man’s First Estate’ in Confession of the Christian Religion… (1586; Cambridge, 1599), pp. 21-26
Junius, Francis – pp. 149-50 of A Discussion on the Subject of Predestination between James Arminius & Francis Arminius in The Works of James Arminius… trans. Nichols & Bagnall (Auburn: Derby & Miller, 1853), vol. 3
.
1600’s
Perkins, William – 9. Of Man & the Estate of Innocency in A Golden Chain (Cambridge: Legat, 1600)
Bucanus, William – Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606)
10. ‘Of Original Righteousness’, pp. 104-6
What doctrine has affinity with the former touching the image of God?
Was the first man created of God in original righteousness?
Whether, if man had stood in his original righteousness, should he have had need of Christ the Mediator?
That same original righteousness wherein Adam was created, was it a substance or an accident?
What then was that original righteousness?
Why is it called original?
Now say that Adam had stood in that original righteousness, should it have been derived to all his posterity?
Whether should the grace of Christ have ensued that original righteousness?
Should they have been so confirmed in grace, as that they could sin no more?
What is the use of this doctrine?
What makes against this doctrine of original justice?
11. ‘Of Man’s Free Will before the Fall’ in Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606), pp. 106-12
Is the word ‘free-will’ found in the Scriptures?
What are we to understand by this word ‘free-will’?
To what things is free-will attributed in the Scriptures?
What and of what kind is free-will which is attributed to God, spirits and man?
How do you prove this latter?
How far forth did the powers of free-will extend themselves in Adam before the Fall?
Did Adam besides these sound faculties stand in need of God’s grace?
But what kind of grace was that?
Why did God make Adam mutable, and not rather such a one who neither could nor would ever sin?
Ought the first man therefore to be excused from sin, and God to be accused?
What is the use of this doctrine?
Did God give Adam a mortal or an immortal body?
How came it to pass that it was mortal, and how that it was immortal?
Whether could he either be oppressed by external force, or die for famine or thirst, or be extinguished by diseases, or at length wear away with old age?
Did then the Tree of Life avail anything to the retaining of that immortality?
But how did it avail?
Whether beside the fruit of that Tree of Life, had Adam need of meats for the preservation of his life?
What then should have become of man in the conclusion if he had not sinned, should he have ever lived upon earth?
What things be contrary to this doctrine?
Wolleb, Johannes – 8. ‘God’s Rule over Men in the State of Innocence’ in Abridgment of Christian Divinity (1626) in ed. John Beardslee, Reformed Dogmatics: J. Wollebius, G. Voetius & F. Turretin (Oxford Univ. Press, 1965), bk. 1, pp. 64-66
Wolleb (1589–1629) was a Swiss reformed theologian. He was a student of Amandus Polanus.
Rutherford, Samuel – ch. 5, ‘On the State of the First Man’ in Examination of Arminianism tr. by AI by Monergism (1639-1642; Utrecht, 1668; 2024), pp. 286-99
1. Whether original righteousness was natural to unfallen man, or supernatural? We affirm the former; we deny the latter against the Remonstrants.
2. Whether God is made the author of the first sin if man sinned for this reason, because God, without regard to his fault, denied him grace necessary to escape the first sin? We deny against the Remonstrants.
3. Whether the first sin freed Adam from any covenant? We deny against the Arminians.
4. Whether sinful concupiscence is a negative entity or positive quality? We distinguish.
5. Whether in unfallen Adam there was the power of believing in Christ? We affirm with a distinction against the Arminians.
6. Whether the image of God in Adam was original righteousness and habitual holiness, or rather a bare free will of obeying God? We affirm the former; we deny the latter against the Remonstrants.
7. Whether Adam was created mortal? We distinguish.
Turretin, Francis – 9. ‘Was man created in puris naturalibus, or could he have been so created? We deny against the Pelagians and Scholastics.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1
5th Topic
11. ‘Was original righteousness natural or supernatural? The former we affirm, the latter we deny against the Romanists.’ 470
12. ‘Did the first man before his fall possess immortality, or was he mortal in nature and condition? The former we affirm; the latter we deny against the Socinians.’ 473
8th Topic
1. ‘What was the liberty of Adam in his state of innocence?’ 569
2. ‘Did Adam have the power to believe in Christ?’ 571
5. ‘Why was it called the tree of life?’ 580
7. ‘Does the earthly paradise still exist? We deny.’ 586
.
1700’s
Venema, Herman – 23. Man in Innocence in Translation of Hermann Venema’s inedited Institutes of Theology tr. Alexander W. Brown (d. 1787; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1850), pp. 384-95
ToC: His Moral Condition, Upright Proved by Scripture & Reason, Happy, Immortal, Dominion over Creatures, Names of this Condition, Image of God, in What Consists, Opinions, Anthropomorphites, Early Fathers, Socinians, Papists
Venema (1697-1787) was a professor at Franeker. Venema “maintained the fundamental line of confessional orthodoxy without drawing heavily on any of the newer philosophies… and maintained a fairly centrist Reformed position. Venema… evidence[s] the inroads of a rationalistic model…” – Richard Muller
.
Quotes
1600’s
Andreas Essenius
‘Theological Disputation on the Image of God in Man’ Download tr. Jonathan Tomes (Utrecht: Johannes Waesberg, 1653) Latin
“V… But as a supernatural good, spiritual and religious, man knew God, His revealed will, and found his supreme happiness therein with perfect accuracy. He was also endowed with an excellent knowledge of other things, as evidenced by the accurate naming of creatures according to their natures (Genesis 2:19-20) and the instantaneous recognition of his spouse, which amply confirmed this (Genesis 2:23). [Faustus] Socinus, then, must be considered utterly foolish for attributing brutish stupidity to such an excellent man…
From this habitual righteousness, like a fountain, actual holiness arose in the lower faculties and the entire composite. The harmony (συμμετρία) of the sensitive appetite, both in desire (ἐπιθυμία) and passion (πάθος), was conformed to the superior faculties and right reason. This assembly of habits (commonly called Original Righteousness) constituted this image of God, particularly as its highest point (καρυφαῖον)…”
.
Manton, Bates, Case, Baxter, Fairclough, et al.
The Judgment of Non-Conformists of the Interest of Reason in Matters of Religion in which it is Proved against Make-Baits that both Conformists & Non-Conformists, & All Parties of true Protestants are herein really agreed, though unskilful speakers differ in words (London: 1676), p. 8 This was signed by 15 non-conformist English puritans.
“6. The reason or intellect of man in Innocency was apt to understand both the natural and supernatural manifestations of God’s governing will, and so to be actively religious and to increase herein by exercise and divine help.”
.
Historical Theology
On the Post-Reformation
Article
Muller, Richard – ‘status purorum naturalium’ in Dictionary of Latin & Greek Theological Terms… (Baker, 1985), p. 289
Here Muller does not address so precisely what Junius does above, but rather the late medieval, Franciscan concept that mankind was created in a purely natural state and was able, by their purely natural abilities (ex puris naturalibus) to congruently merit sanctifying grace. The reformed scholastics denied this and that man was ever in such an estate of pure nature. They often denied that man being created in such a state was even possible.
.
On the 1800’s
Cangelosi, Caleb – “How Free was Adam’s Will? Examining John Lafayette Girardeau’s Critique of Jonathan Edwards’ View of Adam’s Will Before the Fall” in The Confessional Presbyterian #11 (2015) pp. 112-20
.
Adam had Concreated (Innate) Original Righteousness Rather than it being Purely a Superadded Gift, per Romanists
Articles
1500’s
Junius – True Theology
.
1600’s
Le Blanc de Beaulieu, Louis – Theological Theses Published at Various Times in the Academy of Sedan 3rd ed. tr. by AI by Colloquia Scholastica (1675; London, 1683) Latin
‘On the immortality of the first man’ 546-51
“XXIII. However, they insist that the immortality which befitted man in his original integrity should rather be called natural than supernatural, and indeed that the first man was in some sense naturally immortal…
…
XXVII. Nor do the theologians of the Roman School, as we have shown above, deny that the immortality which belonged to the first man before sin can in some respect and sense be called natural, namely, in so far as natural signifies what is inherent from the first origin and not adventitious and superadded. Also, in so far as natural is opposed to what is contrary to nature and signifies what adorns and perfects the same nature.
XXVIII. The only remaining question is whether this immortality should be called natural or supernatural with respect to integral man, speaking simply. Protestants affirm this, while the Doctors of the Roman School deny it.”
‘On the righteousness of the first man: whether it was natural or supernatural’ 551-65
“XXIV. As for the Protestants, and those who among them are called Reformed by a special name, they also, by common consent, teach that God created man in true righteousness and holiness: according to Ecclesiastes, God made man upright. For that rectitude could consist in nothing else but conformity with the will and law of God, in which man’s righteousness consists. They also think that Paul alludes to this when he exhorts the faithful to put on the new man, who was created according to God in justice and holiness of truth. Where it is manifest that he alludes to the first creation, in which man is said to be created in the image and likeness of God; to which, in his view, belongs that holiness and justice which Christ works in the faithful by His Spirit.
XXV. However, they do not place that holiness and justice in which the first man was created by God solely in the fact that he acknowledged God as his Creator, as was fitting, and adhered to Him with pure and sincere love, but also in the fact that all his faculties were so well constituted and ordered that the lower faculties obeyed the higher, and the higher obeyed God without difficulty and resistance; nor was there any inclination to evil or difficulty and resistance in doing good, such as is now found in all and each individual. Therefore, according to their opinion, in the newly created man, there was nothing disordered or immoderate. Nor did any struggle or conflict of his faculties among themselves have a place in him: but all his faculties, in the highest concord and order among themselves, conspired to the same end, namely that to which he was created by God, the author of nature.
XXVI. Moreover, they contend that this righteousness was natural to the first man before the fall and should be called so. Not because it constituted part of the essence of human nature, or because it necessarily flowed from the principles of human nature: but because it was something created with nature and belonging to the innate endowments of human nature not yet fallen… Therefore, according to their doctrine, that original righteousness was a natural gift, not a supernatural one. And it related to the soul of integral man in the same way that the just proportion and beauty of the members, vigor, and decor related to his body, which were found in him then and which regarded a certain natural, not supernatural, perfection of man: although they were not of the essence of man, nor did they necessarily flow from the principles of human nature.
…
XLV. Furthermore, as can be inferred from what has been said, many in the Roman Church concede to the Reformed that original justice, whatever it should be called, whether natural or supernatural, was a perfection so owed to innocent man that, consistent with divine wisdom and goodness, he could not have been created without it: and therefore the state of man in pure natural things, as described by the common view of the Roman School, and in which it is supposed that man was not a sinner but devoid of justice, prone to vice, and struggling with concupiscence against right reason, is something merely fictitious; and which the goodness, justice, and wisdom of God in the nature of things never allowed to exist.
XLVI. Conversely, the Protestant Doctors concede to the Roman School that original justice was not natural to the first man, in the sense that natural signifies what constitutes nature or what necessarily, or in a physical manner, flows from the principles of human nature. Moreover, many Doctors of the Reformed School do not deny that the first man had certain supernatural gifts: and that some grace was necessary for man, even when innocent, to act rightly and justly. Indeed, some of them acknowledge that original righteousness did not flow from the powers of nature [in some respect].
…
LVII. However, this does not contradict what many Reformed distinctly teach, namely that there were some supernatural gifts in the first man. For God could add whatever He pleased above nature’s original endowments and the aids necessary for it; but what and how much that was, we do not dare, in the absence of Scripture, to define. However, it is certain from Scripture that there was some supernatural knowledge in the first man: since God revealed Himself to him above nature and taught him His will by express word.”
Le Blanc (1614-1675) was a French reformed professor of theology at Sedan.
Turretin, Francis – q. 11. ‘Was original righteousness natural or supernatural? The former we affirm, the latter we deny against the Romanists.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1, 5th Topic, pp. 470-73
.
Quote
1600’s
Andreas Essenius
‘Theological Disputation on the Image of God in Man’ Download tr. Jonathan Tomes (Utrecht: Johannes Waesberg, 1653) Latin
“V. Next, we must examine those aspects that primarily and chiefly pertain here (πρώτως καὶ κυρίως, “primarily and chiefly”): namely, the infused and inherent habits (habitus infusi & concreati), for considering only acquired habits, as the Socinians and Remonstrants do, is sheer nonsense. These habits perfected and adorned these faculties excellently, such as the clarity and rectitude of the mind, not only regarding that innate (ὑπάρχον) aspect of the divine (τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ), whether it is innate through common notions (κοιναὶ ἐννοίαι) and the subjective light of the mind, or acquired through the objective light of being, as Socinus vainly objects (Romans 1; Isaiah 40; Psalm 19; Acts 14; Romans 2).
But as a supernatural good, spiritual and religious, man knew God, His revealed will, and found his supreme happiness therein with perfect accuracy…
We do not, however, regard this Original Righteousness as something substantial, as Osiander does, nor do we consider it a supernatural addition extrinsically added to the first nature in its pure natural state, as the Roman Catholics do. Instead, we deem it natural or connatural; otherwise, God would have commanded man to fulfill His law by his own strength in vain.
This is further confirmed by the fact that, as it was to be propagated because it was natural, so reciprocally it was to be propagated by divine grace (Genesis 1:28, 1 Corinthians 15:48). What pertains to the supernatural, as such, cannot be sought in vain. However, we can easily accept calling it supernatural insofar as it did not flow from the essential principles of human nature but was infused by the grace of God as a moral good.”
.
Did Adam in Original Integrity have the Power to Believe in Christ? Yes
This question was originally proposed by Arminians with a negative answer in order to support certain tenets of Arminianism. Thus the Reformed consequently gave the right answer to it.
.
Article
1600’s
Rutherford – Covenant of Life Opened
Turretin, Francis – q. 2. ‘Did Adam have the power to believe in Christ? [Yes]’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1, 8th Topic, pp. 571-
.
Quote
1600’s
Andreas Essenius
‘Theological Disputation on the Image of God in Man’ Download tr. Jonathan Tomes (Utrecht: Johannes Waesberg, 1653) Latin
“V… This naturally raises the question: Did the first man have the potential to believe in Christ? The answer, affirming against Socinians and Remonstrants, is yes.
His mind was adorned with clarity, and his will with sanctity, which could have produced faith in Christ if Christ had been revealed to him as an object, which was possible. Even Adam’s faith in God did not differ essentially from ours but only in its special object; this difference does not alter the nature of faith but confirms it, much like certain precepts of the law aligned with the Gospel in their broader sense.
An objection arises: Could Adam have believed in Christ at some point, which seems absurd? The response distinguishes between potential as cause and potential as effect. In the former, considered in a divided sense regarding the simultaneity of potentials, he could have; but in the latter, in a composed sense regarding the simultaneity of action (κρινόμενον), he could not have immediately believed that Christ’s righteousness would be imputed to him because his state and its economy (οἰκονομία) did not allow it. This follows no more than arguing from God’s absolute potential to its actual exercise under His decree.
Thus, from these considerations, we conclude that faith in Christ could justly be demanded from us under the first covenant [i.e. of Works], even though we are utterly powerless. Furthermore, in his will, a second kind of soul’s life shone without blemish, more admirable than any star. The will could righteously bear whatever the divinely illuminated practical intellect had judged and approved, and thus we consider that the free will of that state must be regarded in the moral sense.”
.
Adam would Not have Died Apart from Sin
This question arose in the Post-Reformation as Anabaptists and Socinians held death to be purely natural, holding that Adam would have died even without sinning. This erroneous view had proponents in the early and Medieval Church was well.
.
Articles
1600’s
Le Blanc de Beaulieu, Louis – ‘On the immortality of the first man’ in Theological Theses Published at Various Times in the Academy of Sedan 3rd ed. tr. by AI by Colloquia Scholastica (1675; London, 1683), pp. 546-51 Latin
Le Blanc (1614-1675) was a French reformed professor of theology at Sedan.
Turretin, Francis – q. 12. ‘Did the first man before his fall possess immortality, or was he mortal in nature and condition? The former we affirm; the latter we deny against the Socinians.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1, 5th Topic, p. 473 ff.
.
Quote
1600’s
Andreas Essenius
‘Theological Disputation on the Image of God in Man’ Download tr. Jonathan Tomes (Utrecht: Johannes Waesberg, 1653) Latin
“VII… By immortality, I refer not to the immortality of the soul by creation strictly (as discussed in Thesis IV) but to the immortality of the whole composite [of man] by grace. It is not that death was impossible in the absolute sense (since it consisted of separable parts, including the corruptible body, with mutually opposing qualities), but as long as man persisted in that state under the covenant, he would never have died. This argument is against the Pelagians, Photinians, Socinians, and Anabaptists, and is supported by:
1. The first covenant and agreement (Leviticus 18:5, Romans 10:5, 11).
2. The sacrament and the tree of life (Genesis 2:9 compared with Genesis 3:22). The tree did not contain such a great power physically within itself, but it served as a pledge and sacrament, ensuring that his life would be happily continued until, by God’s grace, he would have reached complete blessedness in heaven after a most felicitous transition through death.
3. Death, originally threatened as a penalty in the event of sin (Genesis 2:17), only entered the world when sin became an actual reality; hence, death would not have had any place in that state. With sin excluded, all guilt, penalty, and consequent punishment were also excluded. This is clearly evident from Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:22, James 1:15, Romans 6:23, and Genesis 2:17, which align with the Hebrew saying: אין מיתה בלא חטא (“there is no death without sin”).”
.
Whether Men were Allowed to Eat Animals before the Flood and/or Fall
For the most detailed argument that eating flesh was not allowed before the Fall, but was after the Fall, before the Flood and Gen. 9, see Willet. See Heidegger for the strongest argument (the Hebrew syntax of Gen. 1:30) for humans being allowed to eat animals before the Fall.
.
Quotes
Order of
Calvin
Pareus
Willet
Mayer
Diodati
Voet
Poole
Heidegger
Gill
.
1500’s
John Calvin
Commentary on Gen. 1, verse 28
“Some infer from this passage that men were content with herbs and fruits until the deluge, and that it was even unlawful for them to eat flesh. And this seems the more probable, because God confines, in some way, the food of mankind within certain limits. Then after the deluge [Gen. 9], He expressly grants them the use of flesh.
These reasons, however are not sufficiently strong: for it may be adduced on the opposite side, that the first men offered sacrifices from their flocks [Gen. 4]. This, moreover, is the law of sacrificing rightly, not to offer unto God anything except what He has granted to our use. Lastly men were clothed in skins [Gen. 3:21]; therefore it was lawful for them to kill animals. For these reasons, I think it will be better for us to assert nothing concerning this matter.
Let it suffice for us, that herbs and the fruits of trees were given them as their common food; yet it is not to be doubted that this was abundantly sufficient for their highest gratification. For they judge prudently who maintain that the earth was so marred by the deluge, that we retain scarcely a moderate portion of the original benediction. Even immediately after the fall of man, it had already begun to bring forth degenerate and noxious fruits, but at the deluge, the change became still greater.
Yet, however this may be, God certainly did not intend that man should be slenderly and sparingly sustained; but rather, by these words, He promises a liberal abundance, which should leave nothing wanting to a sweet and pleasant life. For Moses relates how beneficent the Lord had been to them, in bestowing on them all things which they could desire, that their ingratitude might have the less excuse.”
.
1600’s
David Pareus
Disputation Three, on the Creation of the Works of the Fourth, Fifth & Sixth Day, out of Gen. 1 (Heidelberg: Lancellot, 1600), p. 24
“144. Whether the flesh of it [an animal] was received by men [for food] before the Flood? The affirming judgment does not seem improbable.”
.
Andrew Willet
A Sixfold Commentary upon the Two first Books of Moses, being Genesis… (d. 1621; 1633), ch. 1, question 35, ‘Whether the flesh of beasts were eaten before the flood’, pp. 14-15
“LIkewise we refuse the opinion of Beda, that neither man nor beast did eat of any flesh, but only of the fruits of the earth before the Flood: neither do we allow the judgment of Thomas Aquinas, who thinks that the beasts which are now devourers of flesh, should have used that kind of food in the state of man’s innocency. [Summa] pt. 1, question 96, art. 1.
The latter opinion we reject, because if man had not transgressed, there should have been no death in the world, Rom. 5:12, ‘Sin entred into the world by one man, and death by sin:’ if there should have beene no death in the world, because no sin, I see not how death should have entered upon other creatures, especially this violent death by slaughter: as the Apostle also says, Rom. 8:22, that every creature groans with us, and travails in pain together to this present: so that this bondage of pain and corruption, which makes man and beast groan together, was laid upon them together.
Neither do I see how Basil’s opinion can stand, homily 11 on Genesis, that man in his innocency, though he should not have used the beasts for food, yet might have slain them, to take knowledge of their inward parts, and to help his experience that ways: or it should have been lawful unto him to kill them in hunting for his delight, as Pererius thinks, bk. 4 on Genesis, p. 663; for this slaughter and killing of beasts, upon what occasion soever, whether for food, for knowledge or pleasure, belongs unto the bondage of corruption, which by sin was brought into the world.
The other opinion seems probable, especially because of these two places of Scripture:
First, for that the beasts and fowls lived in the ark, not of flesh, but of other food than usual, as Noah is bidden to take of all meat that was eaten, Gen. 6:21, for there being only one couple of unclean beasts, and seven couple of clean preserved in the ark: out of these there could not be food of flesh sufficient for the rest: and after the cattle went out of the ark, there was no other food for them, all flesh being destroyed, but only by the fruits of the earth.
Secondly, the first permission to eat flesh that we read of was after the flood, Gen. 9:3. Everything that moves and liveth shall be meat for you as the greene herb.
But these objections may be easily answered. To the first we answer:
1. That the beasts which did devour flesh, did also feed of herbs: and so Noah might provide for them according to their eating: Though they did use altogether to live of flesh, yet I think that for that present time, and some while after, all beasts might return to the first food appointed in the creation, this being a second creation and renewing of the world; so that upon this extraordinary occasion and urgent necessity, it cannot be gathered what was the ordinary food of beasts before, no more than it can be inferred, that because beasts of contrary natures, as the lion and calf, bear and cow, wolf and lamb, leopard and kid, did lie together, Isa. 11:6, that there was no enmity between them before.
To the second place:
Our answer is that there that liberty is only renewed, as is the blessing to increase and multiply, verse 1, and the prohibition of shedding mans blood: verse 5, at the hands of a man’s brother will I require the life of man: for before the Flood, the blood of Abel was required at the hands of his brother Cain.
Notwithstanding therefore these objections, I think it more probable that both man and beast after the transgression, before the Flood, did use indifferently both the fruits of the earth and the flesh of beasts for food: the grounds of this opinion are these:
1. That one beast did not raven upon another in the state of man’s innocency, two principal reasons may be given: one, because as yet no death was entered into the world; the other, for that man bearing perfect rule and dominion over the creatures, did keep them in order: but after man’s fall, both these causes were taken away; for not only death entred upon man, but the other creatures were brought into the same bondage, and were killed for sacrifice: as Abel offered of the fat of the sheep, Gen. 4:3; if it were lawfull then to slay beasts, why not to eat of their flesh?
And againe, man having lost his soveraignty over the creatures, they then began one to rage upon another, as not standing now in the like awe and fear of man as before: this cause is touched by the prophet, Habakkuk 1:14, ‘Thou makest man as the fishes of the sea, and as the creeping things that have no rule over them:’ that is, which do one consume and devour another, because they have no governor: this rule the beasts, fishes and fowls had shaken off immediately upon man’s Fall, and not only after the Flood.
2. Seeing in the old world two great sins abounded, carnal lust, and concupiscence, Gen. 6:2, and tyranny and oppression: verse 4, there were giants or tyrants in the earth: and tyranny and oppression brought forth bloodshed; for which cause the prohibition of shedding of man’s blood is so straightly forbidden after the flood, that God will require it at the hands of every beast, and of a man’s brother, Gen. 9:5. How is it like, that they would abstain from killing of beasts, that spared not to spill the blood of men? or from eating of flesh, which is more apt to provoke unto lust than the simple fruits of the earth?
3. If the flesh of beasts was not eaten before the Flood, what then became of the increase of cattle? How was not the earth overrun with them? This reason was given, why the Lord would not at once but by little and little destroy the Canaanites before the Israelites, lest the beasts of the field should increase upon them, Dt. 7:22, because they both helped to destroy the cruel beasts, and did eat the unclean, as swine and such other, both which by their multitudes otherwise might have been an annoyance to the Israelites. But greater fear was there of overspreading the earth with increase of beasts before the Flood, if no such provision had been made to diminish their number.
4. But that place most of all confirms our opinion, Gen. 7:2, where mention is made of clean and unclean beasts: which difference was observed before the Flood, and continued by tradition; not in regard only of sacrifice, but also for their eating, as it may appear in the reviving of this law afterward, Lev. 11:47. That there may be difference between the unclean and clean, and between the beast that may be eaten, and the beast that may not be eaten: that then is said by the definition of the law to be a clean beast, that might be eaten, that unclean, that might not be eaten.
So I conclude this question with the sentence of Ambrose, Quico•vivium adornat, etc. ‘He that prepares a feast, does kill his oxen and fat cattle before, and then bids his guests: so the Lord,’ ante homini caeterorum animalium praeparavit epulas, ‘before prepared the meats of other beasts, and then as his friend’ invitavit ad convivium, ‘bid him to the banquet,’ Epistle 37. His opinion is that the cattle were provided of God to be meat for man. Mercerus is of another judgement, that the eating of flesh was generally forborn before the Flood, which is also the opinion of the Hebrews: 1. both because it was necessary for the preservation of the kinds of cattle: 2. as also herbs being then of greater virtue and strength before the Flood and after, might suffice for man’s sustenance. Mercer, on Gen. 1:29.
But these reasons conclude not.
1. Like as after the Flood, when liberty was granted to eat flesh, as the green herb, yet they did forbear for a time, till the breed of cattle was increased, upon the like reason before the Flood, immediately after the creation, they might abstain for a time from the eating of flesh, but not altogether.
2. The great virtue and strength of herbs concludes that the eating of flesh was not so general, or necessary, then as afterward, but the whole abstinence from all kind of eating of flesh, it concludes not.
I rather prefer [Wolfgang] Musculus’s opinion, who upon the sacrificing of beasts and wearing of their skins, infers that beasts were killed before the Flood, and consequently their flesh eaten, in Gen. 1:29.”
.
John Mayer
Mayer, John – A Commentary upon the Whole Old Testament (1627; 1653), on Genesis, ch. 1, pp. 27-28
“But a great question here does justly offer itself, whether man might not eat flesh at the first, but herbs, seeds and fruits only. And because the other creatures are confined to herbs and seeds, whether such of them as live now upon flesh, were otherwise sustained then, as lions, beares, wolves, etc. Touching either of these diverse expositours are of diverse opinions.
Some think that although herbs and seeds and fruits only are named, when man’s food is appointed unto him, yet for so much as flesh is not forbidden, and a dominion over the creatures to use them, as he thought good, was given unto him, he might at his pleasure make food of that also. And they argue from this that sacrifices were to be made of the creatures, some part of which was to be eaten, and likewise that they were to be killed, that they might have their skins for clothing, wherefore it is most probable that they ate their flesh. So that God in appointing these things to be eaten, did but appoint their ordinary food, there being a liberty to use flesh for food also, when man should think good.
But others hold that seeds and herbs and fruits were mans only food till the Flood, because none but these are mentioned and an express allowance is given to eat flesh after the flood, as these things. Thus the Fathers generally, and most new writers of all sorts. And it seems to have been an ancient received opinion, by that which old poets have left written, as Boethius. The former age was content with the faithful fields, and satified their hunger with the acorn, when they had fasted long. And Ovid: Men were content with meat growing without forcing, they gathered the fruits growing in mountainous places and those that grow upon thorns, etc. (bk. 1, Metamor.)
And it stands with good reason that man should feed then only upon such things, they being such as might well suffice nature, and most pleasant at the first, and men’s bodies being strong and healthful, and this was a most simple diet, and so most fit to be appointed at the first to rebuke the luxury of after times. Some also yield this for a reason, that man not being used to the shedding of blood might be better preserved from murder. But this reason is weak, because beasts were killed for sacrifice, and to have their skins for apparel, and therefore Cain, the very first man born into the world, fell into this damnable sin of murder. The reasons before rendered therefore are best, and that the creatures not being killed up at the first, might the better be multiplied upon the earth.
After the flood men’s bodies grew weaker, and it is generally thought that neither herbs nor waters were so wholesome as before, but more corrupt through that deluge, and therefore flesh was now allowed to be eaten; and whereas waters were their only drink before, vines were now planted that they might have wine for their infirmity.
Yet it is not to be doubted but that Noah and his sons did forbear the killing of beasts to eat for a time, that their increase might not be hindered. Calvin thinks it best to suspend and not to determine this question.
Touching beasts, that now live upon flesh, some also think that they did so at the first, because the nature of a creature is always the same, and that when God assigned herbs and seeds for the beasts to feed upon, He meant not all beasts. But this is contrary to the text, speaking of all, wherein was the breath of life, and howsoever creatures never alter from their specifical nature, yet they may alter from their individual [nature], using such food at one time, as they used not at another, as children, who at the first are nourished with milk, and eat no solid meat, yet afterwards they eat it.
Others therefore more probably hold, that even those beasts that since have lived upon flesh, and birds also, lived then all upon seeds and herbs, and that this discord and malignity of nature came upon them afterwards, since the Flood, one bearing a kind of hatred to another and so preying upon it and tearing and eating the flesh thereof. And this opinion has both the present text plainly for it and even at the time of the Flood it must needs be yielded to have been so, because all sorts of creatures earthly living with Noah in the ark, were susteined without eating flesh, for otherwise their number, being so few of each kind taken in, would not have sufficed, see also for this Isa. 11:7 and 65:25.”
.
John Diodati
Pious Annotations upon the Holy Bible (1643), on Gen. 1
“v. 29. ‘Herb’… In this place there is nothing said of the use of the flesh of beasts, as Gen. 9:3, though it is likely that God did then grant it.”
.
Gisbert Voet
Select Theological Disputations, vol. 1 tr. by AI by Onku (Utrecht: Johannes a Waesberg, 1648), pt. 2, ‘On Creation’, pt. 7, ‘On the Work of the 5th Day’, p. 241
“VIII. Whether brute animals were given for food from the first creation of things?
We affirm, against some rabbis who want this to have happened only after the flood of Noah [Gen. 9]; before that time, only vegetables were granted, Gen. 1:29-30. But this savors of that Pythagorean saying in Ovid: ‘What have oxen, an animal without fraud and deceit, deserved?'”
.
Matthew Poole
Commentary on Gen. 1, v. 29
“It is neither affirmed nor denied that flesh also was granted to the first men for food, and therefore we may safely be ignorant of it. It is sufficient for us that it was expressly allowed, Gen. 9:3.”
.
Johann H. Heidegger
Body of Christian Theology tr. by AI by Onku (Zurich: Bodmer, 1700), vol. 1, locus 6, ‘On the Creation of the World’, sect. 117, pp. 235-36
“117. A significant part of that dominion and subjection [Gen. 1:28] is that humans could feed not only on herbs and tree fruits, but also on animals for food. After the Pythagoreans and Hebrews, other ancient and modern Christians considered this unlawful, deceived by παρερμηνείᾳ [a misinterpretation] of Moses’ words, which when correctly explained declare the opposite.
For God speaks thus [Gen. 1:29-30]: “Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of the earth, and every tree which is in it, the fruit of the tree bearing seed shall be yours for food; ולכל חית הארץ [and for all living things of the earth], or together with all animals of the earth, indeed and every bird of יeaven and every creeping thing upon the earth, with every green herb of the earth for food.”
Therefore those words ולכל חית [and for all living things, v. 30] should be rendered as “together with every animal,” not “and every animal of the earth,” as if in what follows the food was determined not for humans but for animals [as in the KJV]. For that preposition ל [le] has an inclusive meaning signifying “together with,” as elsewhere in Dt. 25:5, 2 Sam. 17:16, 2 Chron. 23, Ps. 69:.23. Otherwise, there would be quite a harsh ellipsis of the verb נתתי [I have given], and the word לאכלה [for food] would not depend on any verb; I add that fish should not have been omitted [in v. 30] if the following words defined animal food; and for birds and carnivorous animals, the food ירק עשב [green herbs] does not suit them, but rather suits humans; as also in Gen. 9:4, green herbs are explicitly assigned to humans, not beasts, for food.
Nor is there reason why God would permit animal meat to sinful man but not permit it to the innocent, to whom dominion over animals was undoubtedly granted more freely. For by sinning, man did not make his condition better, but worse.
Nor does it conflict that God announced to fallen man: “You shall eat את עשב השדה [the herbs of the field],” Gen. 3:18, as if no other food was granted to him before the flood; for thus he would have been forbidden tree fruits after the fall as well. God only means that fallen man would no longer eat the fruits of Paradise, but of the earth outside Paradise, and less sweet ones, unless he cultivates the earth with difficulty. Just as if a king would banish someone from his primary table to a common and sordid one; or a father, offended by his son, would feed him the servants’ bread; not that he forbids all other foods, but that he withdraws much from his usual liberality.
Thus in Gen. 3:14, God said to the serpent: “You shall eat dust all the days of your life;” not that it feeds on dust alone, but because crawling on the ground, it cannot help but take in dust with its food. Otherwise, serpents are counted among the omnivores, because they eat both meat and herbs, and are, as Aristotle says in History of Animals, bk. 8:4, ‘the most gluttonous of animals.'”
.
1700’s
John Gill
Exposition of the Bible (d. 1771), on Gen. 1, v. 29
“‘to you it shall be for meat’: which is generally thought to be the food of the antediluvians, it not being proper, at least very soon, to kill any of the animals until they were multiplied and increased, lest their species should be destroyed, though here is no prohibition of eating flesh;
nor is it said that this only should be for meat which is before mentioned; and by the early employment of some in keeping sheep, and by the sacrifice of creatures immediately after the Fall, part of which used to be eaten by the offerers; and by the distinction of clean and unclean creatures before the Flood, it looks probable that flesh might be eaten:
and Bochart refers this clause to what goes before in the preceding verse, as well as to what is in this, and takes the sense to be that the fishes of the sea and fowls of the air, and every living creature man had dominion over, as well as herbs and fruits, were given him for his food: but the Jews are of opinion that the first man might not eat flesh, but it was granted to the sons of Noah.”
.
.
Could God have let Unfallen Adam & Eve Suffer?
Quotes
1600’s
William Twisse
The Doctrine of the Synod of Dort and Arles, Reduced to the Practice… (Amsterdam: Thorp, 1631), pt. 1, 1st section, p. 50
“Yet know and consider that God’s power in thus abandoning all mankind for their sin in Adam is far inferior to that power He showed in cruciating his own Son, his most innocent and holy Son, in making his soul an offering for our sin. And that God has power, not only to annihilate the holiest (which is without all question), but to inflict upon him any pain.
Medina is bold to profess, Ex concordi omnium theologorum sententia [according to the harmonious judgment of all theologians]; And Vasques the Jesuit acknowledges as much, though herein, they say, He should not cary himself as Judex [a Judge], but as Dominus vitae et mortis [the Lord of life and death].”
.
The Riches of God’s Love unto the Vessels of Mercy, consistent with his Absolute Hatred or Reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath… (Oxford: L.L., 1653), pt. 2, 2nd Sort of Arguments, sect. 3, pp. 150-51
“But when I say that God can without respect of sin, inflict any torment upon his creature, this is delivered of power absolute. This power the Lord did execute upon his own Son: for what was his sin?
Was He not the spotless lamb of God? Yet what agonies did He suffer in the garden, what torments and terrors upon the cross, when He cried out ‘My God, my God, Why hast thou forsaken Me?’
But the like power He does not execute on us, only He gives us authority to exercise the like power over other creatures: If the powder of an hare [rabbit] burnt alive in an oven, be found to be wholesome for us, He gives us leave thus to deal with him, and the like: yet have not these creatures sinned either against God, or against us. Of this absolute power of God I have discoursed more sparingly in the place cited by him, bk. 1, pt. 2, De Electione, digression 3.”
.
Latin Articles
1600’s
Alsted, Henry
ch. 11, ‘State of Integrity’ in Distinctions through Universal Theology, taken out of the Canon of the Sacred Letters & Classical Theologians (Frankfurt: 1626), pp. 53-56
ch. 5, ‘On the First Integrity of our Nature’ in Theological Common Places Illustrated by Perpetual Similitudes (Frankfurt, 1630), pp. 34-38
Rutherford, Samuel – ch. 5, ‘On the State of the First Man’ in The Examination of Arminianism ed. Matthew Nethenus (1639-1643; Utrecht, 1668), pp. 297-310
.
1700’s
Vitringa, Sr., Campegius – ‘On the State of Integrity’ in The Doctrine of the Christian Religion, Summarily Described through Aphorisms, vol. 2 (d. 1722; Leiden, 1769), pp. 216-36
.
.
.
Related Pages