Untitled Sermon (8)

Sermon • Submitted a year ago • Presented a year ago

0 ratings

· 8 views

Notes

Transcript

Genesis 3:1: "Now the serpent was more subtil 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?" But, Eve's response is not what she should have made. A shift from God's Word to the tempter's question. Emphasis on But, Eve's response.

Fifteen Facts about the Serpent of Eden

1. He was a beast of the field (Gen. 3:1).

2. He was more subtle than all others (Gen. 3:1).

3. He was created by God (Gen. 3:1).

4. He was a serpent, not Satan (Gen. 3:1).

5. He had power of speech (Gen. 3:1–6).

6. He had reasoning powers (Gen. 3:1–6).

7. He had deceptive powers (Gen. 3:1–6).

8. He had knowledge of God’s plan (Gen. 3:1–6).

9. He walked upright before the fall (Gen. 3:14).

10. He was head of all animals (Gen. 3:1, 14).

11. He was capable of enmity (Gen. 3:15).

12. He was close to man in Eden (Gen. 3:1–15).

13. He carried on conversation (Gen. 3:1–6).

14. He was cursed above all animals (Gen. 3:14).

15. He was a literal snake that was used as a tool of Satan to deceive man (Gen. 3:1–19).1

1 Finis Jennings Dake, Dake’s Topics (WORDsearch, 1991).

SUPPORTING IDEA: Temptation occurs when Eve questions the word and the character of God.

3:1–4. A serpent is introduced both as a created being and as one who spoke against the revelation of God. He is said to be more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. The word crafty indicates that this creature was subtle in its actions. One might ask why Eve was not disturbed by an animal who spoke to her. But everything was new to her. Perhaps before the alienation that would come with the fall, mankind and animals could communicate. While the serpent is not identified here as Satan, he spoke against the word of God. Later revelation referred to “that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan” (Rev. 12:9; cp. Rev. 20:2; Rom. 16:20), which shows a close connection between this serpent and Satan.

The serpent caused Eve to question the word of God. He planted doubt in her mind when he asked, Did God really say, “You must not eat from any tree in the garden”? (emphasis added). What God had said to the man was, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die” (Gen. 2:16–17). Notice how the Evil One, through the serpent, focused on the negative, the prohibition, rather than on the generosity of God. The serpent did not dare suggest that perhaps if God had withheld this tree from humanity, it was not needed by humans. God’s prohibition was really his line of protection.

Notice too that the Evil One through the serpent addressed the woman and not the man. It was the man to whom God had originally given his revelation about the food that they were to eat (Gen. 2:16–17). Apparently Adam had passed on to Eve what God had declared to him before she was created. It may be that the Evil One knew that stipulations given through someone else might be easier to ignore or disobey than that received as a direct revelation from God.

Eve’s response shows that the Evil One succeeded in getting her to question the word of God or at least to get her phrasing it in such a way that it didn’t seem so restrictive. Her response reveals a number of subtle shifts in thought. First, she disparaged her privileges. God said, “You are free to eat from any tree.” But Eve said, We may eat fruit from the trees. God just didn’t seem as generous in Eve’s phraseology.

Second, she overstated the restrictions. God said, “You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” But Eve said, You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it (emphasis added).

Third, Eve underrated her obligations. God said, “For when you eat of it you will surely die” (emphasis added) while she merely stated, Or you will die.

Eve would come to understand that God’s word is not just generally true; it’s absolutely and precisely true. God says what he means—and he means what he says. This understanding of the absolute authority of God’s word is necessary for mankind to acknowledge so he might respond in a God-honoring manner.

Satan’s response to Eve’s somewhat less-than-accurate understanding of God’s word was to deny that God’s word was true: You will not surely die. This contradicted God’s revealed word to Adam. The very first doctrine in Scripture that Satan denied is that sin results in death (or to put it another way, Satan declared that God would not punish sin). If he could have God’s created human beings believing this, then sinning would not seem too serious.1

1 Kenneth O. Gangel and Stephen J. Bramer, Genesis, ed. Max Anders, Holman Old Testament Commentary (B&H Publishing Group, 2002), 40–41.

3:1 The speaking serpent is suddenly introduced into the story with minimum detail. Nothing is mentioned about its origin, other than that it is one of the beasts of the field. Although the serpent is eventually portrayed as God’s enemy, the initial introduction is full of ambiguity regarding its true nature. While the brief comment that it is the craftiest of the beasts possibly indicates potential danger, the Hebrew term ‘arum does not carry the negative moral connotations of the English words “crafty” and “cunning.” Similarly, the serpent’s initial question may have sounded quite innocent, although it deliberately misquotes God as saying that the couple must not eat of any tree in the garden. Did the serpent merely misunderstand what God had said? In these ways the subtlety of the serpent’s approach to the woman is captured by the narrator. It is noteworthy that the serpent also deliberately avoids using God’s personal name “Yahweh” (“Lord”) when he addresses the woman. Here is another hint that his presence in the garden presents a threat. Although his initial words appear deceptively innocent, his subsequent contradiction of God leaves no doubt about the serpent’s motive and purpose. The text does not indicate when or how the serpent became evil. As the narrative proceeds, it becomes clear that more than a simple snake is at work here; an evil power is using the snake (see note on v. 15). As indicated by God’s declaration that “everything he had made … was very good” (1:31), clearly evil entered the created world at some unknown point after God’s work of creation was completed. Likewise, nothing in the Bible suggests the eternal existence of evil (see notes on Isa. 14:12–15; Ezek. 28:11–19).

3:1 Later Scripture indicates that Satan worked through the serpent (Isa. 27:1; Rev. 12:9). He was defeated by Christ’s work on the cross (Heb. 2:14–15), and will be utterly destroyed in the events leading to the consummation (Rev. 20:7–10).

3:2–3 The woman’s response largely echoes the divine instruction given in 2:16–17 regarding the tree of knowledge (for more on the meaning of the covenant, see note on 2:17), although she fails to identify the tree clearly as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and adds the comment neither shall you touch it. These minor variations are possibly meant to convey, even at this stage, that the woman views God’s instructions as open to human modification.

1 Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 55.

Ryrie Study Bible Expanded

3:1 the serpent. Apparently a beautiful creature, in its uncursed state, that Satan used in the temptation. more crafty. I.e., clever, not in a degrading sense at this point. he said. Satan spoke through the serpent. Perhaps Eve did not realize that animals could not speak; at any rate, she was not alarmed. from any tree of the garden. The question was designed to suggest that God was not good and fair because He restricted the eating of the fruit of one of the trees.11 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible: New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update, Expanded ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 8.

3:1 serpent The Hebrew word used here, nachash, means “snake” or “serpent.” The Hebrew word satan does not appear in this passage, but the nt associates the events recorded here with Satan (Rev 12:9; 20:2). The attribution of human characteristics (cleverness and speech) to the nachash suggests it is more than an ordinary member of the animal kingdom.

Proper nouns of people or cities that include the Hebrew nachash indicate that the term may also mean “bronze” or “diviner.” Conceptual parallels between Gen 3 and ancient Near Eastern material—which also forms the backdrop of passages with similar language (Isa 14; Ezek 28)—suggests that the nachash in Gen 3 could be understood in two ways. The narrative may refer to a shining divine being—a member of God’s heavenly host or council (compare note on 1:26)—in serpentine appearance. In addition, the serpentine imagery may be used to convey the motif of threatening disorder associated with other serpentine figures in the ot (see Pss 74:13–14; 104:26 and note; Job 26:12 and note; Job 41:1 and note).

Satan in the Old Testament and the Serpent of Genesis 3

The Identity of the Serpent LRC:G111

Serpent DOT: P

Did God indeed say The serpent’s question omits the positive statement made by God in Gen 2:16. The serpent also distorts the earlier statement by presenting God as saying Adam and Eve could not eat from any tree at all.

3:2 we may eat The woman corrects the serpent’s wording, but she does not do so precisely. Instead of echoing 2:16, where God gave the human couple permission to eat from every tree except one, she generalizes the permission, noting simply that they may eat of the trees in the garden.1

1 John D. Barry et al., Faithlife Study Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016), Ge 3:1–2.

Faithlife Study Bible

Satan in the Old Testament and the Serpent of Genesis 3

The common modern understanding is that the serpent (nachash in Hebrew) of Genesis 3 is Satan in the guise of a snake—that is, as a member of the animal kingdom. This view is accompanied by the view that Satan is the devil. This view emerges from the combination of several biblical passages.

In Revelation 12:9 and Revelation 20:2, the serpent (nachash) from Eden is associated with the devil, and the devil with Satan. But Revelation is the last book of the New Testament, and likely one of the last New Testament books to be written. Further, the term “devil”—which derives from the Greek word diabolos—does not appear in the Old Testament. Prior to Revelation, the Bible never associates the serpent of Genesis with Satan. The Old Testament has a framework that is later utilized by Revelation but does not make the same distinctions as Revelation.

Satan in the Old Testament

The Hebrew word satan is not a proper noun in the Old Testament—it’s not a name. As such, the term was not used to refer to a cosmic enemy of God. A brief consideration of the Hebrew grammar helps explain why.

Like English, Hebrew does not attach the definite article (“the”) to proper personal nouns. For example, English speakers do not refer to themselves (or to another person) with phrases like “the Tom” or “the Janet.” However, most of the 27 occurrences of satan in the Hebrew Bible include a definite article—essentially reading “the satan.” For example, all occurrences in the book of Job (Job 1:6–9, 12; 2:1–4, 6–7) include the definite article. The term is applied to a divine being with the definite article in Zechariah 3:1–2, where Joshua the high priest stands before the satan who accuses him of misdeeds in the company of the Angel of Yahweh. Yahweh then rebukes the satan, since he has pardoned Joshua (and so, Israel).

Of the remaining occurrences of satan, only three passages use the word of a divine being: Numbers 22:22, Numbers 22:32 and 1 Chronicles 21:1. The rest are used of humans. In these three passages, a definite article is not included—meaning that there is no grammatical reason to prohibit them from referring to a cosmic enemy of God. Yet the context of each of these passages rules out this interpretation. In fact, the two occurrences in Numbers refer not to God’s enemy, but to the Angel of Yahweh. The remaining occurrence—where the satan provokes David to take a census—also does not refer to God’s enemy: in the parallel passage to the event (2 Sam 24:1), God Himself prompts David to take the census. In addition, contextual clues in 1 Chronicles 21:1 indicate that the satan is the Angel of Yahweh. Thus the two passages can be harmonized, as the Old Testament often co-identifies God and the Angel of Yahweh (see 1 Chr 21:1). Ultimately, there are no passages in the ot where the word satan refers to God’s cosmic enemy.

But why is the word satan used to refer to humans and the Angel of Yahweh? The answer is straightforward: the term means “accuser” or “challenger.” The Hebrew word satan describes a particular action or role, often in the context of opposition or judgment. In the case of Numbers 22:22, and Numbers 22:32, God sent the Angel of Yahweh to oppose Balaam on his journey to curse Israel. In the case of 1 Chronicles 21:1, the parallel passage of 2 Samuel 24:1 explains: “Again Yahweh was angry with Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go count Israel and Judah.’ ” God was already angry at David and planned to judge him. He then sent the Angel to prompt David to take a census, which led to his punishment. God used the Angel (his accuser) as an instrument of judgment on David.

The Serpent in Genesis

The word satan does not occur anywhere in Genesis 3; rather, the word translated “serpent” is nachash. Hence, the two terms are never co-identified in the Old Testament. But just because the serpent (nachash) is not called satan does not mean that the serpent was not a divine being. The Hebrew term satan may refer to either a human or a divine being, depending on the context. Likewise, nachash—though typically referring to a snake—has nuances which allow for multiple meanings.

When nachash functions as a noun, it means “snake.” But the root consonants of the word also form the Hebrew verb that means “to conjure” or “practice divination” (see 2 Kgs 21:6; Gen 30:27; 44:5). Nachash in Genesis 3 can be interpreted in this light, and understood as “the conjurer.” Since the practice of divination aimed to solicit and dispense divine knowledge, the context of Genesis 3 is consistent with this possibility. However, technical grammatical reasons make this interpretation unlikely.

The root consonants are also the basis for words that refer to shining metals, such as bronze—a description used elsewhere in the Old Testament for divine beings (see Ezek 1:14–16, 27–28; Dan 10:6; compare Matt 28:3; Rev 10:1). For example, Ezekiel 28:13 contains an “anointed cherub” figure, who inhabits the garden of Eden. If this figure is a divine being, there may be a link between that figure’s brilliant, shining appearance and the root consonants of nachash in Genesis 3. Consequently, the word nachash may refer to a “shining one” in the garden of Eden—a divine being who conversed with Eve and deceived her.

Since Eden seems to be God’s temple and abode, the “shining one” option represents a viable interpretation. It also helps explain why Eve is not surprised when the nachash speaks to her. The primary obstacle to this perspective is the possible inter-relationship between Genesis 3, Ezekiel 28, and Isaiah 14: both Ezekiel and Isaiah describe Eden and the cosmic rebellion without reference to a snake.

New Testament Conflation of Terms

In the book of Revelation, the term satan and the serpent (nachash) of Genesis 3 are conceptually merged. The correlation is logical: The serpent was the original “opposer” (“adversary”; satan) of God’s kingdom on earth. As such, the nachash was perceived as the original enemy, the Grand Adversary (satan). However, when this correlation developed is less apparent. A number of non-biblical Jewish writings prior to the birth of Jesus developed a rich tradition about the Grand Adversary. Some of these texts used “Satan” as a proper noun in referring to that enemy; New Testament writers did as well.

Michael S. Heiser

I. Satan’s temptations begin by laying a doubt at the root. He questions; he unsettles. He does not assert error; he does not contradict truth; but he confounds both. He makes his first entries, not by violent attack, but by secret sapping; he endeavours to confuse and cloud the mind which he is afterwards going to kill.

II. The particular character of these troublesome and wicked questionings of the mind varies according to the state and temperament and character of each individual. (1) In order to combat them, every one should have his mind stored and fortified with some of the evidences of the Christian religion. To these he should recur whenever he feels disquieted; he should be able to give “a reason for the hope that is in him,” and an answer to that miserable shadow that flits across his mind, “Yea, hath God said?” (2) A man must be careful that his course of life is not one giving advantage to the tempter. He must not be dallying under the shadow of the forbidden tree, lest the tempter meet him and he die.

III. The far end of Satan is to diminish from the glory of God. To mar God’s design he insinuated his wily coil into the garden of Eden; to mar God’s design he met Jesus Christ in the wilderness, on the mountain top, and on the pinnacle of the temple; to mar God’s design he is always leading us to take unworthy views of God’s nature and God’s work.

J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 1874, p. 172 (Good Words, 1867, p. 310).

The tempter effected his purpose in Eden: (1) by a question; (2) by a negation; (3) by a promise.

I. By a question. (1) Have we ever reflected on the tremendous power of a question? Some of the most important social and intellectual revolutions have sprung from a question. And it was through a question that the greatest of all revolutions was effected, by which man, made in the image of God, was seduced from his allegiance—a question that has carried with it consequences of which no man can foresee the end. (2) Mark the subtlety of the question. It aimed at destroying the blessed fellowship between God and man. “Men ask in vain,” says Luther, “what was the particular sin to which Eve was tempted.” The solicitation was to all sins when she was tempted to doubt the word and the goodwill of God.

II. The tempter makes the way to sin easy by removing all fear of the consequences. There is the negation, “Ye shall not surely die.” We listen to the lie, and we stake our all, for time and for eternity, upon this blank and cruel negation.

III. The Satanic promise, verse 5. (1) It is malevolent: “God doth know”; He has a reason for the restriction; He dreads a rival. (2) It is fascinating: “Ye shall be as gods.” The perverted pride of man’s heart is the tempter’s best ally.

J. J. S. Perowne, Anglican Pulpit of To-day, p. 209. (See also Contemporary Pulpit, vol. v., p. 119; and Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxiii., p. 13.)

References: 3:1.—B. Waugh, Sunday Magazine (1887), p. 348; Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxv., p. 113. 3:1–5.—C. J. Vaughan, Voices of the Prophets, p. 237; D. Wilson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxv., p. 113; Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons vol. v., p. 17; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xii., p. 78, xiii., p. 83; Parker, vol. i., p. 132; R. S. Candlish, Book of Genesis, vol. i., p. 60; N. Blackwood, Sunday Magazine (1885), p. 235. 3:1–13.—Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iv., p. 551. 3:1–16.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iv., p. 146. 3:2, 3.—H. Melvill, Sermons on Less Prominent Facts, vol. ii., p. 107. 3:3.—J. Keble, Sermons for the Christian Year, vol. iii., p. 118.1

1 W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Sermon Outline Bible: Genesis–2 Samuel, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1958), 22–23.

Wiersbe’s “Be” Series

1. The enemy (Gen. 3:1a)1

Satan has been caricatured so much by writers, artists, actors, and comedians that most people don’t believe the devil really exists; or if they do believe he exists, they don’t take him seriously. For example, the English novelist Samuel Butler wrote, “It must be remembered that we have heard only one side of the case. God has written all the books.”2 And Mark Twain wrote, “We may not pay Satan reverence, for that would be indiscreet, but we can at least respect his talents.”3 A popular television comedian always got laughs when he said, “The devil made me do it!”

Although we don’t understand much about his origin,4 we know that Satan is real, Satan is an enemy, and Satan is dangerous. Here in Genesis 3, Satan is compared to a serpent, an image that’s repeated in 2 Corinthians 11:3. In Revelation 12, he’s called a dragon; and both names are combined in 20:2. But Satan is not only a serpent who deceives, he’s also a roaring lion who devours (1 Peter 5:8). Among his names are “Abaddon” and “Apollyon” which mean “destroyer” (Rev. 9:11); “Satan” which means “adversary”; and “devil” which means “slanderer.”

In John 8:44, Jesus called Satan a murderer and “the father of lies.” He also called him “the evil one” (Matt. 13:19) and “the prince of this world” (John 12:31). Paul and John also called the devil “the evil one” (1 Thes. 3:3; 1 John 3:12), and Paul said Satan was “the god of this age” (2 Cor. 4:4), the ruler of the world system (Eph. 2:2), and the leader of demonic forces of evil (Eph. 6:10–12).

In short, Satan is no pushover, and God’s people must be careful not to give him a foothold in their lives (Eph. 4:27). That’s why we’re studying God’s Word and seeking to understand the strategy of Satan (2 Cor. 2:11).

2. The strategy (Gen. 3:1b–5)

A temptation is an opportunity to accomplish a good thing in a bad way. It’s a good thing to pass a school examination but a bad thing to do it by cheating. It’s a good thing to pay your bills but a bad thing to steal the money for the payments. In essence, Satan said to Eve: “I can give you something that you need and want. You can have it now and enjoy it; and best of all, there won’t be any painful consequences. What an opportunity!” Note the stages in Satan’s tempting of Eve.5

Satan disguised himself (v. 1a). Satan isn’t an originator; he’s a clever imitator who disguises his true character. If necessary, he can even masquerade as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14).6 When he came into the Garden, Satan used the body of a serpent, one of God’s creatures that He had pronounced “good” (Gen. 1:31). Eve didn’t seem disturbed by the serpent’s presence or its speech, so we assume that she saw nothing threatening about the encounter. Perhaps Eve hadn’t been introduced to this species and concluded that it had the ability to speak.7

Satan still works today as the great impersonator. He has produced a counterfeit righteousness apart from the righteousness that comes only by faith in the Savior (Rom. 9:30–10:13). Satan has false ministers (2 Cor. 11:13–16) who preach a false gospel (Gal. 1:6–10), and he has false brothers (and sisters) who oppose the true Gospel (2 Cor. 11:26). The devil has gathered his counterfeit Christians into false churches that God calls “synagogues of Satan” (Rev. 2:9); and in these assemblies, Satan’s “deep secrets” are taught (v. 24).

Satan questioned God’s Word (v. 1b).Second Corinthians 11:3 makes it clear that Satan’s target was Eve’s mind and that his weapon was deception. By questioning what God said, Satan raised doubts in Eve’s mind concerning the truthfulness of God’s Word and the goodness of God’s heart. “Do you really mean that you can’t eat from every tree?” was the import of the subtle question. “If God really loved you, He would be much more generous. He’s holding out on you!” Satan wanted Eve to forget that God had told Adam (who had told her) that they could eat freely of the trees of the Garden. For their own good, there was a prohibition: they didn’t dare eat from the forbidden tree in the middle of the Garden (Gen. 2:15–17).

Eve’s reply showed that she was following Satan’s example and altering the very Word of God. Compare 3:2–3 with 2:16–17 and you’ll see that she omitted the word “freely,” added the phrase “nor shall you touch it” (nkjv), and failed to say that God “commanded” them to obey. Note too that Eve copied the devil further when she spoke of “God” (Elohim) and not “the Lord [Jehovah] God,” the God of the covenant. Finally, she said “lest you die”—a possibility—instead of “You shall surely die”—an actuality. So, she took from God’s Word, added to God’s Word, and changed God’s Word, which are serious offenses indeed (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:19). She was starting to doubt God’s goodness and truthfulness.

Satan denied God’s Word (v. 4). “You will not surely die” (niv) is a direct contradiction of God’s “You will surely die” (2:17, niv). But Satan is a liar (John 8:44) and God is the God of truth (Deut. 32:4), and our response to what God says should be, “Therefore all Your precepts concerning all things I consider to be right” (Ps. 119:127). At this point, Eve should have reminded herself of God’s Word, believed it, left the serpent, and found her husband. It’s when we linger at the place of temptation that we get into trouble, especially when we know what we’re thinking is contrary to God’s truth. God’s truth is our shield and buckler (Ps. 91:4; Eph. 6:16), but it protects us only if we take it by faith and use it.

Satan substituted his own lie (Gen. 3:5). “You will be like God” is a promise that would get anybody’s attention.8 “Glory to man in the highest!” has always been the rallying cry of those who reject the biblical revelation, whether they espouse godless humanism, materialism, or the so-called New Age religion. (Actually, the philosophy of the New Agers isn’t new at all. It’s as old as Genesis 3!)

Romans 1:18–32 describes how Gentile civilization from the time of Cain rejected the truth of God and turned to foolishness and lies. They “exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (v. 25, nkjv). Speaking about Satan, Jesus said “for he is a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44). In defiance of God, humans exchanged God’s truth for “the lie” (note the singular), and followed Satan who is the father of “it” (note the singular again).

What is “the lie” (singular) that has ruled civilization since the fall of man? It’s the belief that men and women can be their own god and live for the creation and not the Creator and not suffer any consequences. Believing this, they refuse to submit to God’s truth but prefer to believe Satan’s lies and follow his diabolical plan for their destruction. They don’t realize that Satan is their master (Eph. 2:1–3) and the lake of fire is their destiny (Matt. 7:13–23; Rev. 20:10–15).

When you review the sequence, you can better understand how Satan leads people to the place of disobedience. Once we start to question God’s Word, we’re prepared to deny His Word and believe Satan’s lies. Then it’s just a short step to believing Satan’s promises and disobeying God’s commands. When our Lord was tempted (Matt. 4:1–11), He answered Satan’s lies with God’s truth and three times affirmed, “It is written!” Satan wants to deceive our minds (2 Cor. 11:3), but we defeat him by using the spiritual weapons God provides (Eph. 6:10–18; 2 Cor. 10:4–5).1

1 1 While Satan is certainly at work throughout biblical history, in the Old Testament, he makes four special “personal appearances”: to tempt Eve (Gen. 3); to get permission to attack Job (Job 1–2); to tempt David (2 Sam. 24; 1 Chron. 21); and to accuse Joshua the high priest (Zech. 3). For a study of these four passages and what they mean to the church today, see my book The Strategy of Satan (Tyndale House). Other books that can help you better understand Satan and his wiles are: The Voice of the Devil by G. Campbell Morgan (Baker reprint); I Believe in Satan’s Downfall by Michael Green (Eerdmans); Satan: His Motives and Methods by Lewis Sperry Chafer (Zondervan); Your Adversary the Devil by Dwight Pentecost (Zondervan); The Invisible War by Donald Grey Barnhouse (Zondervan); and The Adversary by Mark Bubeck (Moody Press).

2 2 Samuel Butler, The Note Books of Samuel Butler, edited by Henry F. Jones (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1921), 217.

3 3 Charles Neider, The Complete Essays of Mark Twain (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1963), 237. Like Butler, Twain says, “We have none but the evidence for the prosecution, and yet we have rendered the verdict.”

4 4 Many students believe that the fall of Satan (Lucifer) lies behind the “taunt song” description of the defeat of the king of Babylon found in Isaiah 14:12–17. John Milton took this view (and embellished it) when he wrote “Paradise Lost.”

5 5 In Genesis 3:1–5, both Satan and Eve use plural pronouns, suggesting that Adam may have been present but said nothing. However, it’s likely that these plural pronouns simply mean that Satan and Eve included Adam because he was the one to whom God originally gave the prohibition about the trees (2:15–17). God used singular pronouns when speaking to Adam, so Eve was told the divine commandment by her husband.

6 6 Many people who claim to have had “out-of-body” experiences report that they felt no fear because they saw “a bright light at the end of the dark tunnel.” Assuming that this light was the presence of God in heaven, they had confidence that they were ready to meet God. But Satan the imitator knows how to produce light and imitate the very angels of God.

7 7 Eve’s innocent response to the words of a talking animal is another argument for the absence of Adam, or else we have to believe that humans and animals were able to communicate in Eden. Since Adam had named all the animals, he would have known the nature of the serpent, that it couldn’t speak. Adam has been blamed for not being with his wife, but he had work to do and the garden was probably large. As for Adam’s “guarding” the garden, Genesis 2:15 speaks of “working and taking care of the garden” (niv). The Hebrew word translated “dress” in the kjv and “take care of” in the niv can also mean “to watch, to guard” and is translated that way in 3:24 (niv, nkjv). But since God had pronounced the serpent “good,” what reason would Adam have for thinking it was a part of a wicked plan and that his wife was in danger? Without the advantage of hindsight, what would we have done had we been in his place?

8 8 If Isaiah 14:12–15 is a description of the fall of Satan, then the statement “I will be like the Most High” (v. 14) reveals the hidden agenda behind Satan’s revolt: he wanted to be like God. He failed in reaching this goal, so now he passes the desire along to Eve in the form of a promise. Satan desires the worship and service that belong only to the Lord God (Matt. 4:8–10).

1 Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Basic, “Be” Commentary Series (Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Pub., 1998), 58–62.

ESVGSB

3:1–24 The sudden arrival of a speaking serpent presents a challenge to the human couple. Their choice to disregard God’s instructions is an act of willful rebellion that has terrible consequences for all of creation. Nothing is said about where the serpent came from. The text does not indicate when or how the serpent became evil. It is clear, however, that evil entered the created world at some time after God’s “very good” work of creation was completed (1:31). Unlike the teachings of some other religions, the Bible never teaches that evil has always existed. See notes on Isa. 14:12–15; Ezek. 28:11–19.

3:2–3 The woman’s response echoes the divine instruction given in 2:16–17 (see note on 2:17), although she fails to identify the tree clearly, and she adds, “neither shall you touch it.”

3:4–5 The serpent directly contradicts what God has said. He presents the fruit of the tree as something worth having. By eating it, he says, Adam and Eve will be like God, knowing good and evil. The irony of the serpent’s remarks is that Adam and Eve, unlike the serpent, were already made in the image of God (1:26–27). They are already “like God.” This means they are expected to exercise authority over all the beasts of the field—including the serpent! By obeying the serpent, however, they betray the trust that God has placed in them. You will not surely die. It is sometimes claimed that the serpent is correct when he says this, for they do not immediately “die.” Further, their eyes are in fact opened (3:7), and God acknowledges that “the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil” (v. 22). Yet the serpent speaks only half-truths. What Adam and Eve will experience outside of Eden is not life as God intended. It is spiritual death.1

1 J. I. Packer, Wayne Grudem, and Ajith Fernando, eds., ESV Global Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 41.

Preacher’s Outline Sermon Bible

1 (3:1) Satan—Serpent: this event of the serpent tempting the woman is a shocking scene, a drastic turn of events. God had just created the universe and it was all good. Scripture is pointedly clear about this: God was well pleased—perfectly satisfied—with His creation, for it was perfect. It had to be perfect, for He is God, the Sovereign Lord and Majesty of the universe, and God cannot create anything imperfect. God had also created the Garden of Eden for man, the most perfect place imaginable for man to live. Everything was ideal and perfect: man was in utopia, in paradise. Man could want nothing more.

But then it happened. Out of nowhere, something terrible happened: evil appeared in the form of an evil creature. Where in the world did the creature come from? Was not man in the Garden of Eden, in paradise itself?

“Yes!” The answer to these questions is, “Yes. God did create all things good, and He did give man paradise in which to live.”

But, if this is so, who is this evil creature and where did he come from? How did he get upon earth and into the Garden of Eden, the paradise of earth? Other passages of Scripture tell us. Note seven points.

a. Scripture tells us that the devil, Satan himself, is called the serpent.

“And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him” (Re. 12:9; see vv. 14–15; 20:2).

Does this mean that Satan possessed or energized a real living serpent and spoke through the creature? Some outstanding commentators hold to this position.1 Or does it mean that Satan actually transformed himself into a serpent (NIV)? Or does it mean that the serpent is only a reference to Satan, whose very name is “that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan” (Re. 12:9)? That is, could this just be a picture of Satan himself? Some outstanding scholars hold this position.2 Is it possible to know which is meant? Is Scripture clear about how Satan tempted man? Some very dear commentators hold that Scripture allows for either interpretation.3 (See note—Ge. 3:14 for more discussion.)

In determining just who or what the serpent was, these facts need to be noted about the Scripture.

1) The serpent—when first created—apparently walked upright and was a most magnificent creature (Ge. 3:14). This is either symbolic language referring to Satan (note that v. 15 is definitely symbolic, for it definitely refers to Satan) or it is literal language referring to an actual serpent. If it is literal, then v. 15 switches to symbolic language.

2) The craftiness of the serpent is compared to the craftiness of the beast of the field. Scripture says the serpent was more subtle (crafty, clever, shrewd) than any of the animals upon earth (Ge. 3:1). This is either a comparison of Satan’s craftiness to the craftiness of the animals, or of the craftiness of one animal to the craftiness of the other animals.

3) Scripture gives examples where Satan had the power to use people as his tools and speak through them.

⇒ Peter (Mt. 16:22–23).

⇒ Demon-possessed people (Mt. 8:28–34; Acts 16:16–18).

4) All creation was created perfect by God, even the serpent. If we say that the serpent was a literal serpent used as an evil tool by Satan, then we have a problem explaining how creation was perfect: how could an animal be used as an evil tool in a world of perfect animals? This is the reason some interpreters say that Satan actually transformed or clothed himself as a serpent.4

b. Jesus Christ Himself tells us that Satan was behind the tragic fall of man.

“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it [in tempting Eve]” (Jn. 8:44).

c. Paul also says that Satan was behind the fall of man.

“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.… And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light” (2 Co. 11:3, 14).

“And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly” (Ro. 16:20; see Ge. 3:15 for the specific event to which Paul refers).

d. Scripture says that Satan had been the most exalted angel ever created by God, that God had created him to rule as the highest of all created beings. His particular reign and rule for God was over the earth and the universe, over the physical and material world and dimension of being. But Satan did the same thing that all men have done: he sinned and fell. He began to look at himself, and he began to want to live like he wanted instead of like God wanted. He wanted …

• to rule and reign over the universe like he wanted

• to rule without answering to God

• to possess the ultimate authority over the world

• to be the supreme ruler of the earth and physical universe

Satan wanted the very same thing that human nature has wanted down through history: to be one’s own person; to do one’s own thing; to control one’s own life. Satan wanted what so many power-hungry men have wanted down through history: to be the sovereign ruler over nations and over the lives of people. This is what Scripture means when it reveals what Satan said in Is. 14:13–14:

• “Thou hast said in thine heart …

• “I will ascend into heaven [God’s position, rule, and authority over the universe] …

• “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God …

• “I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation [be honored, praised, adored, worshipped by the congregation of others] …

• “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High [God Himself]” (Is. 14:13–14).

Simply stated, Satan rebelled against God. Consequently, God had no choice but to cast Satan down from his exalted position in heaven. Originally, when Satan ruled as the highest of all created beings …

• his name was Lucifer, which means star of the morning.

• he was the anointed cherub who covered the very throne of God Himself. He was the angel in charge of the glory of God’s very own throne throughout the physical and material universe.

Note how the following Scriptures have a double reference referring both to an earthly king and to Satan himself.

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit” (Is. 14:12–15).

“Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou was perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffic; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more” (Eze. 28:11–19).

Note one other significant fact: Jesus Christ Himself said that the Isaiah passage was speaking about Satan. He quoted Is. 14:12 in referring to Satan in Lu. 10:18.

⇒ Note Isaiah 14:12.

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” (Is. 14:12).

⇒ Note Luke 10:18.

“And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven” (Lu. 10:18).

e. The Bible teaches that Satan has some control over the earth. He has access to influence the world and man. History, the destruction and devastation of nature, and the terrible evil of men—all this—show that the domain of Satan includes the earth and the universe, that is, the physical and material world or dimension of being.

The question arises, when did Satan get access and control of the earth and universe? God certainly did not create the universe and put Satan and his evil forces in charge of it. The only living and true God—the Supreme Lord and Majesty of the universe who is the God of perfection and love—could never create evil nor put evil in charge of His perfect creation. This would be totally against God’s nature. This is discussed in the next point, point six. For now, the fact to see is the control and authority of Satan in the world. Scripture says this:

⇒ Scripture calls Satan the god of this world.

“But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (2 Co. 4:3–4).

⇒ Scripture calls Satan the prince of this world.

“Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out” (Jn. 12:31).

“Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me” (Jn. 14:30).

“Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged” (Jn. 16:11).

⇒ Scripture calls Satan the prince of the power of the air.

“Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience” (Ep. 2:2).

⇒ Scripture calls Satan the ruler of the darkness of this world.

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ep. 6:12).

⇒ Satan is the king of a kingdom.

“And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?” (Mt. 12:26).

“Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me” (Mt. 4:8–9).

⇒ Satan has his grip upon the whole world.

“And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness” (1 Jn. 5:19).

f. The Bible teaches that Satan struggles and fights against God and His will. Satan’s purpose in fighting against God is twofold.

1) Satan’s purpose is power and worship, to receive as much of the power and worship of the universe as possible (Is. 14:12–17; Eze. 28:11–17). He goes about this in at least three ways.

⇒ He opposes and disturbs God’s work in the world (Is. 14:12–17; Eze. 28:11–17; Job 1:6; 2:1–6; Mt. 4:10; Mk. 1:13; Lu. 4:8; Rev. 12:7–9).

⇒ He discourages believers through various strategies (see notes—Lu. 22:31; Ep. 6:10–12).

⇒ He arouses God’s justice against people by leading people to sin and to deny and rebel against God. And when they do, God’s justice has to act and judge people to the fate of their choice: that of living with Satan eternally (see note—Jn. 13:31–33).

2) Satan’s purpose is to hurt and cut the heart of God. Why? Because God has judged and condemned him for rebelling against God. Therefore, Satan does all he can to get back at God. The best way he can do this is to turn the hearts of people away from God and lead them to sin and to follow the way of evil. (See notes, pt. 3—Re. 12:3–4; pt. 2—Re. 12:7–9; pt. 2—Re. 12:10–11 for more discussion.)

The point is this: when did evil enter the world? How did Satan get access to and control of the world? This much can be said: God would certainly not create the universe and then put Satan in charge of it. This would be totally contrary to the nature of the Sovereign Lord and Majesty of the universe, the Sovereign Lord whose very nature is love and perfection. Satan’s history must, therefore, precede man. Satan’s creation and fall happened before man was ever created. In the eons of past history when Satan was created as the highest of angelic beings, he must have been placed in charge of the earth, even as man was later to be. But …

• just as man was to sin and fall, so Satan sinned and fell

• just as God has not yet utterly destroyed man, so God did not utterly destroy Satan—not yet

• just as God still has a purpose for man, so God still had a purpose for Satan

Satan was to be used by God to test man, to give man the opportunity to choose God, to exercise his free will to obey and follow God instead of disobeying and rejecting God (see notes—Ge. 2:16–17; 3:1 for discussion). Remember that we as sinful human beings still have the right to roam about the universe. So Satan, as a sinful spiritual being, still has the right to roam about the earth and universe. God’s purpose for creation will not be stopped, neither by man nor by Satan and his evil spirits, not until God’s purpose is completed and fulfilled. God is going to have a race of people with free wills, a race of people who will choose to love and follow Him supremely.

The point is this: the best explanation as to where Satan and evil entered the world is that of the Scripture, that of the Holy Bible—not the conjectures of men—as covered in the above points.

g. Man had to be tempted in order to exercise his free will for God. God had to create a situation whereby man could exercise his will and choose to obey and follow God. As already seen, there was no better way than to demand that man not eat from one of the trees in the Garden (see note 5—Ge. 2:9 for more discussion). But remember this: man was created perfect, perfectly sinless and innocent. Man had no idea what temptation and sin were. Man had perfect access and fellowship with God. In his perfect state of innocence and sinlessness, there was no way man was going to act against God. Thus, for man to exercise his free will, something other than God telling Adam not to eat from a single tree was needed. Temptation was needed: the arousal of a suggestive thought.

This is the reason God allowed Satan to tempt Eve. Satan’s temptation was needed for man to exercise his will for God, needed so that man could reject his own desire and choose to obey and follow God. But note this: Satan had the right to tempt Eve, but he did not have the power to make Eve sin. Eve was sinless and innocent: she chose to sin. She exercised her own free will by choosing to follow Satan and his evil lusts. The temptation was from Satan arousing lust within her, but the sin was of her own free will and choice.

2 (3:1) Temptation—Thoughts—Satan—Eve: the first step in temptation and sin involves the thoughts: suggestive, enticing, and tempting thoughts. Several striking things are immediately noticed about Eve and the temptation that attacked her.

⇒ Eve was alone. She had gone off without her husband, Adam.

⇒ Eve was where she did not belong. She was standing by the forbidden tree.

⇒ Eve was apparently thinking about the tree and its delicious looking fruit.

⇒ Eve was not keeping a watchful eye against temptation.

What makes us say this—that Eve was thinking about the delicious fruit? Note what Satan said to Eve, “Yea—indeed—has God said, ‘you must not eat from every tree of the garden’?” The very first words, “Yea—indeed,” strongly suggest that Eve was thinking about the tree. At that very moment, while she was thinking about it, Satan attacked and just continued her thoughts: “Yea—indeed [how good it looks]—has God said; ‘You must not eat from every tree of the garden’?”

Note that Satan misquoted God’s Word. God had said that man could eat from every tree in the garden except one. God was good, extremely good. Man had everything he could ever want: all the fruit except one tree. All the trees would benefit man, but the forbidden tree would destroy him. But note what Satan did: he questioned Eve, “Yea—indeed—has God said, ‘You must not eat from every tree’?” The thought was planted in Eve’s mind, the suggestive thought …

• that she was missing out on something

• that the most delicious fruit was the very thing being forbidden

• that something good was being withheld and kept from her

• that she must not miss what looked good and would probably feel and taste good

This is the first step in temptation, the step that involves our thoughts, the thoughts of suggestion. The suggested thought is …

• that we are missing something that looks good, feels good, and tastes good

• that perhaps God’s Word is causing us to miss something that is delicious

Thought 1. Too many of us get alone or away from loved ones and go places we should not. Tragically, even some husbands and wives do this.

“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Ro. 12:1–2).

“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty” (2 Co. 6:17–18).

3 (3:2) Thoughts—Temptation—Sin: the second step in temptation and sin involves discussing our thoughts: actually entertaining, harboring, and discussing the suggestive thoughts. We may discuss the thoughts within our own minds or verbally with someone else. Very practically, what happens with a suggestive thought that begins to tempt us is this: the suggestive thought flies across our minds. At that point it should be rejected and not entertained or harbored and discussed. A tempting thought—a thought that suggests we sin, that we disobey God’s Word—should never be harbored or entertained. As we move about in a sinful world—whether sitting, walking, standing, or riding …

• we cannot always keep from being tempted, but we can always flee the temptation

• we cannot always keep the appealing thing from crossing our eyes, but we can keep from looking

• we cannot help the first look, but we can control the second look

• we cannot always keep the thoughts from crossing our minds, but we can keep them from roosting there

• we cannot always keep the first suggestive thought of temptation from entering our minds, but we can push the thought out. We can turn our thoughts and mind to something else, in particular to quoting Scripture

But note: this is not what Eve did. Eve did three things.

a. Eve entertained, harbored, and discussed the suggestive thought. It was at this point that Eve began to sin, for she turned away from the great goodness of God. Note that she omits the word “every” or “all” from “every tree” (Ge. 2:16). She simply says, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees.” God’s glorious goodness in giving all the trees to her is being dimmed in her mind. Her thoughts have slipped from God’s goodness: she is no longer focused upon all that God has done for her. She has turned her thoughts away from God and His goodness and is now harboring and discussing the suggestive thoughts. Sin actually begins when the suggestive thoughts are harbored and thought about. It is then that God and His goodness are being rejected, ignored, neglected, and pushed aside.

b. Eve began to feel that God’s command was too strict and restrictive. This is seen in her words, “Neither shall you touch it.” God never said this (Ge. 2:17). God simply said, “You shall not [must not] eat of it.” Eve was not completely trusting God at this point. She was thinking—rationalizing—that touching the tree would be all right. Perhaps she should not eat of it, but touching it could not hurt anything. Eve’s thoughts were running back and forth discussing God’s Word, just what He had said. She was entertaining and harboring the tempting thought; she was rationalizing and justifying her intentions. She was thinking how restrictive God’s Word was, doubting God’s goodness, that God had not provided the very best for her. Eve was right in the midst of sinning, sinning by questioning and doubting the great goodness of God.

c. Eve began to think about the consequence of the sin. She lightened the consequences some when she said, “lest you die” or “you will die.” This is not what God had said. God had pulled no punches: He had said that man would “surely die” (Ge. 2:17). Again, Eve was rationalizing; a chain of thoughts was running through her mind about God’s Word. She was wavering: wondering and questioning exactly what God had said. She should have fled the first suggestive and tempting thought. Instead, she was entertaining, harboring, and discussing the suggestive thought. She had forgotten the great goodness of God. She was no longer thinking about God and all that He had done for her. She was slipping further and further away from God, rationalizing her behavior more and more.1

1 1 H.C. Leupold. Genesis, Vol. 1, p. 142; Derek Kidner. Genesis. “Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries.” (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1979), pp. 67, 70.

2 2 W.H. Griffith Thomas. Genesis, a Devotional Commentary. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946). p. 47.

3 3 Matthew Henry’s Commentary, p. 21.

4 4 NIV Study Bible, Gen. 3:1.

1 Leadership Ministries Worldwide, Genesis (Chapters 1–11), vol. I, The Preacher’s Outline & Sermon Bible (Chattanooga, TN: Leadership Ministries Worldwide, 1996), 150–154.

Cornerstone Bible Commentary

3:1 serpent. The tempter appears in this narrative as a serpent. The fact that Genesis says that the temptation came through a serpent, and that Rev 12:7 and 20:2 refer to the devil as a serpent, would suggest that Satan used the form of an actual reptile. This enhanced the shrewdness of the temptation—it came in disguise. It is not until the book of Revelation that we get a confirmation that this was Satan (Rev 12:7; 20:2). In the oracle delivered to the serpent after the Fall, part of it refers to the serpent (3:14) and part to the spiritual force behind it (3:15). But some interpretations suggest that the reference to a serpent is to Satan, who tempted Eve like a serpent (presumably meaning shrewdly, although the point of the implied comparison to a serpent is not clear). This would make sense as a polemic in the ancient world, where serpents were often venerated as mystical powers of life. Still others would simply describe it as storytelling or ancient mythology (see Day 1985), to explain how evil entered the world. Even if one of these were the case, the interpreter would still have to explain why a serpent was chosen and how these passages relate to prophetic oracles that depict the removal of the Curse with serpent figures (see Isa 11:8; 27:1).

3:6 the tree was beautiful … looked delicious … wisdom it would give. In Hebrew, these three clauses describe the appealing aspects of the tree with respect to three areas: It seemed good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for wisdom.

Commentary

Genesis 3 provides the record of the historical fall of human beings into sin and death. It is also a picture of what temptation is like. The passage is about Adam and Eve to be sure, but it is also about all of us, every man and every woman, because the narrative is archetypal. The Fall appears as the result of temptation alone—the sin cannot be attributed to heredity nor the environment. And the tempter prompted them to sin. Thus, Paul could write that we are not ignorant of Satan’s devices—we have them displayed right here (2 Cor 2:11; 11:1–4). Moreover, the pattern of the temptation in the garden has as its counterpart the temptation of Jesus in Matthew 4:1–11; there Jesus defeated Satan by his precise obedience to the commands of God. Later, Jesus identified Satan as a murderer and a liar from the very beginning (John 8:44) when he denounced his opponents as the “children of your father the devil.”

In the first two chapters of Genesis, God had been the dominant speaker, not only in creation but in instructing his creation on what to do and what not to do. Now the serpent spoke. The word of the Lord brought life and order; the word of the serpent brought deception and death. By its very nature, truth is older than falsehood; God’s words came before the serpent’s words, but the serpent’s words were more effective because the humans did not know God’s words well enough.

The text begins with the report that the serpent was more shrewd than any of the creatures God had made. The text presents the temptation coming from what was clearly a reptile, for it states that the “serpent” spoke to the woman. We know that the tempter was Satan using the creature, but the woman did not, for temptation is most effective when it comes in disguise. After this event, the serpent became the symbol of the Curse and certainly one of danger. In Egypt, the people had seen the serpent venerated as either a force of life or of death, for the tombs were painted with snakes, and the king even wore a stylized serpent on his headdress. The Israelites would have regarded the serpent as an evil force because it was often a symbol of death, and its status as a symbol of life would have been rejected since only the Lord can produce life. Thus, in addition to its importance as the account of how evil entered the human race, this narrative also has a polemical force, showing the connection of the serpent with rebellion against God, which is death. In other words, divinity cannot be achieved (as promised in 3:5) by following the pagan beliefs and symbols, for they only bring death. The reason that Satan used a reptile in the first place helped conceal the temptation since it came through a subordinate creature, one over whom they were to have dominion (1:28). In short, Adam and Eve would have been less guarded against such an attack.

The text of Genesis gives no indication that the serpent had a different form or nature before the judgment decree other than perhaps its mobility. It is described as being more shrewd or wily than any other creature that God made, and so was cursed more than any other creature. Its restriction to crawling on its belly indicates it kept the same form but is now limited in the sphere of its movement. Moreover, crawling on its belly and eating dust are also symbolic of defeat. Ever after, the snake would be a physical reminder of the Curse, as it had been the physical representation of the tempter. In the promises of the new creation, the serpents will be rendered harmless as a sign that the curse is lifted (Isa 11:8).

The description of the serpent’s shrewdness (ʾarum [TH 6175, ZH 6874]; 3:1) employs a wordplay with the description of the humans’ nakedness (ʾarummim, [TH 6174, ZH 6873]; 2:25). The similar sounding words indicate that their integrity (see commentary on 2:25) was the target of his shrewd dealings. Shrewdness is not in itself an evil characteristic; the book of Proverbs is designed to train people to have this quality (Prov 1:4). The word denotes wariness, knowing where the traps and pitfalls are. Jesus instructed his disciples that in this world they needed to be as shrewd as serpents, but as harmless as doves (Matt 10:16). Satan was not harmless; Adam and Eve were. Satan was able to use his knowledge to ruin them. The nature of the temptation was a discussion about the word of God, not about an obscure meaning of a minor text, but about a clear-cut prohibition from God. Likewise today, when Satan wants to undermine the faith, it is the word of God that is attacked, the indisputably clear teachings of Scripture on doctrine and morality. In the narrative, Satan asked the woman about the commandment in a way that could not be answered with a yes or a no; it was designed to turn the word of God into a topic of debate. And it soon became clear that the woman did not know precisely what God had said. Whether this was her fault for getting it wrong or Adam’s for telling it to her this way, we cannot know. By contrast, Jesus was able to defeat Satan in his temptation because he knew the word of the Lord better than Satan (Matt 4:4, 7, 10). Satan used passages from the Scripture, but Christ used passages in harmony with the whole revelation of God.

In answering the serpent, Eve made three changes in what God said, slight changes to be sure, but changes that opened the door to sin. First, God had said, “You may freely eat” but the woman simply said, “We may eat,” minimizing the privileges (cf. 2:16–17; 3:2–3). Secondly, with her focus on the prohibition she added to it “or even touch it.” Third, and most seriously, she lessened the emphasis on punishment by saying “lest you die” (rather than the stronger expression, “You shall surely die,” which God had used). That this failure to preserve the exact words of God was at the heart of the temptation is clear from the response of the serpent, for when he heard what she said, he replied, “You won’t die!” (The construction is unusual, with the negative particle placed blatantly in front of the very words God used of the penalty in 2:17.) Since she was not convinced of the certainty of death for sin, he was free to deny it1

1 Allen Ross and John N. Oswalt, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, vol. 1 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), 49–52.

New American Commentary

3:1 The serpent is unforeseen in the narrative and appears suddenly. The reader is caught off guard, but not as unsuspecting as Eve. The snake is described by the narrator as “crafty,” alerting the reader to weigh the words of the beast carefully. “Crafty” (ʿārûm) can be spoken of approvingly or negatively, thereby introducing ambiguity at this stage in the story.168 Perhaps this also prepares the reader for the serpent as a talking animal, since it is distinguished from all others as “more crafty.”169 Its wordplay with “naked” (ʿărummîm) in 2:25, as noted, links the serpent’s shrewdness with the woman’s deception, finally resulting in the self-consciousness of human nakedness. Also the serpent is identified as an animal that God “had made” among the beasts of the field, referring to 2:19. This dismisses any notion of a competing dualism since the animal owes its existence to God.

Although the origin of the snake is attributed to God, there is no attempt here to explain the origins of evil. The narrative explains only the origin of human sin and guilt. There is no explanation for the serpent’s capacity to talk other than possibly that it was “crafty.” It is assumed that the animal has this ability, and the fact that the woman did not find this alarming only heightens the suspicion that the serpent is representative of something or someone sinisterly powerful. In any case the substance of what the serpent says is more important than who or what the serpent is.170 Moreover, the serpent was among the “good” animals God had made (chap. 1), and there was no ostensible reason for the woman to suspect the animal’s deceit other than the content of what the animal spoke. Perhaps that the snake was of the wild (see 2:19–20 with 3:1), not as familiar to the domestic couple, explains the woman’s gullibility.171 The reader, on the other hand, has the advantage of the narrator’s commentary.

Various explanations for the serpent compete for our understanding. It has been interpreted as a mythological character related to magical powers or taken as a symbol of human curiosity, the fertility cult, or of chaos/evil. Still others have proposed that the voice of the snake is the inner person.172 Others have found it to be a polemical response to the apostasy of magic or a demythologizing of the serpent deity, which was revered in the ancient Near East. And the traditional opinion among Jewish and Christian interpreters is that the serpent is Satan’s instrument.173 Luther explained: “The devil was permitted to enter beasts, as he here entered the serpent. For there is no doubt that it was a real serpent in which Satan was and in which he conversed with Eve” (LW 1.151).

“Serpent” (nāḥāš) is the general term for “snake.” This reptile had a significant role in the ancient world, where it was both an object of reverence and of disdain. It commonly is found in ancient myths and is represented by religious objects. It conveyed the ambivalent meanings of life/recurring youth, death/chaos, and wisdom.174 The Bible possesses the same associations for the serpent: the rejuvenating effects of Moses’ bronze serpent (Num 21:8; cf. 2 Kgs 18:4), its respected shrewdness (Matt 10:16), its venomous death (e.g., Ps 58:4), and as divine opponent (Isa 27:1). The Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh illustrates how the serpent was perceived in ancient times as man’s antagonist. Gilgamesh searches for the immortal Utnapishtim, the famed survivor of the flood, to learn how he too might obtain eternal life. Utnapishtim reveals a secret known only to him and the gods; there is a plant in the depths of the sea that can rejuvenate his life. Gilgamesh obtains it and names it “Man Becomes Young in Old Age.” The plant, however, is subsequently stolen away by a serpent which carries it off and when doing so sheds its skin, suggesting the process of rejuvenation.175

As we discussed in 2:4–25, the description of the garden scene uses imagery drawn from the tabernacle to convey by double entendre the meeting place for God and man in the garden. This reptile achieves the same purpose, indicating that opposition to God lurks in the garden. Serpents in the Mosaic community were classified among the unclean animals because of their movement on the ground (Lev 11:41–45) and were associated with the judgment of God for Israel’s complaints against God in the wilderness (“venomous snakes,” Num 21:6). Furthermore, the snake occurs in ancient Near Eastern imagery as antithetical to creation, representing powerful forces that oppose the creator-god. This imagery occurs in 1:21, where the monsters (tannîn) of ancient myth are no more than “sea creatures”—not hostile powers—created by the spoken word of Israel’s God. This “monster” (tannîn) is the same as the many-headed “Leviathan” or “serpent” (nāhāš).176 “Rahab” is identified as the “serpent” (nāhāš) defeated by God’s omnipotent hand at creation (Job 26:12–14). This creation imagery is used in the psalter and among the prophets to depict how God, who overcame hostile powers in creation, is the One whose mighty power overcomes Israel’s enemies (cf. Ps 74:13–14; Isa 51:9). In the same way, the serpent in the garden symbolized the hostile opposition to the woman and her seed (3:15). This is continued in the Christian tradition as evidenced in John’s Apocalypse (Rev 12:9; 20:2).

Many modern interpreters, however, fail to recognize that the serpent’s trickery is ultimately the voice of Satan. Although the snake is never identified as Satan in the Old Testament, more than the principle of evil must have been intended by the serpent’s presence since 3:15 describes an ongoing war between the serpent and the seed of the woman.177 “All the days of your life” (3:14) shows that the serpent is treated as a personal being. The role of the serpent is consistent with the adversary (haśśātan) depicted in Job 1–2. Although not identified as a serpent, he impugns the character of God and attempts to destroy Job. Jesus’ rebuke of the Jews as the children of their “father” (cf. “offspring,” 3:15) alludes to the garden scene, where the serpent is the “devil,” “a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44; cf. 1 John 3:12). This interpretation was also found in earlier Jewish wisdom (e.g., Wis 2:24) and was shared by Paul (Rom 16:20). In accord with the traditional opinion, the snake is more than a literal snake; rather it is Satan’s personal presence in the garden.

We may interpret the role of the serpent in the same vein as Peter’s resistance to Jesus’ death, where the Lord responded to Peter: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me. You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men” (Matt 16:23). Jesus does not mean Peter is possessed with Satan as Judas was when “Satan entered” him (Luke 22:3), nor was he threatened with possession (Luke 22:31). But Peter unwittingly was an advocate for Satan’s cause. Similarly, the snake is a creature speaking against the “things of God” and whose cause is that of Satan. From the viewpoint of the Mosaic community, the snake’s presence in the garden would have been surprisingly incongruent with the pristine character of Eden. The snake was reviled by the Hebrews as a source of uncleanness and a remembered menace.178 The notion of a slithering snake communicates powerfully that the woman is in grave jeopardy. Job 1–2, where the amorphous “Satan” is named but not described, does not have the same force that the figure of a snake portrays spoiling the garden. By the presence of the snake the Scripture shows that the malevolent Satan was in the garden.

The tactic used by the serpent was to cause doubt in the mind of the woman through interrogation and misrepresentation. First, the opponent does not controvert outright the saying of the Lord (2:16); rather, he questions God’s motivation with the subtle addition “really say.”179 Second, the serpent uses the name “God” rather than the covenant name “Lord” that has characterized the narrative of 2:4–25, where “Lord God” appears. Third, the serpent reworks the wording of God’s command slightly by (1) adding the negative “not” at the head of the clause, which with “any” expresses an absolute prohibition;180 (2) omitting the emphatic “freely”; (3) using the plural “you” (hence bypassing the man) rather than the singular as in 2:16; and (4) placing the clause “from any tree” at the end of the sentence rather than at the head as in 2:16, thereby robbing God’s command of its nuance of liberality. All of this is to say that the divine injunction in the mouth of the serpent was refashioned for its own interests.

3:2–3 The woman’s first mistake was her willingness to talk with the serpent and to respond to the creature’s cynicism by rehearsing God’s prohibition (2:17). However, she compounded her mistake by misrepresenting God’s command as the serpent had done, although definitely without the malicious intent of the snake. The serpent had succeeded in drawing the woman’s attention to another possible interpretation of God’s command. It would seem that the serpent had heard it all differently! Now the woman changes the tenor of the original command. First, she omits those elements in the command, “any” and “freely,” which placed the prohibition in a context of liberality. At this point she still is thinking collectively with her husband, from whom, as the narrator implies, she received the command: “we may eat” (v. 2). Second, Eve identifies the tree according to its location rather than its significance; and third, she refers to “God” as the serpent had done, rather than “the Lord” (v. 3). Fourth, she also adds the phrase “you must not touch it” (v. 3), which may make the prohibition more stringent. Yet to her credit the fear of touching the fruit may have been out of deference for God’s command. For Israel “touch” was associated with prohibition and death or with consecration to God.181 Finally, she failed to capture the urgency of certain death, “You will [surely] die” (v. 3).

3:4–5 With the woman lured into dialogue on his terms, the serpent directly disputes God’s command. The negative “not” (lōʾ) at the head of the Hebrew clause contradicts the immediately preceding claim by the woman, “You will die.”182 Any second thought the woman might have had at hearing the serpent’s bold statement is answered by the serpent’s following explanation (v. 5). The motivation for God’s command is impugned by the serpent. In the wisdom tradition the adversary argues the same case in Job (1:9–11; 2:4–5). God is not good and gracious; he is selfish and deceptive, preventing the man and woman from achieving the same position as “Elohim” (v. 5).183 What are we to say of God’s actions? Admittedly, the narrative presents a God who makes a peculiar demand, on the face of it out of “sheer irrationality.”184 When he catches the culprits, he condemns them with all manner of threats and eventually expels them for a motive that could be interpreted as selfish (3:22); yet he does not follow through on his tirade, granting them clothing and assurances. A cynical reader could conclude that the serpent was right. But it may be that this uncertainty about God is used by the author to put his readers in the same place of decision as Eve (and Job). What do we do when presented with the “fruit of temptation”?

Hence the serpent made three counterclaims: First, they will not die. Second, “your eyes will be opened,” a metaphor for knowledge, suggesting a newfound awareness not previously possessed. In the Old Testament this awareness sometimes is said to be obtained through divine assistance (e.g., Gen 21:19; 2 Kgs 6:17, 20). And finally, they will gain what belongs to God, “knowing good and evil.” Essentially he is contending that God is holding her back—a claim that is sometimes echoed today.185

When set in the larger context of the story, the serpent’s words are shown to be both true and false. They proved true in that the man and woman did not immediately die physically. Their eyes were indeed opened (v. 7), and they obtained knowledge belonging to God as the serpent had promised (v. 22). However, the serpent’s half-truths concealed falsehood and led the woman to expect a different result altogether. The serpent spoke only about what she would gain and avoided mentioning what she would lose in the process. Though the man and woman did not die immediately upon eating the fruit, the expectation and assignment to death were soon enough. Furthermore, they experienced expulsion from the garden, which was indicative of death.186 Later Israel experienced excommunication when any of its members were discovered ceremonially unclean; such victims were counted as dead men in mourning (e.g., Lev 13:45). Expulsion from the garden, which represented the presence of God as did the tabernacle in the camp, meant a symbolic “death” for the excommunicated (cf. 1 Sam 15:35–16:1). Although their eyes were opened, they were rewarded only with seeing their nakedness and were burdened with human guilt and embarrassment (v. 7). Although they became like God in this one way, it was at an unexpected cost. They achieved isolation and fear. The couple was cut off as well from the possibility of life, the one feature of divinity for which otherwise they were destined. They obtained “wisdom” in exchange for death.1

168 168 For the negative sense of “crafty,” see Job 15:5, where it is used of the “tongue” (cf. Job 5:12–13; Exod 21:14); for the sense of shrewdness see the wisdom of Proverbs (e.g., 12:23; 14:18). Saul deemed David “very crafty,” who used his wits to escape danger (1 Sam 23:22).

169 169 The preposition מִן is rendered as comparative in the NIV and NRSV, indicating degree; IBHS § 14.5d has it comparative superlative “most cunning,” but it has also been read as separation, meaning “subtle as none other of the beasts” (GKC § 119w).

170 170 von Rad comments, “We are not to be concerned with what the snake is but with what it says” (Genesis, 88).

171 171 J. Magonet notes that “the snake is described as being more cunning ‘than all living creatures of the field,’ that is to say, the snake comes from that group defined as living apart from man” (“The Themes of Genesis 2–3,” in A Walk in the Garden, JSOTSup 136 [Sheffield: JSOT, 1992], 39–46).

172 172 Cassuto, e.g., interprets the snake as an allegory for the “man himself”; the serpent’s voice is the woman’s own thoughts, and therefore it is not surprising that the snake talks (Genesis, 142–43).

173 173 E.g., Wis 2:24; Sir 21:2; 4 Macc 18:8; Rom 16:20 with v. 15; Rev 12:9; 14–15; 20:2.

LW LW Luther’s Works. Lectures on Genesis, ed. J. Pelikan and D. Poellot, trans. G. Schick

174 174 See K. R. Joines, Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testament: A Linguistic, Archaeological, and Literary Study (Haddonfield, N.J.: Haddonfield House, 1974).

175 175 ANET, 96.

176 176 Cf. Isa 27:1, where all three are the same; תַּנִּין occurs at Exod 7:9–10 for “snake” and נָחָשׁ for the rod that turned into a snake at Exod 4:3; 7:15.

177 177 Argued by Kidner, Genesis, 67.

178 178 An exception was the bronze serpent later revered (Num 21:8–9; 2 Kgs 18:4; John 3:14).

179 179 אַף כִּי is difficult since there is no exact parallel for it as a question, which is the traditional rendering (as NIV). Speiser comments, “The serpent is not asking a question; he is deliberately distorting a fact” (Genesis, 23). BHS recommends the emendation הַאַף (with interrogative). Cassuto retains the sense of question by taking כִּי as the interrogative and אַף as the emphatic (Genesis, 144). But intonation is a sufficient explanation since for yes/no questions the interrogative is not required (IBHS § 40.3.b).

180 180 GKC § 152b.

181 181 E.g., Exod 19:12; Num 16:26; Deut 14:8; cf. 2 Sam 6:1–8; and, e.g., Exod 29:37; 30:29.

182 182 לאֹ־מוֹת תְּמֻתוּן. Unlike here, the negative particle regularly comes between the infinitive absolute and finite verb (GKC § 113v), which is taken as the negation of God’s command at 2:17; but Cassuto shows that the plural verb negates the woman’s claim, פֶּן תְּמֻתוּן (“lest you die”), which rewords 2:17 (Genesis, 145–46). The addition of the infinitive absolute emphasizes the serpent’s negation, “will not surely die.”

183 183 The traditional rendering is “God,” but it can be taken as “gods” or “divine beings” as the LXX rendering: καὶ ἔσεσθε ὡς θεοὶ γινώσκοντες καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν. This discussion is complicated by the identity of the plural (“us”) in v. 22, where some contend that an angelic host is inferred (see 1:26). The plural participle “knowing” (יֹדְעֵי) argues for the plural “gods” since “Elohim” as “God” normally takes the singular (e.g., Sarna, Genesis, 25). “God” can be retained if the participle is predicative, “like God, that is, you shall know good and evil” (e.g., Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 189); but IBHS § 37.6a indicates that the subject of the predicative use is usually expressed, unlike here (see also 11.2.9b #3). Ambiguity here may be purposeful since the whole tenor of the serpent’s speech is marked with clever devices. Since Elohim as “God” occurs earlier in the verse, it is best to retain the singular sense.

184 184 So Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, 12.

185 185 Remarked by A. Ross, “Woman after the Fall,” Kindred Spirit 5 (1981): 11.

186 186 See Wenham’s discussion, Genesis 1–15, 74–75.

1 K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 232–237.

Life Application Bible Notes

3:1 Disguised as a shrewd serpent, Satan came to tempt Eve. At one time, Satan had been a glorious angel. But in pride, he rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven. As a created being, Satan has definite limitations. Although he is trying to tempt everyone away from God, he will not be the final victor. In 3:14, 15, God promises that Satan will be crushed by one of the woman’s offspring, the Messiah.11 Life Application Bible Notes (Tyndale, 2007), 10.

ChatGPT Analysis

Analysis of Genesis 3:1 and Eve’s Response

1. The Serpent’s Nature and Role

The serpent in Genesis 3:1 is described as:

A created beast of the field (Gen. 3:1).

More subtle (crafty, shrewd) than any other creature.

A literal serpent, not Satan himself, but used as an instrument of deception.

A creature with reasoning and speech, engaging Eve in conversation.

The serpent’s cunning is evident in how it frames its question. Instead of outright denying God’s command, it subtly misrepresents it:

"Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

This statement shifts the focus from God's generosity (giving access to all but one tree) to a seemingly unfair restriction.

2. The Strategy of Temptation

The serpent questions God's word, leading Eve to reconsider what she heard.

It emphasizes restriction over freedom.

It omits God's personal name, "Yahweh," distancing the discussion from a covenant relationship.

It sows doubt about God's character, implying that God is withholding something good.

The tempter's approach is psychological. It does not attack directly but confuses, plants a seed of doubt, and subtly reshapes Eve’s perception of God’s command.

3. Eve’s Response and the Shift from God’s Word

Eve's response in Genesis 3:2-3 shows a deviation from God's actual words:

She minimizes God's generosity:

God: "Of every tree... freely eat" (Gen. 2:16) → Eve: "We may eat of the trees."

She adds a prohibition not originally stated:

God: "You shall not eat" → Eve: "You shall not eat or touch it."

She weakens the consequence:

God: "You shall surely die" → Eve: "Lest you die."

These shifts suggest that:

She already sees God's command as more restrictive than it is.

She subtly distorts the seriousness of the warning.

She leaves room for doubt and reinterpretation.

This change in her phrasing is crucial. Instead of standing firmly on God's word, she allows it to be reshaped in her mind. This makes her susceptible to Satan’s outright contradiction:

"Ye shall not surely die." (Gen. 3:4)

Once she begins questioning God's truthfulness, she becomes open to accepting a lie.

4. The Broader Theological Implications

Doubt Precedes Disobedience: The first sin began with questioning God's word, leading to misinterpretation, and finally, disobedience.

Misrepresentation of God's Word Is Dangerous: Even slight alterations in God's instructions can lead to significant spiritual downfall.

Satan’s Tactic Is Deception: Instead of forcing Eve to sin, he manipulates her into thinking it's the better option.

Eve’s Failure in Spiritual Leadership: Instead of seeking clarity from Adam (who had received the direct command from God), she engages with the serpent, making her vulnerable to deception.

5. Connection to Later Scripture

Revelation 12:9: The serpent is later identified with Satan, reinforcing his role as the deceiver of mankind.

John 8:44: Jesus calls Satan “a liar and the father of lies.” His deception in Eden was the first instance of this.

2 Corinthians 11:3: Paul warns that just as Eve was deceived, believers must guard against being led astray.

6. Key Takeaways

The First Step Toward Sin Is Distorting God's Word: This is why precise understanding and adherence to Scripture are critical.

Satan Uses Half-Truths: He mixes truth with lies, making the deception seem logical.

God’s Word Is Absolute: Eve's subtle changes show how even minor alterations lead to major consequences.

Analysis:

Permission to Eat: Eve minimizes the freedom originally granted by God, changing "freely eat" to a more restrictive tone.

Prohibition: She introduces an additional prohibition ("nor touch it"), which was not in God's command, indicating a distorted perception of God’s restrictions.

Consequence: Eve weakens the certainty of death, shifting from "shalt surely die" to a conditional "or you will die," reducing the immediacy and severity of the punishment.

This table helps illustrate how even small changes in the interpretation of God’s words can lead to significant misunderstandings and pave the way for disobedience.

Related Media

Related Sermons

Earn an accredited degree from Redemption Seminary with Logos.