Man's Fall Into Sin by Pastor Bob Burridge ©1998 Westminster Confession of Faith VI Chapter VI. Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment thereof
Man was holy at creation but became corrupted Man was created in true righteousness and holiness and was able to have true knowledge unimpeded by the distortions of sin. As the children's catechism puts it, man in his original condition was "holy and happy." Adam knew God and understood creation in a direct manner. He was in immediate communion with God not separated by the offenses of sin. He enjoyed perfect fellowship with his Creator and Lord. He faithfully exercised his dominion over the rest of creation as God had commissioned him. Already in Eden God was revealing himself to man. The general disclosure in the display of his attributes and glory through creation and by conscience was seen in non-corrupted clarity. God also disclosed himself specially as he spoke with Adam. God had explained man's duties in the garden, his necessary submission to the one Creator, his duties in marriage as two persons united to be "one flesh," and his obligation to remember the work of creation in the weekly sabbath. God had also specially forbidden the humans from partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. What's more, Adam and Eve had the moral power to obey all these expectations of their Sovereign Master, and did not have a fallen mind that would obscure what was right and true. In such a perfect condition, the great mystery is; "How could they have sinned? How could persons with no sin nature rebel against a good God?" Unlike the tricotomists and modern psychologists, the Scripture does not relegate sin to some lesser animalistic part of man that took over and drove him to do wrong, so as to absolve him of actual responsibility.
The Genesis Account of Man's Fall into Sin "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;' " (2:16) The intensive form is used regarding the trees of Eden: from them man "eating may eat." This freedom was granted to all but one tree, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That tree was in the midst of the garden (3:3). An old tradition views it as an apple tree. The reason for that is found in the Latin versions which were common in times past. The Latin word for "apple" is "mallum" and the word for "evil" is "mallus." Both words have the same genitive form "mali" which is what appears here in those versions. Some took the word "evil" for the word "apple." We do not know what kind of fruit it was, nor is it important. There have been all sorts of fanciful ideas about the nature of the fruit itself. But they are based on speculations not drawn from the inspired text of God's word. It is clear from the text that Adam was forbidden to eat of it (2:17). Eating of it was morally wrong because God said it was. The penalty attached was that in the day he ate of it he would certainly die. He was not told that the fruit was poison, or that it would in itself kill him. Death was God's penalty for disobedience, not a natural result of the physical substance of the fruit. It was also not forbidden that man should know good and evil. God had ordained that this tree would be the instrument by which the fall of mankind would occur. He intended that by it man would learn the lesson of good and evil, and that, in the redemption that followed, the merciful and gracious character of God would be revealed. There was also the tree of life in the garden. It was also in the midst of it (2:9). There is no indication here that by eating of it physically Adam would be given life. There is no mention of powers inherent in the fruit of it that would impart anything physically to Adam other than the normal nourishment the other trees offered. Calvin viewed this tree as a sacramental symbol of life in fellowship with and in dependence upon God (Institutes 4.14.18). The tree is then much like the elements of the Lord's Table. Only those confessing the true God and embracing his covenant promises were to partake of it. And that by partaking there would be spiritual blessings granted to the soul of man. But not that the physical elements themselves had a supernatural quality physically. When he disobeyed and became separated from God morally, Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden lest they eat of this tree (3:22-23). This appears to be similar to the removal of non-repentant or rebellious communicant members of the church from the Lord's Table to keep them from partaking of the sacramental elements unworthily.
There was a Serpent (snake) in the Garden Something happened that made this snake not like those we know today. He spoke. Did he speak literally and physically to Eve? It appears that he did (2 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:14). We do not need to invent biological explanations to make the pre-fall snake able to vocalize any more than we need to imagine an amazing biological change in Balaam's donkey which spoke in Numbers 22. This was a supernatural act permitted by God in the process of setting the conditions by which the plan of redemption would be advanced. This snake was subtle. The Hebrew word here is arum, meaning "sly, cunning, crafty." Except for the vowel pointing, it is also the word used for "naked, bare" as in 2:25 of Adam and Eve before the fall. Related words in Hebrew mean "shame, nakedness, foulness." Perhaps the relationship is the shyness, as when a person stands naked, that produces a quiet, reserved mannerism that makes him appear vulnerable, trustworthy and which would cause someone to let down his guard. The snake appeared open and honest and therefore craftily deceived the woman. Obviously there is something more here than appears to the eye. This was no mere snake, not even just one with enhanced biological abilities. This snake didn't just speak. It outwitted and deceived a human, one not lost in the bondage and blindness of sin! Subtlety is only a meaningful act when attributed to a rational being. Satan was the real tempter. The serpent spoke first to the woman, Eve. There has been some speculation as to why he chose her to be his first victim rather than Adam. It is not stated. Some presume that by nature the woman is more easily deceived or persuaded than a man. But the headship of males over the home and church does is not due to any stated superiority either of a physical or a psychological nature. Reference is often made to the comment that the wife is to be treated as one would a weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7). 1 Peter 3:7 "You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman; and grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered." But that text does not say she is a weaker vessel, but speaks of the way she is to be treated. Treat her gently, in an understanding way, like the careful manner in which one would handle a more delicate piece of pottery. Since the woman is placed under the care of the man, it is his duty to treat her with the utmost of understanding and consideration. The caution is descriptive of the manner of care. It is not predicating a condition of weakness or inferiority to the object herself. We ought not attempt to use our psychological theories to impose limits upon how Scripture is to be interpreted: Could it be that she was less well acquainted with the ways of God and of the garden since she had been more recently created? Or was she easier to approach since Adam was the representative head of the human race and bore a greater awareness of the implications his lapse would bring? There have been many proposals, and many more could be added given the genius of willing expounders. But the Scriptures to do not explain the choice of Eve by Satan.
The Nature of the Temptation The snake gave the impression that he only had Eve's best interests in mind in "helping" her to test this statement of God. By saying that God told her she could not eat from every tree of the garden he implied that God was not very open and liberal enough with his creatures. That he was too strict. Eve's reply (3:2-3) indicates a willingness to examine God's word with a very free interpretation of it. When she restated his permission (3:2), she weakened it by eliminating the intensive "eating you may eat" from 2:16. In re-phrasing the prohibition (3:3) she weakened it by eliminating the intensive "dying you shall die" (2:17). She also added the phrase "or touch it." But this addition may not be a distortion. The word for "touching" here implies more than physical contact. It means "to take possession" of something. Today we might say "to obtain." Satan appears to have succeeded in getting her to willingly think 'critically' about what God had said. She had interpreted the Creator's remarks, re-worded them. She seems willing to introduce moral ideas modified from those God had spoken. This independency shows a questioning of the intentions of God in his revelations. Once the mind was turned to operate independently from God's clear revelation it was time for an absolute denial of revealed truth. Once an imaginary "neutral ground" was established, upon which God's truth could be judged and evaluated by creaturely standards, error could be promoted. So Satan said (3:4) "you shall not die!" The negative is placed first in the original for emphasis. E. J. Young translates it, "No, it is not true that you shall surely die." By this direct denial of God's truth eve faced a clear choice. She will either believe God or Satan. Satan also attacked the character of God, "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (3:5). Notice how Satan seems to target the concept of God's sovereignty. This as been a favorite truth to undermine from the beginning. The implication in Satan's question seems to be that God is jealous of his knowledge. That he doesn't want them to know what he knows. God is presented as fearing what may happen if man, acting independently of divine control, discovers certain things. There is also an implied magical power in the fruit over which God has no power. Such humanistic and occult concepts deny the sovereign power of God. Satan also baits the issue with the implication that there is something very precious to be gained, something God wants to keep for himself. The appeal to greed is another common temptation we have always faced as a human race. That which is forbidden is made to seem intriguing, exotic. Notice how the desire to sin grows in Eve as her inner perceptions are revealed to us; "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate..." (3:6) Satan never actually told her to sin. He never invited her to partake of the fruit. He just raised questions and implied that she was poorly informed, that God is not to be trusted to provide her what is really in her best interests. He led her to desire what was forbidden.
Compare the principle of lust in these two verses: Satan appealed to the normal desires God gave us for seeking the wonders of his blessings. But the heart of sin is to seek the blessings in ways that subvert the glorifying of the Sovereign Creator-God. The desires for good food, knowledge, even for moral knowledge, are all good things. But it is open rebellion against the Creator to seek them in ways God has not commanded, or in ways he has forbidden. The sin of Eve does not appear to begin in her actual consumption of the fruit. She did not sin in that she ate something that was poisonous or unfit for eating. It was in that she chose and did what God had forbidden. We read that Eve ate the forbidden fruit and then gave it to Adam and he also ate of it. Sin entered the human race when he, the designated head of the human race, sinned. Interesting questions can be raised based on what is not said in the text. We are not interested in adding any information that is not given here. But we often have presumed things about these more familiar stories without realizing it. For example: Where was Adam during Eve's temptation and sin? Was he with her during her conversation with the serpent? When she reasoned over what was said and then lusted to satisfy her desires in ways God had forbidden? Was he there when she actually ate of the fruit? Certainly he was there when she offered it to him. The only information we have is that in the same sentence it says she saw that the tree was good for food, and was a delight and desirable, and she took it and ate and gave to her husband with her and he ate. The weight of the context would more indicate that he was there during the whole process, than that he was off somewhere else. We can't say one way or the other as a matter of fact. But we must caution against so many moralizing sermons about how Adam was off somewhere else when his wife was being tempted. That is speculative and therefore dangerous. When did Adam and Eve's sin occur? Was it when they actually ate of the fruit? or did it include their choosing to do so contrary to God's command? or in the actual desire that preceded the choice? a desire to find satisfaction in ways God had forbidden? As we will soon see, the radical moral change took place inwardly before there was any outward act of rebellion. In this act of defiance many things were going on in the mind of Adam and Eve:
1) Man changed his value base. He set himself up as able to be "neutral" and judge God. Of course he was not neutral. He was standing on ground synthesized from a value system that came from the creature, not from the Creator, one that appealed to his morally fallible and finite mind. He overestimated his own finite wisdom and rational ability.
2) Reasoning from a false value base leads to contradiction. The external contradictions are also easy to see. He began to base his decisions and judgments on a configuration of reality that didn't fit the way things really were, the way God had made them. The finite creature cannot perceive the universe exactly as it really is in the eternal mind of the infinite God.
3) Such reasoning leads to sinful choices. This is why the revealing of God's law is a gracious thing. He gives us a standard that does not evolve in our own finite minds. This entering of truth into our system of thought from without means we have an "open" system of truth. A "closed" system of truth, where the rules are made up by the creatures themselves so they may use them to examine what they allow to be accepted, is by definition untestable and is circular in its reasoning. (A more thorough examination of this concept is best left for the study of Christian Apologetics.) The committing of a sin by our first parents was evidence of a corrupt nature. The fruit did not cause the corruption. The corruption caused the act of eating. If there was a first act of sin, it was when man the creature dared to believe he could independently judge truth and measure rightness without being bound to what God had revealed. He had usurped moral sovereignty and had judged God's ways to be inferior to the way he imagined. At what point did the nature of man become bound to sin? Possibly this is a penal act associated with the actual act of defiance. There is plenty of room for discussion on this point. But the important teaching is that in sinning, the nature of Adam and all his posterity became fallen, spiritually dead, bound to the mastery of sin, and condemned for all eternity.
The Results of the Fall Genesis 3:7-24
Their eyes were opened (3:7) Satan is a deceiver. In battle one should not presume that the enemy's words are open and honest. Satan is called the "Father of lies" by Jesus in John 8:44. Paul warns thousands of years after the fall, that we must not be "ignorant of his schemes" (2 Cor. 2:11).
What did they see now they had not seen before? It points out that now they knew that they were naked! There was certainly nothing new in their nakedness. They had been naked from the beginning. But now, their nakedness caused them to be afraid when God approached (3:10). Their perception of things had changed. Before the fall they saw creation as it really was. They perceived it as the work of God. They knew that all was his and was made for his glory. Their naked bodies were not seen as something shameful or a cause for fear as God approached. After the fall they began to see creation from a "false standpoint" (E.J. Young). Sin had corrupted them so that they were now an offense to a perfectly holy God and could no longer stand in union with him spiritually. Therefore their perception of everything changed. They had become confused about the real nature of creation. They began to exalt the creature over the Creator. It began when they, mere creatures, started to judge the warnings and commandments of God. Now their natural bodies were no longer perceived as declaring the glory of God. They had become, as they now saw them, mere physical objects devoid of any revelatory message. They sewed fig leaves together to make coverings (literally: loin coverings, girdles). Man's first recorded act after the fall was to try to cover up the evidence of what he had done. To attempt to hide things from God is obviously a foolish effort, yet it was his choice course of action. Fallen man always tries to cover up his sin. Paul writes, "... their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending themselves." (Romans 2:15). Fallen man attempts to settle his guilt feelings by either accusing others (shifting the blame), or else defending himself (making excuses for his sin). He develops a plan to deal with guilt on his own, a religion of good works. He made something he thought would work in hiding his offense from God. There is no other religion of grace alone than Christianity.
They tried to hide from God (3:8) Such manifestations were accommodations to man, so that the Creator could speak and make things known with his creatures by the senses he had given them. It was a gracious appearance. There was no necessity for God to speak to these fallen, morally offensive creatures, other than the necessity brought about by his own eternal decree. Before the fall the sound of God manifesting himself in the garden was exciting and full of joy. It meant that God had come to speak with them, to fellowship with them, to provide for and bless them! But now it was a cause for fear. Man now faced his creator, the Sovereign, Holy God, as a guilty, fallen creature separated spiritually from him by moral corruption. He was now at enmity with God. How did he try to solve this crisis? First he made aprons, now he attempted to hide from God among the trees God had made and given him charge to oversee. Fallen man's own religion, his attempt to approach God, is always synthetic, put together from his own creative mind. It is designed to replace the lost approach to God which requires perfect holiness. Adam and Eve were obviously aware that God would not be pleased with what had taken place, with their new condition. Fallen man runs from God in a futile effort to escape his notice and lordship. Jonah ran from God. Men in all ages live with secrets as if their sin can be kept unnoticed. His illusion is that if other men will not see them, there will be no consequences.
The futility of their efforts makes the scene absurd. They were hiding
in God's own garden, behind the very trees God made and planted! How
foolish. These words are a comfort to the child of God's Covenant, but a terror to man if he dares to stand on his own merits. E. J. Young observes, "Man was to have been the protector of the garden: now he desires the garden to protect him."
What ever we hold, is also in his hand. What ever we shape to make for our use, With all that we grow, and with every abuse, We partake of creation, the work of His hand. May God, for his glory, make us understand." (Bob Burridge 1988) God, the Creator did not abandon the creature he made in his image. That was not his purpose in creating man and in the decree of the fall. Displaying his mercy, he sought out the one who had sinned against him. There was no obligation external to God that would compel him to seek out fallen man. It was his own plan, his own decree, that moved him. God came to the man, the one God made to be the head of the human race. It was time for him to give account of his failed duty before the Lord of lords. When God asked, "Where are you?" it certainly did not reflect ignorance of Adam's location. God knows all things perfectly. It was a call to fallen man to come to the God to whom he is answerable, and to show himself.
Man Answered his Fear (3:10) Satan seemed to promise that by eating of the fruit man would gain a degree of freedom from God, that man would be like god, to be more of his own lord. But instead, his sin enslaved him to fear and shame. Nature took on a starkness that no longer was seen in conjunction with the revelation God had put in it. His body was now perceived as something to be hidden. But man still had much more to learn. So God continued with still another question to Adam.
God Asked a Second Question (3:11) NOTE: Remember from our earlier study that the Hebrew root words for "nakedness" and "shame" are related. The root is aram. The various uses of the root word is reflected in simple vowel and sufformative inflections only.
A different word was used in 2:25 ("but they were not ashamed")
God's Third Question (3:11)
Adam blamed Eve His excuse was not even a good defense. Entrapment is difficult to defend as a reason for an immoral act. Just because Eve gave the fruit to him no way excuses his choice to eat it. In letting her lead him into rebellion against God, Adam had abdicated his headship over Eve. He failed to exercise responsible and loving leadership in his home. The woman was made to be a helper suitable for him. She too had abandoned her creation mandate. Sin almost always has domestic consequences. When we sin it affects our home, our marriage. The abandonment of the proper duties of husband and wife made way for sin. That sin turned Adam against his wife to blame her for his transgression of God's law. The first step in healing any marital problem is to restore each party, individually, to a proper walk with the Lord. Sin drives a wedge between husband and wife. If that sin is not properly admitted and dealt with individually the counseling session becomes a time of either finding blame in others or in circumstances, or finding excuses for the sin as if it was not really bad in the particular situation. Implied in Adam's response was something even more offensive. He seemed to say that God was partly at fault for having given the woman to Adam in the first place! This is another principle we commonly see active in the fallen heart. Man takes the blessing God gives and perverts his relationship with it so that it no longer reveals God's goodness. Instead it reveals God's justice and holiness. In some cases God uses this perversion as a means of revealing his mercy and grace when he extends kindness or restoration to such undeserving men. But even though evil is always used for the greater good of revealing some part of God's nature, it is not excused. Today our legal system preserves and formalizes this principle of the fallen heart. Trivial lawsuits are often filed against people and organizations as a result of the tragic consequences of a person's own irresponsibility. The system is blamed or the manufacturer of the things man sinfully or carelessly abuses. Adam made a sadly qualified confession. The word "confess" (1 John 1:9 Greek = homologeo) simply means to "say along with". That is, to agree with the truth of something, particularly the moral guilt of some act or condition. Adam admitted he ate of the forbidden fruit, but made no admission of guilt.
Eve blamed the serpent
Sin is never as rewarding as we expect it to be. Adam and Eve learned this principle in the results of their sinful act. There eyes were opened, but they didn't like what they saw. With opened eyes they now saw a perverted world. The glory of the Creator, which they formerly enjoyed constantly, had become distorted in all things. Instead of seeing all things as they relate to God's sovereign glory, they saw things as if they could be used to satisfy man in ways independent of what pleases God.
Sin's Curse (3:14-24)
The wrath of God is his necessary response to sin. Sadly a modern
heresy has arisen which implies that when God forgives us for sin he simply
sets it aside and forgets about it. They define justification in simplistic
terms saying that its "just-as-if-I'd" never sinned. While the words have a
similar sound they do not define justification. Our sins are not simply set
aside as if God experiences a sanctified amnesia. Our sins are paid for with
an awesome price, the death of our Savior in place of the sinner. The curse that is the result of sin must be pronounced by the Holy Judge. Justice must be done now that the covenant the Creator bestowed upon man had been violated. The curse upon the Serpent :14-15 One might well ask, "Why curse a snake?" The animal was only a pawn in this transaction, not the actual tempter. We have seen that it was Satan who embodied and moved this animal in the temptation.
But there is Scriptural justification for holding the instrument
responsible for the moral actions produced by it. In the law of God, which
is a revelation of moral principles, animals involved in crimes were to be
put to death. In this case, the serpent was instrumental in the spiritual death of mankind. His curse also represented the eternal humiliation of Satan which is, in its final state, yet to come. The real tempter will be destroyed at the final judgment at the time of Christ's return. He will be humbled and cursed forever. The nature of the curse upon the serpent shows this humiliation The snake is cursed from the other beasts. The term "beasts" is general so that it includes many biological kinds. This curse is not common to all animals but to this particular "kind" of animal.
His crawling on his belly was to depict the humiliation of God's
judgment. Does this mean that snakes got around some other way before
the curse? There is no indication that this is what the text means. For
example circumcision was a procedure practiced long before it became a
covenant sign in the time of Abraham. Rainbows likely existed before the
flood but were not given their covenantal meaning until the promise of God
was revealed to Noah. There are many such examples in Scripture that
show how wrong it is to presume that when a covenantal meaning is
attached to something that the thing itself didn't exist prior to the
pronouncement. This curse on his way of locomotion remains symbolic of
that which is cursed of God.
The snake was cursed in that it shall eat dust. This is not necessarily a
reference to its food or means of nourishment. This was a common literary
expression of deep humiliation. We see God's word employ it that way in
several places when speaking of enemies conquered by God's power.
The Promise of Conquest 3:15 There will be "enmity" between Satan and his seed and the woman and her seed. This includes all those who take after Satan and the woman in their nature and kind. The descendents of the woman will be at odds with the sons of Satan, his followers and disciples. This is a hatred that exists by God's pronouncement. It is not a commanded hatred as if he said "these shall be at enmity." But it is a recognition of a relationship that will be present. Satan is out to destroy mankind and mankind hates to be destroyed. But in his perversion of all things true and good, the fallen heart misconstrues the cause of that hatred. He hates the law of God which condemns him and loves the ways of Satan which appeal to his corrupted nature. In this curse a transformation is announced. In redemption, the enmity which sin brought between man and God is going to be turned around to exist between man and the source of evil.
There is a veiled hint here of what God would one day reveal more
specifically. The seed of a woman would eventually deliver a mortal blow
to the seed of Satan. That seed of the woman is, in the most direct sense,
all those who would descend from Eve. More specifically it is the kingdom of God
representing his chosen seed from among the human race. Their crushing
of the head of the serpent is only possible by the victory of one particular
seed of a woman, Jesus who is the Christ, the promised Messiah. Those redeemed
by him engage in the crushing of Satan. In this verse the Apostle Paul uses the plural form of the word "your" meaning the believers who were reading his letter. We are conquerors of Satan together with Christ in his victory over sin. The Messiah paid the penalty of sin in full for his people and, by the regenerating power seen in their restoration, they become his seed and army. Why does it say that Christ through his people will destroy Satan's seed rather than destroy Satan himself? The battle is not waged against just an invisible spiritual enemy. It is fought against all who are of his illusionary and deceptive kingdom, all of fallen mankind. Jesus identified the corrupted Pharisees as sons of their father, Satan. They are among his seed (John 8:44). The most complete fulfillment of this principle is seen in the final judgment and condemnation of Satan himself at the cross and, by application, in the final return of Christ. It is because of his victory over sin and death that the church is enabled to be the tool of God in battling sin and crushing Satan's forces in their daily work.
The curse upon the Woman (3:16) First God announces the sorrow and pain that accompanies childbirth. The text uses an intensive form by repeating the verb. Literally it says, "making great I will make great" which is often translated "surely I will make great." That which is made great is their sorrow and conception, and the painful bringing forth of children. Its not a part of the curse that the woman would bring forth children. That was announced as a part of the original creation order before the fall into sin took place (Genesis 1:28). Childbirth is also implied in Genesis 2:24 when it mentions leaving "father and mother" when two are united in marriage. In the process of carrying out the creation duty of bearing children the woman will experience great pain and sorrow. This is now to become a reminder of the horrors of the first woman's sin. Some suggest that "bringing forth" children is more than just giving birth, but the whole process of raising them until they pass into adulthood.
The second part of the curse is domestic. Her desire will be toward her
husband. The Hebrew word translated "desire" is teshuqah. It
is a feminine substantive constructed from the root shuq. This
ancient expression is not easy to understand. The root verb relates to
something being abundant, or overflowing with supply. This feminine noun
made out of it seems to relate to a "longing" or "desire". It is found in
three places in Scripture: In the second two occurrences it appears that "a strong craving" best fits the context. Interpreting this phrase has produced much difference of opinion. Some take it as simply stating how a woman's desires are to be in subjection to her husband. Others understand it to mean the she will have a strong desire for, or a yearning toward him. These are not conflicting or mutually exclusive ideas. Its not a matter of choosing between the two ideas but as to which is the dominant meaning here in the curse. One of the recurring struggles that we see emerging between the sexes is a tension which arises when God's created and decreed order is violated or diminished in importance. There are several ways in which that order is violated:
In the fall itself that male/female role was disrupted when Adam failed to lead Eve in God's ways when she offered him the forbidden fruit. If he was present when she was tempted, then Adam failed in loving leadership by not preventing her from sinning. Eve took the headship over Adam in leading him into sin. Therefore it is understandable that the curse should reflect the struggle this damaged relationship would continue to have for the posterity of the first parents. It continues to produce tension between the sexes which is addressed much in Scripture and is the root of many problems that touch every church today. Perfect domestic tranquility ended in the fall and has yielded conflicts of desires which can only be resolved righteously under responsible and loving male headship for those redeemed by the restorative work of Christ, and growing spiritually by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.
The curse upon the Man & the Earth (3:17-19) The curse is founded upon two acts of the man. First it mentions his listening to his wife. No sin is implied in the physical act of listening. The listening here includes the idea of heeding what she unwisely said. In doing that he abdicated his spiritual responsibility of godly leadership over her. Since Adam had blamed her for giving him the fruit, God made it clear that it was he who had followed her suggestion and had actually eaten the fruit. The curse is directed against the ground which brings forth man's provisions. Adam had already been given the mandate of dominion over God's creation, to till the earth and bring forth food and in general, all his provisions (2:15). Labor was to be a blessed employment in the service of God. Therefore the curse was not the imposition of work but the struggle to exercise responsible dominion in the fallen estate. That which was made to be dominated by man now will be perceived as something to struggle and fight against as if it now resisted man's dominion even as man had resisted the supreme dominion of his Creator. In their desire to be "like god" they found out something of the rebellion they themselves had directed against the one they were to serve. Man will now have to sense the frustrations of thorns and thistles in his work of bringing forth daily provisions from the earth. His bread (lechem, a word used generally for "food") will come only by the "sweat of nostrils" (aph - "nostril, nose, face, anger"). He will work hard through frustrations to get his food, and he will then die and return to the earth from which he had been created. It is interesting to note that our Lord, in his work of making atonement for the sin of man to provide redemption from the curse, providentially wore a crown made of thorns, the very symbols of the curse itself.
Our labor is a reminder to us of our creation purpose. As custodians of creation, we display God's own sovereign dominion over all things. Our dominion duty is to bring all things into subjection to the Creator's revealed principles. Each person, in his own area of daily work, is to bring that part of creation over which he has custodianship into conformity with what pleases God. Our labor also reminds us of the curse upon our sin as we struggle, and as we experience frustrations in our daily work. The thorns and thistles of daily labor keep our need for redemption before us. Labor also reminds us of the Covenant of Grace. Though cursed, man is still enabled to work as overseer of the natural world. It is God in his mercy who calls us to our field of service, enables us to work, and provides the increase. To God alone is to be given all praise and glory. God did not leave mankind to struggle under the curse forever. Beyond his general mercies God also reached out in grace to redeem a people for himself. We live in a special age where we know the means of that redemption in the atoning work of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
Life in exile from Eden (3:20-24) She is given this name because she "was the mother of all living." Possibly a Mosaic comment rather than a continuing of the quote of God in pronouncing the curse. In spite of the rebellion in sin and the guilt of the fallen soul of mankind, God, in his mercy and to exercise his grace toward his chosen ones, would allow humans not only to continue their work of dominion, but also to proceed in multiplying and filling the earth. Man had attempted to provide his own covering over the nakedness left when he became separated from God. That appears to have been rejected for its inadequacy. In place of the works of man to cover his own shame, God provided a covering of animal skins (3:21). The significance of the details of this act is not directly explained. Adam and Eve would not have been able to appreciate all the implications of what God was revealing at that moment. But they may have been told more than what was recorded here in Moses account. There are some things which appear to be presumed by man in the next few accounts, and which are explicitly recorded for us later as God's truth was progressively revealed and inscripturated in time. First, it is obvious that God intends to provide a covering for sin and shame. Man's own attempt to cover his offense failed and was of no value beyond obscuring the outward evidences visible to human eyes. Second, it appears that an animal died to provide the skins. On the one hand this shows that man still has dominion over all the rest of creation and is to continue to use natural resources for his own provisions. But there seems to be much more here. We are later told that without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sin (Hebrews 9:22). Since the blood of animals itself can not remove sin (Hebrews 10:4) the principle of representation appears to be present by way of incipient revelation. As we will see when we begin to define "atonement", the word basically means "to cover." In this case the covering over the evident shame produced by sin is provided though the death of an animal. Animals were sacrificed, and their blood shed, to depict the coming provision of the Messiah who would actually make atonement for the sins of God's people. The great deception of modern religion is neither that it denies any idea of sin, nor that it denies that some kind of god exists. Its error is that forgiveness can take place by man's efforts, intentions or choices without the necessity of atonement by a perfect substitute, Jesus Christ. God also recognized a change in man's knowledge of good and evil (3:22). The use of the plural of self-reference by God that the man has become "like one of us" does not fit the Hebrew idiom of the "majestic plural." Therefore it does appear to be an illusion to the later revealed concept of the Trinity. How is it that by sin man came to know good and evil in a way analogous to God's knowledge of the same? Every analogy has its areas of similarity and of difference. Otherwise the thing represented would not be distinct from that depicting it. It would cease to be an analogy. It would become an "identity". We are told that the first humans became "as God" with respect to knowing good and evil. This does not mean they came to know these things in the same way that God knows them. The Creator sees their mutual purpose perfectly and knowing all about them infinitely. Yet there is obviously some greater extent to which, after the fall, man's awareness of good and evil became more analogous to God's knowledge of the same. God defines good. Evil is a negation of good. God knows the horror and offense of evil. Good is that which promotes his holiness. Good is that which flows from the divine nature and enables secondary agents to purpose and act in ways that please him morally. Evil is that which reveals the wrath and justice of God to creation, a part of ethical reality man did not understand well until after the fall. Mercy is that display of goodness which was not appreciated either until man was promised undeserved deliverance from his fallen estate. In the fall, man became more aware of the ethical realities displaying the character of God. Therefore he came to know good and evil in a manner that was more closely analogous to the way God knows them. It must also be born in mind that until regeneration of the fallen soul, every human individual will pervert that newly acquired knowledge so that he loves evil and hates the good. The display of God's attributes which to glorify the Creator is misinterpreted into a display of man's works that glorify the creature over the Creator.
Barring from tree of life (3:22)
A sacrament is defined under the new administration of the covenant in
this way in the Westminster Shorter Catechism: "A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers."
In preserving the elements of that definition and extending the principle
to apply more broadly to all administrations of God's grace to his people
we might modify that to read, "A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by God; wherein, by sensible signs, the benefits of God's covenant are represented, sealed and applied to believers." In each period of redemptive history this would be dispensed differently as both the covenant, and the degree to which it is fulfilled, are represented, sealed and applied. In Eden, prior to the fall, and under the Creation Covenant, commonly called the "Covenant of Works" those in union with God by trusting in him wholly (having true faith) showed their union by partaking of the Tree of Life. During the period after the fall until the death of the Messiah those in union with God in the older administration of the Covenant of Grace by trusting in God's provision wholly (having true faith), showed their union by the sacrifices which depicted the coming Christ. Most particularly that is seen in the Passover. After the completion of the work of Christ, in this present administration of the Covenant of Grace, those trusting wholly in God's provision in Christ (having true faith) show their union by partaking of the Lord's Supper.
In Glory, after the final judgment and glorification, those in union with
God will again display that union by a restored access to the Tree of Life.
They will again be fully purged of sin and once more qualified for this most
pure of all sacraments.
People are always forbidden to partake of the sacramental elements wrongly.
Under the old administration of the Covenant of Grace the prophet warned,
echoing the early warnings of Moses,
In this era of redemptive history the Apostle Paul warns the church in a
similar manner, Given this model for the Tree of Life, it is clear that Adam and Eve ought to no longer partake of the sacramental fruit. They no longer belonged in the garden which itself represented that original holy union and fellowship of man with the Creator.
Cherubim guard the entry (3:24) The term used here is Ha Ke-ru-VIM (the cherubim). This is the plural form of Ke-ruv. They are presented as created life forms alien to our world. It is likely that they, like the angels of which they are often considered a sub-class, usually exist above the dimensions in which we move. At times they are manifested in forms which communicate their divine duties to man by the ordinary senses. Their employment here is as part of the manifest presence of God in keeping fallen mankind out of Eden. They, along with a flaming sword which appeared to turn with constant motion in every direction, represented God's vigilant presence to observe any violation of the ban on their entrance. They are stationed on the East of Eden. This seems to indicate that the humans were expelled and sent away in that direction. How long did the Cherubim and the sword remain at the entrance to Eden? How long did Eden remain as a physical location on earth? These are unknown. Is Eden still around? and if so where is it? These are more the concerns of fiction than of any importance to us. God obviously intended for Eden to become but a memory and a lesson to us. Not for it to become a legendary land to be searched for. All we know of the location of Eden is what is given in Genesis 2:10-14. It was at the source of four rivers: The Pishon, which flowed around the land of Havilah, a land of gold, bdellium and onyx stone. This has caused some to associate this with India. The next is the Gihon, which flowed around the land of Cush. Some associate this with the Nile, since after the time of Noah Egypt was known as the land of Cush. Then there was the Hiddekel, which flowed East of Assyria (Ashshur). It is often associated with the Tigris River. Finally it mentions the Euphrates (Perat). The problem with all these conjectures is that we have no idea of the geography of the earth prior to the great flood of the time of Noah. The surface features which determine rivers may have been very different, and we have no idea that Noah's ark settled down after the flood any where near the place where civilization had grown up prior to that time. Old names would have been carried with Noah and his family. As rivers and mountains were named, they would likely have use names they had been familiar with before the flood. Eden is lost. Its message lives on in God's Word. Its events and lessons effect us all. |
