The Original Sin (Pt 1)

Genesis 3:1-7
2009.03.01
one28 Sunday worship

Genesis 3 reports the single most tragic story of all time. No other single event in human history has had such far reaching, penetrating, and catastrophic consequences. The Bible hinges on this chapter; different worlds exist before and after it.

The apostle Paul put it this way in Romans 5:12, “Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin.” The “one man” was Adam, and his disobedience to the only prohibition brought the inescapable, terminal disease of death to the entire human race. His was the original sin, and its effect is seen on every following page of God’s Word. Though Christ defeated the ultimate power of sin and death for believers, even we are subject to sickness, pain, shame, suffering, and physical death. Unbelievers experience not only curses on earth, they will also face eternal wrath.

The effects of fall of Adam can hardly be underestimated. Cancer and the common cold are diagnosed as results of Genesis 3. Hatred and murder, lust, lying, laziness, greed and gossip all grow from the soil of Genesis 3. Separation from God and estrangement from fellow image-bearers exists only because of Genesis 3. The Monday morning discontent and misunderstandings about marriage and divorce are due to Genesis 3. Every bitter thought, every brutal killing, all wars–between siblings or nations, owe their origin to Genesis 3. Casket makers, cremators, and cemetery proprietors have jobs because of Genesis 3, as do nurses, doctors, pharmacists, and hospital janitors. Weeds grow and choke out and overrun gardens, hurricanes and floods and earthquakes and fires destroy, all because of Genesis 3.

All is vanity under the sun because of Genesis 3. Hell exists because of Genesis 3. We look forward to heaven as our hope because of Genesis 3. Jesus was crucified because of Genesis 3.

So this is no unimportant chapter of the story. We live in a Genesis 3 world, and we will not be equipped to make sense of what we see around us without it. Our worldview will break under the weight of the existence of evil and the fear of death without grasping the truth taught here.

Yet for the significance of this chapter, it may raise more questions than provide answers. Where did the serpent come from? Is the serpent more than a serpent? If so, and if an angel, when were the angels created? How did one angel become God’s enemy? Where was Adam when the serpent approached Eve?

And I brought up this particular question when we studied Genesis 2:16-17, but why would God even create a tree and forbid them to eat its fruit that could be a temptation? Why would He allow the serpent to entice the woman at all? If God knew what Adam and Eve would choose, and the drastic consequences of their disobedience, why go through with it?

Too many think the point is to prove that man’s morality is not forced. John Milton popularized this theory in his Paradise Lost, and most theologians also favor this man centered approach. For example, “The answer must always be that God will only have that count as moral behavior worthy of a being made in God’s image, which is freely given and maintained even where the possibility of doing otherwise offers itself” (Leupold, 145). But I think there is more to it than that. Namely, this is God’s story. More than anything else, it reveals something about Him. Our task involves seeing Him as the central character, and we’ll try to do that as we study the original sin.

The Adversary (v. 1a)

A new character is presented: the serpent, whom we quickly recognize to be not only a tempter, but the antagonist in the story.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. (1a)

Moses calls him the serpent like we know him, and like something distinguished this one from the other beasts of the field.

The serpent was crafty. Interestingly, there is a word play between “nude” (‘arom 2:25) and “shrewd” (‘arum 3:1), linking the two scenes. The word, depending on its context, can carry a positive meaning such as sensible (in accordance with wisdom or prudence), or shrewd (having or showing sharp powers of judgment). In other contexts, being shrewd involves mischievous or malicious intent. Many major translations use the word “crafty” (meaning clever at “achieving one’s aims by indirect or deceitful methods”, ESV, NASB, NIV). The NKJV uses “cunning” (having skill in achieving one’s aims by deceit or evasion).

At this point, nothing is revealed about his motive or where he came from. Last we knew, everything was very good. Adam and Eve had everything they needed in a paradisiacal garden created by God for them. The only place they could go from here was down.

We’re also told that the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. This phrase rules out any possibility that this creature was eternal or equally powerful as God, since it was a created being. In fact, the serpent was likely only a few hours older than the man and woman.

It is safe to say, however, that in 65 additional books of revelation, the serpent’s identity was confirmed as satan, the adversary of God and men. Satan was the primary agent, a serpent was the secondary agent. [Part of the reason I believe there was an actual serpent involved is because the curse in 3:14 includes going on his belly and eating dust, neither of which would apply to satan.]

What made the serpent go after man? Again, the immediate context does not answer. But Calvin says, “since he was the adversary of God, he attempted to subvert the order established by Him, and, because he could not drag God from His throne, he assailed man, in whom His image shone” (146).

The Conversation (vv. 1b-5)

The serpent approached the woman, engaging her in dialogue, thus beginning the temptation.

He said…What? What do you mean that the serpent said something? Was it normal for animals to talk with humans? Why doesn’t Eve run away or at least react with some element of suspicion, if not shock?

I believe that this conversation took place not long after the Sabbath. The story moves too quickly to leave any other impression. God created animals early on the sixth day (1:24-25), created man and woman (1:26-30; 2:18-25), then pronounced everything “very good” (1:31). The next day, the seventh day, God set aside as a holy day of rest (2:1-3), and the first full week was over. The rest of chapter 2 (verses 4-25) filled in specific details about the creation of man and woman. Then Moses drops us without interruption into chapter 3.

So if, as I think, this conversation took place early on in the garden, perhaps Eve figured this was another new thing to experience, since most of her experiences would still be new. She seems to respond like it was normal, and having been given no reason to fear, her guard was down.

That said, a talking serpent, or any other animal, is not normal. Narratives throughout the Old Testament include odd occurrences, but animals using language to communicate with humans always involves the supernatural. Speech is one of the things that sets men apart from animals. So I don’t think this was normal in the garden either, but Adam and Eve’s definition of normal was still expanding.

1. The Serpent’s Question (v. 1b)

He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”

Did God actually say, or, “Indeed, (is it) that God said.” Did He really say…?

The serpent starts by questioning the clarity of God’s word. Maybe Eve misunderstood. Maybe she was confused. Maybe something got lost in the translation when Adam told Eve (since God revealed His prohibition to Adam before Eve was even created, Genesis 2:16-17).

How did the serpent know any version of God’s prohibition? Did God talk to the serpent about it, like when God spoke to Satan about Job? Did the serpent overhear God speaking with Adam?

Not eat of any tree is a subtle distortion with significant difference. The serpent intentionally misrepresents God’s standard to exaggerate restrictive prohibition rather than God’s extravagant provision. It sows doubt in the woman’s mind about God’s authority, and even perhaps hints that God is far away by using “God” (Elohim) instead of “LORD” (Yahweh).

2. The Woman’s Response (vv. 2-3)

She responds. Maybe that’s okay. Maybe she should have ran. Maybe she should have dismissed it, or at least gone to discuss it with her husband. If she knew then what we know now, we certainly hope she would have done something else.

And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

She initially corrects the serpent, but already seems to be leaning in his direction. She doesn’t communicate excitement or thankfulness, but rather disparages (treats with little value) her privileges. She takes on the serpent’s designation of God, and doesn’t refer to Yahweh. She also jumps into to the deep end of the complaint pool by putting words in God’s mouth. It is a half-hearted defense.

In her response, she changes God’s word, subtracting from it three times and adding to it once. That always leads to trouble. God had said, “You may surely (or freely) eat of every tree of the garden,” and Eve left out both accents of God’s generosity. Then she minimized the penalty. God had said, “for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” and she said “lest you die.” She also added a part to God’s prohibition, claiming that God said not only that “You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree” but also, “neither shall you touch it.”

So why did Eve say it? Perhaps, and this is a big perhaps, God had told that to Adam and Moses didn’t include it in Genesis 2. But I don’t think so. Making an argument from silence is not easy. Even more so, the fact that the serpent takes the temptation to another level in verses 4 and 5 means his hook was already in. If Eve’s response had been unyielding obedience, I presume the serpent would have left and had to try something else (resist the devil and he will flee). Instead, it seems like Eve realized, “Wait, this is bad.” She started to think of God as less generous and more demanding than He she knew He was. She understated her privileges and overstated her limitations.

This is where the sin began. Taking the fruit in verse 6 is no surprise after her questioning of God and His word.

3. The Serpent’s Counter (vv. 4-5)

The wall was leaning and all the serpent had to do was nudge it to crush the woman. The serpent shifts from asking to asserting, and moves in for the kill.

But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

You will surely not die. This is an outright, bold-faced denial, undoubtedly couched in sympathetic terms. The serpent was persuading her to distrust God’s word, and to do so because of God’s character. He blatantly accused God of being harsh, repressive, and forbidding, because He is selfish.

for God knows…you will be like God. Not only will disobedience to God’s command not bring negative consequences, it will actually bring positive benefits. The serpent offered the woman something God created her not to have.

The serpent attacks the motivation and character of God, making God seem not only nervous and restrictive, but now also insecure of His position. God “knew all along” what would happen if they ate. It is as if God made deceptive threats to the man an woman in order to keep something good from them.

Being human is good, being God is better. Why should He have the upper hand? What is He keeping us from? It’s ironic that the “father of lies” (cf. John 8:44) suggests God is a liar.

There seems to be a sense of entitlement that traps Eve, like she should have that, and she takes the fruit.

Here’s a quick summary of the temptation.

The serpent’s temptation started by subtlety:

1. Questioning (the clarity of) God’s word.
2. Misrepresenting (the restrictiveness of) God’s standard.
3. Sowing doubt about God’s authority.

The serpent’s temptation evolved by flagrantly:

1. Disregarding God’s word.
2. Denying God’s standard.
3. Impugning God’s character.

We’ll come back next time and see how the serpent appealed to man’s pride and brought sin and death into humanity.