Genesis 3
The word serpent appears twenty-four times in twenty-three verses in the Christian Standard Bible (CSB). Ten applications are clear references to Satan (Gen. 3:1, 2, 4, 13, 14; 2 Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9, 14, 15; 20:2). Three times serpent appears in the confrontation between Moses and the magicians of Pharaoh’s court (Exod. 7:9, 10, 12). Three references are to a sea serpent or Leviathan, a mystical deity over which the Lord has absolute power (Job 26:13; Isa. 27:1; Amos 9:3).
Twice, there are mentions of a “flying serpent,” either an analogy of Assyria (Isa. 14:29) or a reference to one of the wild beasts in the Negev (Isa. 30:6). Singular references include: an analogy of an enemy’s wine (“serpent’s venom,” Deut. 32:33); a place (“Serpent’s Well,” Neh. 2:13); predators who lie in wait (Ps. 91:13); animal food in the new creation (“the serpent’s food will be dust!” Isa. 65:25); and Jesus’ instructions to his disciples to take prudent action in light of coming persecution (Matt. 10:16; cf. 21-23).
Old Testament writers use three different Hebrew words translated “serpent” in these passages. The most common is nachash, meaning “serpent” or “snake.” The word even makes a hissing sound when spoken. The word tanniyn (used in Exod. 7; Deut. 32:33; Neh. 2:13; and Ps. 91:13) has a broader application and can mean “serpent, venomous snake,” “sea or river monster,” or “dragon or dinosaur.” The third word, saraph, is used only once (Isa. 30:6) and may be translated “serpent,” “fiery serpent,” or “poisonous serpent.” It’s also the word from which we get seraphim, the six-winged heavenly creatures Isaiah sees above the throne in his vision of God (Isa. 6).
In the CSB New Testament, the Greek word ophis is used more than a dozen times and is translated “snake” or “serpent.” It may refer to an actual snake (Matt. 7:10; John 3:14-15; cf. Num. 21:8-9), or it may be used figuratively to illustrate certain traits or qualities. For example, Jesus calls the scribes and Pharisees “snakes” because of their venomous hypocrisy (Matt. 23:33). After sending his disciples to proclaim the gospel, Jesus tells them to be “as shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves” (Matt. 10:16).
Other references are directed more toward the demonic realm. Believers are promised authority over snakes, demonstrating their power over Satan and his agents (Luke 10:19). And Paul warns the Corinthians that the ancient serpent continues to strike with lethal intent: “But I fear that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your minds may be seduced from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3).
As you can see, the writers of Scripture employ numerous Hebrew and Greek terms to depict a variety of creatures associated with serpents. Andrew Naselli notes that serpent is an umbrella term – a “big category” – that includes both snakes and dragons. Further, he writes that a serpent has two major strategies that become evident in Scripture: to deceive and devour:
As a general rule, the form a serpent takes depends on its strategy. When a serpent in Scripture attempts to deceive, it’s a snake. When a serpent attempts to devour, it’s a dragon. Snakes deceive; dragons devour. Snakes tempt and lie; dragons attack and murder. Snakes backstab; dragons assault.
The Serpent and the Serpent SlayerFor our purposes, we focus primarily on depictions of Satan as the serpent in Genesis and Revelation. --Rob Phillips; What Every Christian Should Know About Satan; High Street Press (August 20, 2021)
Twice, there are mentions of a “flying serpent,” either an analogy of Assyria (Isa. 14:29) or a reference to one of the wild beasts in the Negev (Isa. 30:6). Singular references include: an analogy of an enemy’s wine (“serpent’s venom,” Deut. 32:33); a place (“Serpent’s Well,” Neh. 2:13); predators who lie in wait (Ps. 91:13); animal food in the new creation (“the serpent’s food will be dust!” Isa. 65:25); and Jesus’ instructions to his disciples to take prudent action in light of coming persecution (Matt. 10:16; cf. 21-23).
Old Testament writers use three different Hebrew words translated “serpent” in these passages. The most common is nachash, meaning “serpent” or “snake.” The word even makes a hissing sound when spoken. The word tanniyn (used in Exod. 7; Deut. 32:33; Neh. 2:13; and Ps. 91:13) has a broader application and can mean “serpent, venomous snake,” “sea or river monster,” or “dragon or dinosaur.” The third word, saraph, is used only once (Isa. 30:6) and may be translated “serpent,” “fiery serpent,” or “poisonous serpent.” It’s also the word from which we get seraphim, the six-winged heavenly creatures Isaiah sees above the throne in his vision of God (Isa. 6).
In the CSB New Testament, the Greek word ophis is used more than a dozen times and is translated “snake” or “serpent.” It may refer to an actual snake (Matt. 7:10; John 3:14-15; cf. Num. 21:8-9), or it may be used figuratively to illustrate certain traits or qualities. For example, Jesus calls the scribes and Pharisees “snakes” because of their venomous hypocrisy (Matt. 23:33). After sending his disciples to proclaim the gospel, Jesus tells them to be “as shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves” (Matt. 10:16).
Other references are directed more toward the demonic realm. Believers are promised authority over snakes, demonstrating their power over Satan and his agents (Luke 10:19). And Paul warns the Corinthians that the ancient serpent continues to strike with lethal intent: “But I fear that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your minds may be seduced from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3).
As you can see, the writers of Scripture employ numerous Hebrew and Greek terms to depict a variety of creatures associated with serpents. Andrew Naselli notes that serpent is an umbrella term – a “big category” – that includes both snakes and dragons. Further, he writes that a serpent has two major strategies that become evident in Scripture: to deceive and devour:
As a general rule, the form a serpent takes depends on its strategy. When a serpent in Scripture attempts to deceive, it’s a snake. When a serpent attempts to devour, it’s a dragon. Snakes deceive; dragons devour. Snakes tempt and lie; dragons attack and murder. Snakes backstab; dragons assault.
The Serpent and the Serpent SlayerFor our purposes, we focus primarily on depictions of Satan as the serpent in Genesis and Revelation. --Rob Phillips; What Every Christian Should Know About Satan; High Street Press (August 20, 2021)
I am sorry that this word in the Hebrew was ever translated "serpent," because it has given rise to a very false idea about this story -- that there was in the Garden of Eden a talking snake. I have no doubt in my own mind that if God chose to make a snake talk, he could. I accept fully the other account in the Bible of a talking animal, when God opened the mouth of Balaam's ass and spoke to the prophet through the donkey. I have no problem with this. Even man can teach animals to talk, and surely God can do so. But the interesting thing is that this account does not really say that there was a snake in the Garden of Eden. The Hebrew word here is nachash, which means literally "to shine," or in the noun form here, "a shining one." If you read it that way, an entirely different being emerges.
Now the shining one was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made...
Thus, the first description that we have of the Tempter is that he appeared to Eve as a shining one. Undoubtedly, as is true about other animals, snakes were created to represent this being who appeared in the Garden as the shining one.
For instance, in the rest of Scripture we can see that wolves were deliberately designed by God to represent and symbolize rapacious human beings, vicious people. Sheep, I believe, were designed deliberately by God to represent believers. If you ever get to feeling proud of yourself, go study some sheep for awhile. I come from Montana and feel somewhat of an expert in this area. It is clear from the Scriptures that pigs were designed by God to symbolize unbelievers, unregenerate people. They are used consistently in this way throughout Scripture.
It is no wonder then that snakes have become the universal symbol of Satan. When I was in the Orient a few years ago, I was struck by the number of times that snakes appear in pagan temples as representative of Satan. But here it was not a snake that appeared but a shining one, of whom snakes have become symbols. You will recall that Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians speaks of the serpent that tempted Eve and then goes on to speak of him as "an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14). So it was the Nachash that appeared, the shining one. He is also called in the Book of Revelation that "ancient serpent" (Revelation 12:9 RSV), i.e., the original serpent, the Devil. There is thus no question about the identity of the one who suddenly appears here. It is the Devil in his character as an angel of light, a shining being, all glorious to behold, who now confronts the woman in the Garden of Eden.
We are also told here that he was "more subtle than any other wild creature." The word subtle means "crafty or cunning." He had a craftiness about him greater than any other living creature (literally, rather than "wild creature"), any other being that God had made. This shining one was far more subtle, more cunning or crafty.
Here then is the being whom Jesus Christ called "the ruler of this world" (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11), and whom Paul refers to as "the god of this age" 1 Corinthians 1:20), the malevolent being who is behind the philosophy of men, who dominates the thinking of the world, who has the ear of humanity and whispers into it a lie, an outrageous but very attractive lie, that makes men drool with desire. Here is the introduction of that being into the history of man.
This is the one of whom Martin Luther properly said, "On earth is not his equal." No man is able to outwit the Devil. He has defeated the greatest saints of God at times throughout all of history, except for the Son of God himself: "On earth is not his equal."
His craftiness is evident right from the beginning in that he sought out the woman to make his play to her. As we saw last week, woman was created with a greater "emoter" than man. It was a desire to play on this emotional nature that led the Devil to seek out the woman and to begin his temptation with her. He comes, as he always does, in disguise. He never appears with horns and hoof and a tail, announcing that he is Satan. If he came that way, everyone would reject him. No one wants to be evil, in that defiant open sense. But the devil appears in disguise as he does here, as an angel of light, appearing not to be bad but good, a shining being of wholesome character and benevolent purpose. --Ray Stedman: The Enticement of Evil
Now the shining one was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made...
Thus, the first description that we have of the Tempter is that he appeared to Eve as a shining one. Undoubtedly, as is true about other animals, snakes were created to represent this being who appeared in the Garden as the shining one.
For instance, in the rest of Scripture we can see that wolves were deliberately designed by God to represent and symbolize rapacious human beings, vicious people. Sheep, I believe, were designed deliberately by God to represent believers. If you ever get to feeling proud of yourself, go study some sheep for awhile. I come from Montana and feel somewhat of an expert in this area. It is clear from the Scriptures that pigs were designed by God to symbolize unbelievers, unregenerate people. They are used consistently in this way throughout Scripture.
It is no wonder then that snakes have become the universal symbol of Satan. When I was in the Orient a few years ago, I was struck by the number of times that snakes appear in pagan temples as representative of Satan. But here it was not a snake that appeared but a shining one, of whom snakes have become symbols. You will recall that Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians speaks of the serpent that tempted Eve and then goes on to speak of him as "an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14). So it was the Nachash that appeared, the shining one. He is also called in the Book of Revelation that "ancient serpent" (Revelation 12:9 RSV), i.e., the original serpent, the Devil. There is thus no question about the identity of the one who suddenly appears here. It is the Devil in his character as an angel of light, a shining being, all glorious to behold, who now confronts the woman in the Garden of Eden.
We are also told here that he was "more subtle than any other wild creature." The word subtle means "crafty or cunning." He had a craftiness about him greater than any other living creature (literally, rather than "wild creature"), any other being that God had made. This shining one was far more subtle, more cunning or crafty.
Here then is the being whom Jesus Christ called "the ruler of this world" (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11), and whom Paul refers to as "the god of this age" 1 Corinthians 1:20), the malevolent being who is behind the philosophy of men, who dominates the thinking of the world, who has the ear of humanity and whispers into it a lie, an outrageous but very attractive lie, that makes men drool with desire. Here is the introduction of that being into the history of man.
This is the one of whom Martin Luther properly said, "On earth is not his equal." No man is able to outwit the Devil. He has defeated the greatest saints of God at times throughout all of history, except for the Son of God himself: "On earth is not his equal."
His craftiness is evident right from the beginning in that he sought out the woman to make his play to her. As we saw last week, woman was created with a greater "emoter" than man. It was a desire to play on this emotional nature that led the Devil to seek out the woman and to begin his temptation with her. He comes, as he always does, in disguise. He never appears with horns and hoof and a tail, announcing that he is Satan. If he came that way, everyone would reject him. No one wants to be evil, in that defiant open sense. But the devil appears in disguise as he does here, as an angel of light, appearing not to be bad but good, a shining being of wholesome character and benevolent purpose. --Ray Stedman: The Enticement of Evil
(The Genesis account does not name Satan of the devil as the tempter, but he is mentioned in John 8:44, II Cor 11:3, Rev 12:9) ). Satan approached Eve in an apparently friendly manner. His question implied that he was concerned about her welfare. Satan sought to draw Eve into a dialogue on his terms. The question was very subtle and clever. By phrasing the question in this manner Satan had divorced the original prohibition from its context and had given it a false emphasis. One of the important keys to this verse and the power of Satan to seduce is the word "subtle". Satans greatest "inroads" over truth are not made by full frontal attacks and chaos....but through subtle seducton. When something has been introduced into our lives in a subtle way, it seems right, it feels right, it may even look right........but it is not right. Quite often it is popular, and discovering its influence is like going against the grain. And may not seem normal. Gen 3:1. Satan did not show himself openly to the woman, but made use of a snake. Keep in mind that before the fall snakes were not regarded with fear and disgust as they now are among women. Prior to the fall the snake was a good and beautiful creature not associated with evil. The snake used by Satan may have been multicolored and very pleasing to the senses. The narrative states that the snake was more cunning than any beast of the field (vs. 1). The snake was cunning, crafty and shrewd. Satan picked a creature that corresponds to his own nature. Satan appears as an angel of light. He uses cunning, deceit and stealth to deceive mankind. Likewise, snakes do not boldly, openly attack their prey but use subtlety, stealth, and camouflage to deceive their prey. When a snake’s prey is aware of its presence it is usually too late. The speaking of Balaam's ass is a divine miracle; the speaking of the serpent is a diabolical one.
And the woman said unto the serpent
Or to him that spoke in the serpent, which she might take to be a messenger from heaven, a holy angel: had she known who it was, she might be chargeable with imprudence in giving an answer, and carrying on a conversation with him; and yet even supposing this, she might have a good design in her answer; partly to set the matter in a true light, and assert what was truth; and partly to set forth the goodness and liberality of God, in the large provision he had made, and the generous grant he had given them: from this discourse of Eve and the serpent, no doubt Plato had his notion of the first men discoursing with beasts: we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden;
of all and every one of them, which is to be understood, excepting the one after mentioned; so far are we from being debarred from eating of any, which the speech of the Serpent might imply, that they were allowed to eat of what they pleased, but one.
|
The Hebrew for "serpent" in:- - - - Genesis 3:1:
NOW the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
----is 'nachash' which means to hiss, mutter or whisper, as do enchanters. It also means in a secondary sense to divine, or enchant or mesmerize, as a snake often does before catching its prey. It also has the meaning to shine or sparkle, like bronze or copper. Some Scriptures also tell us that Satan has an extremely attractive appearance -(see e.g., 2 Corinthians 11:3,14),and this Hebrew word therefore also conveys the meaning to fascinate and bewitch. Deuteronomy 18:10-14 --Pastor F.W.C. Neser, M.Sc., South Africa: The Serpent of Genesis]
NOW the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
----is 'nachash' which means to hiss, mutter or whisper, as do enchanters. It also means in a secondary sense to divine, or enchant or mesmerize, as a snake often does before catching its prey. It also has the meaning to shine or sparkle, like bronze or copper. Some Scriptures also tell us that Satan has an extremely attractive appearance -(see e.g., 2 Corinthians 11:3,14),and this Hebrew word therefore also conveys the meaning to fascinate and bewitch. Deuteronomy 18:10-14 --Pastor F.W.C. Neser, M.Sc., South Africa: The Serpent of Genesis]
"That which the devil aimed at, was to persuade Eve to eat forbidden fruit; and to do this, he took the same method that he doth still. 1. He questions whether it were a sin or no, Genesis 3:1,2. He denies that there was any danger in it, Genesis 3:4. 3. He suggests much advantage by it, Genesis 3:5. And these are his common topics. As to the advantage, he suits the temptation to the pure state they were now in, proposing to them not any carnal pleasure, but intellectual delights."
--John Wesley (1703-1791)
--John Wesley (1703-1791)
"In a way it may seem as though the unsuspicious Eve, who has never been tempted, is at a grievous disadvantage because of the very subtle nature of the suspicion that the serpent seeks to engender in her heart. But her advantages are sufficient amply to offset the cleverness of the attack. There is, first of all, the discern their very nature. At this point Eve could easily have probed farther and divined the actual truth. Our first parents certainly had been adequately prepared for an emergency such as this.
Empirical knowledge of God’s goodness and mercy toward man. The whole of creation formed a strong symphony of protest against any suspicions of God’s good will. Then, Eve had a very clear word from God, simple and unencumbered by many details as to what her moral duty was. Whether this word was heard immediately from God or mediately from her husband matters little and cannot impair the power of that word upon her heart. And then, too, there was one feature about the temptation that could well have aroused instantaneous suspicion of the tempter: a mere irrational creature spoke. The insight into the limitations of the being of the animal was sufficiently clear to a creature like man, who had but recently been entirely qualified to give names to all these beings.
At this point already we must begin to take issue with the claim that in the temptation as such the penalty resulting is quite out of proportion to the trifling nature of the misdeed. For those who raise such a claim liken the sin of our first parents to the taking of forbidden fruit by children and then claim: the mere taking of an apple certainly does not merit such dreadful consequences as are here pictured as resulting. Over against such misconceptions we strongly maintain that the taking of the fruit was not the fall into sin; that fall had occurred before this act; the taking of the fruit was an incidental bit of evidence of the fact that man had fallen. However, the Fall as such was nothing less in character than an entirely inexcusable piece of rebellion against a very gracious Father who not only had withheld nothing good from man but had even bestowed such an overwhelming wealth of good things that revolt against such a one must in the very nature of the case be a sin of the deepest hue, yes, even the one great sin in the history of the human race. "
-H.C. Leupold (1892-1972)
Empirical knowledge of God’s goodness and mercy toward man. The whole of creation formed a strong symphony of protest against any suspicions of God’s good will. Then, Eve had a very clear word from God, simple and unencumbered by many details as to what her moral duty was. Whether this word was heard immediately from God or mediately from her husband matters little and cannot impair the power of that word upon her heart. And then, too, there was one feature about the temptation that could well have aroused instantaneous suspicion of the tempter: a mere irrational creature spoke. The insight into the limitations of the being of the animal was sufficiently clear to a creature like man, who had but recently been entirely qualified to give names to all these beings.
At this point already we must begin to take issue with the claim that in the temptation as such the penalty resulting is quite out of proportion to the trifling nature of the misdeed. For those who raise such a claim liken the sin of our first parents to the taking of forbidden fruit by children and then claim: the mere taking of an apple certainly does not merit such dreadful consequences as are here pictured as resulting. Over against such misconceptions we strongly maintain that the taking of the fruit was not the fall into sin; that fall had occurred before this act; the taking of the fruit was an incidental bit of evidence of the fact that man had fallen. However, the Fall as such was nothing less in character than an entirely inexcusable piece of rebellion against a very gracious Father who not only had withheld nothing good from man but had even bestowed such an overwhelming wealth of good things that revolt against such a one must in the very nature of the case be a sin of the deepest hue, yes, even the one great sin in the history of the human race. "
-H.C. Leupold (1892-1972)
Returning to Genesis 3, might not the first proper targets of subduing be Adam and Eve themselves? What if Eve had chosen to rule over sin, to subdue herself? What if Adam had subdued the serpent? What if he had intervened and subdued Eve instead of merely standing with her? What if Adam had subdued himself when offered the fruit? Yes, the serpent needed to be subdued, but so much more so did Adam and Eve. They failed to love God and to love each other by failing to rule over their own sin in the first place, and by failing to intervene lovingly with one another. --J. Michael Thigpen, “Flourishing, Justice, and the Gospel as “Subduing” the Earth,” in Human Flourishing: Economic Wisdom for a Fruitful Christian Vision of the Good Life
It’s true that Satan was tempting and lying to Eve just like he does with everyone today, but we must include that she and her husband also had the choice to resist and reject the deceptions of the enemy of our soul the same as we can now. Verses 6 and 7,“When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.” Let us note the very important statement, “Then their eyes were opened.” For the first time, sin awakened the conscience within the human mind and established a guilt that could not be satisfied by human morality and also established a personal accountability to seek spiritual truth. Humans became incarcerated in their sinful condition and can only be released by the infinite, divine, and absolute truth which is God Himself. An interesting consideration is found in John Chapter 8 and verse 32, where Jesus said that truth in itself will not necessarily bring personal spiritual deliverance but “knowing” truth (comprehend, perceive, awaken, realize, discern, understand, apprehend) is the act of faith which activates the power of God to spiritually set someone free. “And you shall ‘know’ the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
--Billy Holland; Bill Holland Ministries;
--Billy Holland; Bill Holland Ministries;
Observe the steps of the transgression: not steps upward, but downward toward the pit. 1. She saw. A great deal of sin comes in at the eye. Let us not look on that which we are in danger of lusting after, Matthew 5:28. 2. She took. It was her own act and deed. Satan may tempt, but he cannot force; may persuade us to cast ourselves down, but he cannot cast us down, Matthew 4:6. 3. She did eat. When she looked perhaps she did not intend to take; or when she took, not to eat: but it ended in that. It is wisdom to stop the first motions of sin, and to leave it off before it be meddled with. 4. She gave it also to her husband with her. Those that have done ill, are willing to draw in others to do the same. 5. He did eat. In neglecting the tree of life, of which he was allowed to eat, and eating of the tree of knowledge, which was forbidden, Adam plainly showed a contempt of what God had bestowed on him, and a desire for what God did not see fit to give him. He would have what he pleased, and do what he pleased. His sin was, in one word, disobedience, Romans 5:19; disobedience to a plain, easy, and express command. He had no corrupt nature within, to betray him; but had a freedom of will, in full strength, not weakened or impaired. He turned aside quickly. He drew all his posterity into sin and ruin. Who then can say that Adam's sin had but little harm in it?
|
Notice the process here: The first thing is that Eve looked at the fruit and said to herself, "It is good for food (i.e., it is profitable). It is something that will help me; it is physically profitable. Never mind the long range effects -- I'm not interested in that -- it will satisfy a present and immediate need, and what can be wrong with that?" Secondly, she saw that it was "a delight to the eyes," which means it was pleasurable, it satisfied the esthetic sense. It titillated her senses and was a pleasurable experience.
This element is always present in temptation. Each of us is well aware, because we are all experts in this, that sin is always fun -- for awhile! It has an element of pleasure about it and there is no use trying to blind our eyes to that fact. It is the pleasure of sin which makes it so enticing and alluring to us. The desire to have that pleasure, at whatever cost, is really the essential element of temptation. You know this is true. It feels good to indulge myself. I love the feeling of splurging, of doing something that gives me pleasure. It feels great. That is why I do it, even though my mind may be telling me that it may be ultimately harmful.
It feels good to act on pride. It satisfies me in some way. It feels good to lose my temper. Have you ever had the perverse delight of telling somebody off? Oh, how good that feels -- for awhile! It feels good even though you do not do it to someone's face, but go out in the woods to do it. Even that relieves the pain for a bit. It feels good to hurt my wife when she has done something that displeases me. There is pleasure in sin.
Howard Butt, a well-known Christian layman, puts it this way:
It's my pride that makes me independent of God. It's appealing to feel that I am the master of my fate. I run my own life. I call my own shots. I go it alone. But that feeling is my basic dishonesty. I can't go it alone, I have to get help from other people. And I can't ultimately rely on myself. I'm dependent on God for my very next breath. It's dishonest of me to pretend that I'm anything but a man, small, weak, and limited.
There lies the deceitfulness of sin. It offers pleasure. As Eve saw the fruit she said, "It is good for food, and it is a delight to the eyes. It gives me an esthetic sense that is pleasant." [SOURCE: Ray Stedman: The Heart of Temptation]
This element is always present in temptation. Each of us is well aware, because we are all experts in this, that sin is always fun -- for awhile! It has an element of pleasure about it and there is no use trying to blind our eyes to that fact. It is the pleasure of sin which makes it so enticing and alluring to us. The desire to have that pleasure, at whatever cost, is really the essential element of temptation. You know this is true. It feels good to indulge myself. I love the feeling of splurging, of doing something that gives me pleasure. It feels great. That is why I do it, even though my mind may be telling me that it may be ultimately harmful.
It feels good to act on pride. It satisfies me in some way. It feels good to lose my temper. Have you ever had the perverse delight of telling somebody off? Oh, how good that feels -- for awhile! It feels good even though you do not do it to someone's face, but go out in the woods to do it. Even that relieves the pain for a bit. It feels good to hurt my wife when she has done something that displeases me. There is pleasure in sin.
Howard Butt, a well-known Christian layman, puts it this way:
It's my pride that makes me independent of God. It's appealing to feel that I am the master of my fate. I run my own life. I call my own shots. I go it alone. But that feeling is my basic dishonesty. I can't go it alone, I have to get help from other people. And I can't ultimately rely on myself. I'm dependent on God for my very next breath. It's dishonest of me to pretend that I'm anything but a man, small, weak, and limited.
There lies the deceitfulness of sin. It offers pleasure. As Eve saw the fruit she said, "It is good for food, and it is a delight to the eyes. It gives me an esthetic sense that is pleasant." [SOURCE: Ray Stedman: The Heart of Temptation]
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food--Her imagination and feelings were completely won; and the fall of Eve was soon followed by that of Adam. The history of every temptation, and of every sin, is the same; the outward object of attraction, the inward commotion of mind, the increase and triumph of passionate desire; ending in the degradation, slavery, and ruin of the soul ( 1:15, 1 John 2:16)
|
God gives the command concerning the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil to Adam before Eve was created (2:16-17). It is important to notice that, when the command concerning the Tree is referred to by God in the following chapter, the command is spoken of as something given to and addressing Adam alone (cf. 3:11, 17). Eve rightly believed that the command was also given to her too. As the helper and companion of the appointed priest, she came under the same restriction as he did. However, she only received it second hand through Adam, which is why she could be deceived (notice that the serpent played the information given to her in 1:29, which she had received directly from God, against the information that she had received second hand from Adam). If she had received the command directly, she would have sinned with a high hand. In giving the command to Adam alone, God was underlining his role as the priestly guardian, the one charged with establishing and guarding his moral boundaries, through teaching and upholding his authority. In all of this, we can say that the priestly task is related to the male form of identity, rather than the female form of identity, from the outset. --Alistairs Adversaria
Satan’s temptation of Eve in the Garden presented a direct challenge to man’s duty; not only did the serpent press Eve to disobey God’s command, but he embedded a more subtle attack within this temptation. If God is who he claims to be, his word about the nature of the Tree must be correct; the Tree is what it is because God has said that it is that way. Therefore, God’s prohibiting Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree must also be right; even if they do not understand why, God knows. (As an aside, we have just articulated the foundations for moral absolutism.)
Satan encouraged Eve to consider the possibility that God’s word on the matter may not be final. Satan wished Eve to think of herself as a knower at the same level as God; her interpretation of the Tree may well be just a valid as God’s. In accepting the serpent’s suggestion, Eve obliterates the Creator-creature distinction: God is no longer right just because he is God; instead, his is just another interpretation, alongside of Eve’s and Adam’s and Satan’s.
We must note that this rejection of God’s revelation is equivalent to a rejection of God’s being what he claims to be. Our sin (as much as Eve’s) is not merely a rebellion against God’s commands; it is an open declaration that we do not believe that God is prior to us and more ultimate than we are; he is not the sort of being who determines the nature of all created things. Our sin is an assertion that we believe that we are on the same level of being as God; we deny the aseity of God.
--Michael Riley; Religious Affections; A Theological Basis of Conservatism 5.22.10
Satan encouraged Eve to consider the possibility that God’s word on the matter may not be final. Satan wished Eve to think of herself as a knower at the same level as God; her interpretation of the Tree may well be just a valid as God’s. In accepting the serpent’s suggestion, Eve obliterates the Creator-creature distinction: God is no longer right just because he is God; instead, his is just another interpretation, alongside of Eve’s and Adam’s and Satan’s.
We must note that this rejection of God’s revelation is equivalent to a rejection of God’s being what he claims to be. Our sin (as much as Eve’s) is not merely a rebellion against God’s commands; it is an open declaration that we do not believe that God is prior to us and more ultimate than we are; he is not the sort of being who determines the nature of all created things. Our sin is an assertion that we believe that we are on the same level of being as God; we deny the aseity of God.
--Michael Riley; Religious Affections; A Theological Basis of Conservatism 5.22.10
In essence, the seduction of addiction is the instant gratification of false comfort, happiness and power. None of these promises can actually be delivered by the allurement they offer. In fact, they are a counterfeit version based on a lie that stands in direct competition to what God provides. Not only are they void of delivering long-term solutions, but once a person takes the bait and falls into the trap, Satan delivers exactly the opposite. All his offerings lead to devastation, pain and loss. A biblical example of this occurred in the Garden of Eden. God had provided Adam and Eve with absolutely everything necessary to be happy, fulfilled and blessed. But he required that they be obedient to Him and listen to Him as the voice of authority. He warned them of a forbidden tree in the garden, and that if they partook of its fruit, they would “surely die.” After God’s warning, Satan appeared to Adam and Eve in the form of serpent. At that point in history, it probably wasn’t shocking to hear a snake talk because they engaged in conversation. If they had thought that was bazaar or if he appeared with horns, surely they would have fled the scene. But instead, this snake had a seductive way of offering them something “more” than what God had to give. Not only that, the snake distinctly claimed that God had lied to them, and that they could attain something better if they ate from the very tree God was trying to keep away from them. As the historical account tells us, Adam and Eve took the bait, based on the desire that they have a deeper knowledge than what God authorized to give them. And as a result, they were ensnared in a trap of death. They disavowed the authority of God, and thus empowered Satan’s system. While that may seem to be an ancient and impractical story, it can’t be any more relevant in understanding the enticement of Satan. He works through the exact same strategy - luring people in with His lies and promises, and then hammering them with the devastation of what that choice brings. He then drags them away with his authority system - where guilt, shame and fear prevail and offer no hope of betterment.
A little, five-word sentence—"You will not surely die"—was Satan the Devil's opening salvo to convince Adam and Eve that they could disregard the commands of God without consequence. It is evident from Eve's reply to his initial question that she understood both God's decree and His reasons for not wanting them to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was the reason, "lest you die," that Satan pounced on with his famous lying contradiction.
What most people do not realize is that Satan has been repeating this mantra ever since, and the vast majority of humanity has bought into it just as readily as our first parents in the Garden. The essence of Satan's lie is, "Go ahead and live as you like. There are no fatal consequences to your actions because you are already immortal." Theologically, this belief is called the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and most Christian churches, both in America and abroad, teach it.
The Bible, however, does not support it. [SOURCE: Church of the Great God: Do Human Beings Have an Immortal Soul (Genesis 3:4)?]
What most people do not realize is that Satan has been repeating this mantra ever since, and the vast majority of humanity has bought into it just as readily as our first parents in the Garden. The essence of Satan's lie is, "Go ahead and live as you like. There are no fatal consequences to your actions because you are already immortal." Theologically, this belief is called the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and most Christian churches, both in America and abroad, teach it.
The Bible, however, does not support it. [SOURCE: Church of the Great God: Do Human Beings Have an Immortal Soul (Genesis 3:4)?]
Serpent's Statement #2You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day that you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:4-5)
The Serpent goes much further here than in the first twisting of God’s word. In this second statement he went to outright denial and contradiction of what God had earlier expressly to them. As yet they did not know death. They had not lost the fellowship of God. They trusted that God loved them and meant what He said. They believed God had their welfare in mind for all their provisions including even this prohibition. All this soon changed, however.
The serpent spoke in outright contradiction to God’s word. Eve knew and practiced God’s Word, but an appealing promise caught her off guard. Note the nature of the promise. You do not have a way of independently testing it without disobeying or setting aside God’s clear warning and its negative consequences. How is this like some modern marketing tricks? This is important with regard to temptation.
The serpent has not clearly defined his purpose in all this. A stranger causes all this doubt in that one short moment to fly through her formerly pure mind. Perhaps we underestimate the place thoughts can have on our minds even when we do not ‘believe’ them.
She knew God’s Word. She evidently learned it from Adam. Genesis 2:16 clearly states that God commanded Adam rather than Eve. “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely” (Genesis 2:16). Adam, as head, rightly communicated God’s commands to her. Perhaps the evil one chose to speak to her rather than Adam because she heard the command indirectly through Adam rather than directly from God. He attacked the side rather than the head. Her immediate and proper response to the serpent in Genesis 3:2-3 demonstrates that she fully knew what God wanted.
And the woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die’ (Genesis 3:2-3).
Since the recommendation by the serpent was so clearly in conflict with God’s word, the decision boiled down to whom Eve trusted. Either God, whom she had known well from the beginning and from who she derived her being and all her position, or the serpent who she did not know at all.
She could have protected herself by thinking who was most trustworthy or simply focus on the Lord’s command. Her willingness to decide to listen to the serpent in the end had great ramifications.[SOURCE: Genesis Book of Foundations: B) God's Test and the Serpent's Temptation]
The Serpent goes much further here than in the first twisting of God’s word. In this second statement he went to outright denial and contradiction of what God had earlier expressly to them. As yet they did not know death. They had not lost the fellowship of God. They trusted that God loved them and meant what He said. They believed God had their welfare in mind for all their provisions including even this prohibition. All this soon changed, however.
The serpent spoke in outright contradiction to God’s word. Eve knew and practiced God’s Word, but an appealing promise caught her off guard. Note the nature of the promise. You do not have a way of independently testing it without disobeying or setting aside God’s clear warning and its negative consequences. How is this like some modern marketing tricks? This is important with regard to temptation.
The serpent has not clearly defined his purpose in all this. A stranger causes all this doubt in that one short moment to fly through her formerly pure mind. Perhaps we underestimate the place thoughts can have on our minds even when we do not ‘believe’ them.
She knew God’s Word. She evidently learned it from Adam. Genesis 2:16 clearly states that God commanded Adam rather than Eve. “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely” (Genesis 2:16). Adam, as head, rightly communicated God’s commands to her. Perhaps the evil one chose to speak to her rather than Adam because she heard the command indirectly through Adam rather than directly from God. He attacked the side rather than the head. Her immediate and proper response to the serpent in Genesis 3:2-3 demonstrates that she fully knew what God wanted.
And the woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die’ (Genesis 3:2-3).
Since the recommendation by the serpent was so clearly in conflict with God’s word, the decision boiled down to whom Eve trusted. Either God, whom she had known well from the beginning and from who she derived her being and all her position, or the serpent who she did not know at all.
She could have protected herself by thinking who was most trustworthy or simply focus on the Lord’s command. Her willingness to decide to listen to the serpent in the end had great ramifications.[SOURCE: Genesis Book of Foundations: B) God's Test and the Serpent's Temptation]
Eve's and Adam's decisions to eat the fruit are choices to favor their own pragmatic, aesthetic and sensual tastes over God's word. "Good" is no longer rooted in what God says enhances life but in what people think is desirable to elevate life. In short, they turn what is good into evil. By choosing to disobey God, they break the relationships inherent in their own being. Together, they break their relationship with God, no longer talking with him in the evening breeze, but hiding themselves from his presence (Gen. 3:8). [SOURCE: Theology of Work: People Fall into Sin in Work (Genesis 3:1-24)]
History and tradition records that satan deceived through the serpent by giving an "amendment" to what God had pronounced and proclaimed as truth. He further appealed to the physical senses of the "appearance" of the fruit to make the case. This was the seduction. The fruit "looked" sustainable and appealed to the fleshly assessment. Based on looks, satan appeared to be correct. By means of deceit and seduction the standard was realigned to match human nature and the human experience. In reality such realignment is the standard of men and mankind whereby flesh proliferates its sin and sinfulness, contaminates the church and weakens the commitments of those within the church.
In the end, failure to raise human standards to the standard of God whereby all things, including people, personalities and their resultant actions are assessed, is nothing short of idolatry. This is the problem and exactly what happened in the first deceit of men and mankind. the desire of man was his idolatry that readily led to his disobedience. All of that stemmed from man's unbelief that God would do what he said that he would do and that he meant what he said he meant. -The Dunamis Word
In the end, failure to raise human standards to the standard of God whereby all things, including people, personalities and their resultant actions are assessed, is nothing short of idolatry. This is the problem and exactly what happened in the first deceit of men and mankind. the desire of man was his idolatry that readily led to his disobedience. All of that stemmed from man's unbelief that God would do what he said that he would do and that he meant what he said he meant. -The Dunamis Word
There is no warning or instruction over what is about to occur: the Temptation of Eve. This is just staggering. Notably missing from the dialogue between Adam and God is something like this: "Adam, one more thing. A week from Tuesday, about four in the afternoon, you and Eve are going to be down in the orchard and something dangerous is going to happen. Adam, are you listening? The eternal destiny is going to happen. Adam, are you listening? The eternal destiny of the human race hangs on this moment. Now, here's what I want you to do...." he doesn't tell him. He doesn't even mention it, so far as we know. Good grief--why not? Because God believes in Adam. This is what he's designed to do--to come through in a pinch. Adam doesn't need play-by-play instructions because this is what Adam is for. It's already there, everything he needs in his design, in his heart.
Needless to say, the story doesn't go well. Adam fails, he fails Eve, and the rest of humanity. Let me ask you a question: Where is Adam, while the serpent is tempting Eve? He's standing right there: ""She also gave some to her husband, who was with her. Then he ate it, too" (Gen 3:6). The Hebrew for "with her" means right there, elbow to elbow. Adam isn't away in another part of the forest, he has no alibi. He is standing right there watching the whole thing unravel. What does he do? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. He says not a word, doesn't lift a finger." He won't risk, he won't go fight, and he won't rescue Eve. Our first father--the first real; man--gave in to paralysis. He desired his very nature and went passive. And every man alive after him, every son of Adam, carries in his heart now the same failure. Every man repeats the sin of Adam, every day. We won't risk, we won't fight, and we won't rescue Eve. We truly are a chip off the old block. --John Eldridge (Wild at Heart p50-51)
Needless to say, the story doesn't go well. Adam fails, he fails Eve, and the rest of humanity. Let me ask you a question: Where is Adam, while the serpent is tempting Eve? He's standing right there: ""She also gave some to her husband, who was with her. Then he ate it, too" (Gen 3:6). The Hebrew for "with her" means right there, elbow to elbow. Adam isn't away in another part of the forest, he has no alibi. He is standing right there watching the whole thing unravel. What does he do? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. He says not a word, doesn't lift a finger." He won't risk, he won't go fight, and he won't rescue Eve. Our first father--the first real; man--gave in to paralysis. He desired his very nature and went passive. And every man alive after him, every son of Adam, carries in his heart now the same failure. Every man repeats the sin of Adam, every day. We won't risk, we won't fight, and we won't rescue Eve. We truly are a chip off the old block. --John Eldridge (Wild at Heart p50-51)
“The terrible, tragic fallacy of the last hundred years has been to think that all man's troubles are due to his environment, and that to change the man you have nothing to do but change his environment. That is a tragic fallacy. It overlooks the fact that it was in Paradise that man fell.”
― David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount
There are rich scriptural resources for a biblical theology of clothing, which is why it is regrettable that the subject receives far less attention than it merits.
It seems to me that many theological approaches to the concept of clothing focus too much upon its connection with the covering up of shame. This is a part of the role of clothing, but clothing is also for glory and beauty, as one sees in the clothing of the High Priest.
Nakedness is not always shameful. A significant portion of our population can go around naked without feeling any shame whatsoever. Nakedness is characteristic of infancy. Clothing is a sign of maturity and a place of our own within society. Clothing is also a badge of office, which is why we speak of ‘investiture’.
The tunics that God fashions for Adam and Eve in the creation narrative are garments of office and status, comparable to the tunic of Joseph, David’s daughters and counsellors, etc. Their own garments of leaves are insufficient for exercising the authority that comes with the knowledge of good and evil (observe the positive use of the knowledge of good and evil in the context of kingly rule, e.g. 2 Samuel 14:17).
The greatest resources for a biblical theology of clothing comes from reflection on the clothing of the High Priest. The High Priest wears holy clothes for covering nakedness, but also clothes for ‘glory and beauty’. The descriptions of the manner in which such clothes are constructed, first worn, divested and reworn, etc. is immensely detailed. For instance, the clothing instructions on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16) are significant here. Simple linen garments are worn for the atonement (or ‘covering’) ceremony and then divested, for the glorious garments of office to be put on again when all is done. The investiture with the garments of office also presumes the offering of sacrifices and washing of the person.
In this connection we should pay attention to the description of Christ’s clothes in the context of the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension: his seamless undergarment, the linen clothes left after the resurrection, the glorious garments of the ascended Christ, etc.
The clothes of the High Priest are a means by which he wears the natural creation and the nation upon himself. The bottom and most basic layer of holy clothes to cover nakedness are vegetable – linen – garments. The outer layers of the priestly garments include animal fabrics (woollen yarns) and then precious metals and minerals (precious stones and gold).
Bound up in a theology of clothing is a theology of God’s relationship with the world. God wears the creation like a garment and later discards of it when it is old to replace it with a more glorious one. The world is the veil that both hides and enables proximity to God’s presence. In Christ, God assumes the garment of the creation most fully, clothing himself in flesh, filling that garment with his glory. In the Church Christ is fashioning us into a perfect and spotless garment.
A theology of clothing also teaches us about man’s relationship with the world. Implicit in our understanding of clothing is an ecology. The High Priest’s glorious clothes are a ‘world-wearing’ akin to God’s world-wearing. Peculiarly among the animals, human beings are nude – we are the naked apes. We do not have the coverings of fur, feathers, and scales that other creatures enjoy, nor do we have the glorious raiment of the lilies. Man, alone upon the animals, is called to fashion the creation to himself, tailoring the world around himself in a manner that glorifies both him and the creation, just as God’s wearing of the creation both declares his glory, and glorifies the creation.
Clothing must also reflect a sense of occasion (e.g. wedding garments for the wedding feast). Clothing expresses the differentiation that God has built into the creation (e.g. Paul’s teaching on sexually differentiating clothing in 1 Corinthians 11). There are clothes for work, for festivity, for mourning. Clothing can also be a mark of service. The simple clothes of the priest speak of this.
Clothes are a form of gift. In our clothes we ‘present’ ourselves to each other. We use our clothes to honour the ‘presence’ of others. The gift of garments is bound up with the gift of status. Clothes make the man or woman, and we form each other by giving clothes for new office. --Confessing Evangelical
It seems to me that many theological approaches to the concept of clothing focus too much upon its connection with the covering up of shame. This is a part of the role of clothing, but clothing is also for glory and beauty, as one sees in the clothing of the High Priest.
Nakedness is not always shameful. A significant portion of our population can go around naked without feeling any shame whatsoever. Nakedness is characteristic of infancy. Clothing is a sign of maturity and a place of our own within society. Clothing is also a badge of office, which is why we speak of ‘investiture’.
The tunics that God fashions for Adam and Eve in the creation narrative are garments of office and status, comparable to the tunic of Joseph, David’s daughters and counsellors, etc. Their own garments of leaves are insufficient for exercising the authority that comes with the knowledge of good and evil (observe the positive use of the knowledge of good and evil in the context of kingly rule, e.g. 2 Samuel 14:17).
The greatest resources for a biblical theology of clothing comes from reflection on the clothing of the High Priest. The High Priest wears holy clothes for covering nakedness, but also clothes for ‘glory and beauty’. The descriptions of the manner in which such clothes are constructed, first worn, divested and reworn, etc. is immensely detailed. For instance, the clothing instructions on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16) are significant here. Simple linen garments are worn for the atonement (or ‘covering’) ceremony and then divested, for the glorious garments of office to be put on again when all is done. The investiture with the garments of office also presumes the offering of sacrifices and washing of the person.
In this connection we should pay attention to the description of Christ’s clothes in the context of the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension: his seamless undergarment, the linen clothes left after the resurrection, the glorious garments of the ascended Christ, etc.
The clothes of the High Priest are a means by which he wears the natural creation and the nation upon himself. The bottom and most basic layer of holy clothes to cover nakedness are vegetable – linen – garments. The outer layers of the priestly garments include animal fabrics (woollen yarns) and then precious metals and minerals (precious stones and gold).
Bound up in a theology of clothing is a theology of God’s relationship with the world. God wears the creation like a garment and later discards of it when it is old to replace it with a more glorious one. The world is the veil that both hides and enables proximity to God’s presence. In Christ, God assumes the garment of the creation most fully, clothing himself in flesh, filling that garment with his glory. In the Church Christ is fashioning us into a perfect and spotless garment.
A theology of clothing also teaches us about man’s relationship with the world. Implicit in our understanding of clothing is an ecology. The High Priest’s glorious clothes are a ‘world-wearing’ akin to God’s world-wearing. Peculiarly among the animals, human beings are nude – we are the naked apes. We do not have the coverings of fur, feathers, and scales that other creatures enjoy, nor do we have the glorious raiment of the lilies. Man, alone upon the animals, is called to fashion the creation to himself, tailoring the world around himself in a manner that glorifies both him and the creation, just as God’s wearing of the creation both declares his glory, and glorifies the creation.
Clothing must also reflect a sense of occasion (e.g. wedding garments for the wedding feast). Clothing expresses the differentiation that God has built into the creation (e.g. Paul’s teaching on sexually differentiating clothing in 1 Corinthians 11). There are clothes for work, for festivity, for mourning. Clothing can also be a mark of service. The simple clothes of the priest speak of this.
Clothes are a form of gift. In our clothes we ‘present’ ourselves to each other. We use our clothes to honour the ‘presence’ of others. The gift of garments is bound up with the gift of status. Clothes make the man or woman, and we form each other by giving clothes for new office. --Confessing Evangelical
Notice the first emotion expressed by Adam after he sinned: "I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." The fear of being exposed has driven many of us from the light that reveals our sin. Without God's unconditional love and acceptance, we will run from the light or try to discredit the source of the light that reveals our sin. Without God's unconditional love and acceptance, we will run from the light or try to discredit the source of the light, as the Pharisees did with Jesus. Satan raises up thoughts against the knowledge of God (see II Cor 10:5), and a deceived humanity mocks His very existence. Unable to live up to God's eternal standards of morality, the fallen must deal with their fear, guilt and shame; and they do it by hiding from God or attacking Him. -Neil T Anderson; Overcoming Addictive Behavior; [c]2003
Adam knows now that he has blown it, that something has gone wrong within him, that he is no longer what he was meant to be. Adam doesn't just make a bad decision, he gives away something essential to his nature. Her is married now, his strength is fallen, and he knows it,. Then what happens? Adam hides. "I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid." You don't need a course in psychology to understand men. Understand that verse, let its implications sink in, and the men around you will suddenly come into focus. Wee hiding, every last one of us. Well aware that we, too, are not what we were meant to be, desperately afraid of being seen for what we are and are not, we have run off into the bushes. We hide in our office, at the gym, behind the newspaper and most likely behind our personality. Most of what you encounter when you meet a man is a facade, and elaborate fig leaf, a brilliant disguise. --John Eldridge (Wild at Heart p. 52)
Genesis 3:13:
And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. |
Eve’s response was similar; she was a poor innocent woman who was beguiled by the Evil One Self-esteem goes hand in hand with irresponsibility because it presupposes man’s natural goodness. Given this good, or, at worst, nuetral state of man’s moral being, it then follows that when man does wrong something outside is to blame. Deception plays an important part in satanic temptation. Satan avoids making a frontal attack immediately on God’s probationary command and its threatened penalities. Instead, he sows the seeds of doubt, unbelief, and rebellion. The temptation of Eve is typical. She is made to feel that God has unwisely and unfairly withheld a legitimate objective good from man
The fall of man is basic to a true theory of knowledge because the fall meant the radical warping of reason that constitutes rationalism. Man as a sinner hates the truth because the truth condemns him. It is much easier for him to go by Aristotle than the Bible because Aristotle acknowledges no fall. If no fall is acknowledge, than our thinking is flawless. Because man’s mind and will have been corrupted by the fall, his ability to think has also been corrupted. Failure to know God as the Lord means a failure to know ourselves as creatures. |
"Belief” is unmitigated nonsense, an illusion rooted in pride and flowering in the disease that is currently called alienation. As Genesis suggests, man has authority to name, and by implication to define and control all that exists around him. But our names and definitions we cannot choose. Adam and Eve did not name themselves. God named them. What we do with what we are is up to us, but we cannot decide for ourselves what we are, and we become free in ourselves only when we accept the names–which is to say our natures–we have been given. Adam and Eve, in their desire to become like “gods” desired to be something they were not, and, hence became more enslaved rather than free.
Skepticism in knowledge may be a nice game to play, but there is no way one can live on the basis of it. |
Genesis 3:14:
“And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. |
The serpent, the tool used by Satan to effect the fall of man, is cursed. The curse affects not only the instrument, the serpent, but also the indwelling energizer, Satan. Great physical changes took place in the serpent. Apparently, it was upright; now it will go on it’s belly. It was the most desirable animal of animal creation; now it is the most loathsome. The sight or thought of a snake should be an effective reminder of the devastating effects of sin.”
|
Man’s flesh was formed of the dust of the earth, and this became the food of all those ruled by the nature of the serpent. The apostle Paul alludes to this fallen state of mankind, and those in the church who continued in it, in the following words: Philippians 3:18-19, “For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame – who set their mind on earthly things.” If one sets their mind on earthly things, then they are an enemy of the cross that all disciples must bear. -Billy Holland
The English translation does not give the force of the Hebrew text. In the Hebrew text the word translated enmity (hostility) comes at the beginning of the sentence. The force of the statement, in the Hebrew is this way, “emnity will I (Jehovah) put between the…(seeds)” The focal point of this statement is that there is an irreconcilable hostility, judicially instituted by God Himself between the two fundamental Biblical classes of men. The opposition and antithesis between followers of God and followers of Satan is not simply predicted by God and is not simply commanded; it is sovereignly inflicted as God’s judicial curse.
In Gen 3:15 where the first promise of the coming of the Messiah was given, we are told that the Messiah, when he comes, shall be bruised. He shall crush Satan, but he shall be bruised in the process. In Genesis 3:21, how is man to be clothed now that he
has sinned? With skins, requiring the shedding of blood. In Genesis 22 we read about the great event which shows Abraham’s comprehension concerning the Messiah who was to come. His son has to be placed upon an altar, as a sacrifice–and then a ram is supplied, thus giving a double picture of substitution.
The covenant of works was destroyed by the deliberate, free, unconditional choice of Adam and eve. In its place, by the grace of God, with the promises begun in Gen 3:15, man was immediately given the promise of the work of the Messiah, coming in the future. Thus from the time of the fall onwards, everything rests upon the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross, not upon ourselves.
In Gen 3:15 where the first promise of the coming of the Messiah was given, we are told that the Messiah, when he comes, shall be bruised. He shall crush Satan, but he shall be bruised in the process. In Genesis 3:21, how is man to be clothed now that he
has sinned? With skins, requiring the shedding of blood. In Genesis 22 we read about the great event which shows Abraham’s comprehension concerning the Messiah who was to come. His son has to be placed upon an altar, as a sacrifice–and then a ram is supplied, thus giving a double picture of substitution.
The covenant of works was destroyed by the deliberate, free, unconditional choice of Adam and eve. In its place, by the grace of God, with the promises begun in Gen 3:15, man was immediately given the promise of the work of the Messiah, coming in the future. Thus from the time of the fall onwards, everything rests upon the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross, not upon ourselves.