Session 2: Why are We in this Mess?
Notes
Transcript
Handout
Handout
Sermon Tone Analysis
A
D
F
J
S
Emotion
A
C
T
Language
O
C
E
A
E
Social
Background
Background
The closing thought of was: “the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” These words remind us that the Garden of Eden was a place of beauty; a place of bounty; and a place completely unmarred by sin and its crippling, polluting, heartbreaking effects. It was the birthplace of marital intimacy and of intimacy with almighty God. Everything, says God, was “good.” Adam and Eve’s world was a paradise. They were in the abode of God
The closing thought of was: “the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” These words remind us that the Garden of Eden was a place of beauty; a place of bounty; and a place completely unmarred by sin and its crippling, polluting, heartbreaking effects. It was the birthplace of marital intimacy and of intimacy with almighty God. Everything, says God, was “good.” Adam and Eve’s world was a paradise.
Let’s go to
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.
He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So 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 to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
Why was the tree of knowledge of good and evil there in the first place?
We know ties the serpent to Satan, but what is the problem with that here?
And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
Throughout the ancient world, the serpent was considered as a divine or semi-divine symbol. In the Gilgamesh Epic the hero finds a plant that could give immortality, but while he is swimming in a pond a snake swallows the plant. In Genesis the identity of the serpent is not given. Its identification as Satan is not made explicit until the intertestamental period.
3:1–13 The Serpent’s Seductive Strategy and the Human Rebellion
However, its devious arguments and malicious intention are enough to make it clear that this snake symbolizes evil—not the belligerent, aggressive kind of evil, but the subtle and seductive kind.
Throughout the ancient world, the serpent was considered as a divine or semi-divine symbol. In the Gilgamesh Epic the hero finds a plant that could give immortality, but while he is swimming in a pond a snake swallows the plant. In Genesis the identity of the serpent is not given. Its identification as Satan is not made explicit until the intertestamental period. However, its devious arguments and malicious intention are enough to make it clear that this snake symbolizes evil—not the belligerent, aggressive kind of evil, but the subtle and seductive kind. We may surmise that this was a poignant message for early readers to warn them that the most dangerous attacks may not be from armies with spears and battering rams but from the quiet seductive enticement to disobey the clear instruction of God. The enticement offered by the serpent had clear reminiscences of the temptation for Israel to follow the fertility deities.
We may surmise that this was a poignant message for early readers to warn them that the most dangerous attacks may not be from armies with spears and battering rams but from the quiet seductive enticement to disobey the clear instruction of God. The enticement offered by the serpent had clear reminiscences of the temptation for Israel to follow the fertility deities.
Have you ever wondered why Eve was never freaked out by a talking serpent?
“Did God really say …?” The serpent sows the seed of doubt in the woman’s mind. He questions God’s motives and suggests that God has placed unfair limits on the first couple. In her response to the serpent the woman displays her openness to temptation; she misquotes God by exaggerating the prohibition while weakening the penalty.
The serpent increases the pressure on the woman by assuring her that she would not suffer a severe penalty. It proceeds to undermine her confidence in God and to question her contentment with her present situation. “You will not surely die.…” “You will be like God knowing good and evil.” These are subtle and seductive half-truths. Disobedience would not lead to immediate physical death and, as the serpent predicts, their eyes would be opened to good and evil. The serpent appears to be telling the truth, but in reality his words are dangerous half-truths that make disobedience seem innocuous.
After eating the fruit, the first human pair lose their innocence and two new emotions grip them; fear and shame. They attempt to deal with their shame by using fig leaves, and their fear drives them to hide among the trees of the garden. These strategies fail; fig leaves do not remove shame and it is not possible to hide from God. Since all else has failed, they resort to passing the blame.
As indicated by God’s declaration that “everything he had made … was very good” (), clearly evil entered the created world at some unknown point after God’s work of creation was completed. The attribution of human characteristics (cleverness and speech) to the nachash suggests it is more than an ordinary member of the animal kingdom.
And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
We understand that, even though New Testament writers refer to the serpent back in Eden, they are really referring to a supernatural entity— not a mere member of the animal kingdom (; ; ). This is how we need to think about the story of . An Israelite would have known that the episode described interference in the human drama by a divine being, a malcontent from within Yahweh’s council.
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 ; and note; and note; and note).
Proper nouns of people or cities that include the Hebrew nachash indicate that the term may also mean “bronze” or “diviner.” Conceptual parallels between and ancient Near Eastern material—which also forms the backdrop of passages with similar language (; )—suggests that the nachash in 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 ; and note; and note; and note).
The serpent’s question omits the positive statement made by God in . The serpent also distorts the earlier statement by presenting God as saying Adam and Eve could not eat from any tree at all.
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,
How well did Eve recount in God’s directions in ?
And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ”
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
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.
3:3 Eve adds to God’s original prohibition, which states nothing about touching the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
This does not refer only to the ability to choose between right and wrong. If the man and woman did not already possess this ability, the original command would have been meaningless. Rather, knowing good and evil refers to divine wisdom, which corresponds with the idea of becoming like God or the gods (elohim in Hebrew).
What can we learn from these verses to apply to our daily lives?
1. The Lead-up to Sin (3:1–6)
This detailed account of the temptation that confronted the first couple gives a detailed blueprint of how temptation “works” in people’s lives today as well. And by comparing Adam’s failure with the parallel temptation experience of Christ, believers are given a blueprint for success over the same temptations that confront them.
3:1–3. That the serpent was described as more crafty than any beast of the field indicates that it was a real animal and not a mere symbol. Nevertheless, that the serpent here is under Satan’s control is beyond question, inasmuch as serpents cannot talk. Moreover, the apostle John clearly identified him as “the serpent of old” (; ) and also the clear intention of Christ’s statement in : “He was a murderer from the beginning”—referring to Satan’s deceptive role in inciting the first couple to sin and thus experience death. The text never states why Satan chose to use a serpent in his temptation of humanity. In seeking to incite the couple to sin Satan focused his efforts on the woman, since her basis for obedience was potentially less stable, being dependent on Adam’s communication of the command as well as for his guidance in resolving any questions or doubt about it. Since the couple at this point was inseparable (Adam was “with her;” v. 6), Satan did not overtly “corner” or isolate the woman, which would undoubtedly have raised Adam’s ire and more quickly prompted him to defend his wife. Rather, Satan spoke to them both—as underscored by the fact that all of the “you” pronouns in this exchange are plural, yet he addressed the woman (v. 1, he said to the woman), and in doing so he subtly marginalizes her husband. Nor did Satan state an outright lie; rather, he recalled (or, better, rephrased) God’s precise words in 2:16–17 in such as a way that he distorted both the focus of the command and the character of the God who gave it. God had presented the command by emphasizing that much more comprehensive part of it that reflects His parental love and grace, that is, they were to eat from every tree (v. 16) and then He added the single and comparatively minor restriction (v. 17). Satan rephrased the command in such a way that the whole of it was focused on and colored by the single restriction. To her credit, however, Eve responded by reiterating the command as properly intended, beginning with emphasis on the greater and easier part reflective of God’s grace and generosity.
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.
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.
We talked about the image of God last week. What did Eve do here to violate that position?
3:4–5. Since Eve clearly was not caught by Satan’s rephrasing of God’s command, Satan adopted an alternate plan: calling into question God’s purpose or motive for giving them the command. God intended the restriction for the benefit of man—to serve as a privileged opportunity for their obedience as well as to ensure their dependence on God as the only source of the knowledge of good and evil. But Satan suggested that God’s intention was petty, for He was unwilling to share His divine position with man who, by eating from the tree, would be equally as qualified to be called God (hence, like God, or “as gods,” as the phrase may also be translated). Ultimately therefore God’s character as a loving and gracious Father, with the best interest of His children at heart, was being called into question.
Moreover, being in the image of God, they are expected to exercise authority over all the beasts of the field, which includes the serpent. By obeying the serpent, however, they betray the trust placed in them by God. This is not merely an act of disobedience; it is an act of treachery. Those who were meant to govern the earth on God’s behalf instead rebel against their divine King and obey one of his creatures.
3:4 The serpent uses the ambiguity of the penalty’s wording to make the woman less fearful and more apt to follow his solicitation.
3:5 The Hebrew word used here, elohim, is plural. Depending on grammar and context, the plural form can be translated as plural or singular—God or gods (divine beings). It is the most common word used in the ot to refer to the singular God of Israel (over 2,000 occurrences). But elohim here may be translated as a plural because of v. 22, where elohim says (according to a literal rendering of the Hebrew): “they have become as one of us.”
Like 1:26, the plurality refers to God and those with Him in His abode and throne room: the heavenly host or council (compare ; ; note on ; ; note on ). In the ancient Near East, the knowledge of good and evil was believed to be a divine attribute that humans must earn or receive in some fashion. This possibility has seductive power for the woman in the Genesis account and may indicate why God did not reveal this information earlier. God created the test by issuing the prohibition of , but He did not intend the temptation to be overwhelming. The serpent is the one who makes it seem irresistible.
What was Adam’s sin in ?
So 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 to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.
The fact that Adam was “with her” and that he knowingly ate what God had forbidden indicates that Adam’s sin was both an act of conscious rebellion against God and a failure to carry out his divinely ordained responsibility to guard or “keep” () both the garden and the woman that God had created as “a helper fit for him” (2:18, 20). The disastrous consequences of Adam’s sin cannot be overemphasized, resulting in the fall of mankind, the beginning of every kind of sin, suffering, and pain, as well as physical and spiritual death for the human race.
The point inevitably emerges that people, on their own, are not able to assess accurately what is truly good—or, more specifically, that man’s assessment of what is good must be guided by the parameters established by God’s Word.
3:6. Significantly the initial “formula” used here to describe Eve’s assessment—she saw that the tree was good—is identical to the “formula” that up to this point has been used exclusively in connection with God’s assessment of what is good for man, from the initial creation of light (1:4) to the final act of creating the woman, whose absence from Adam’s life was “not good” (2:18). The point inevitably emerges that people, on their own, are not able to assess accurately what is truly good—or, more specifically, that man’s assessment of what is good must be guided by the parameters established by God’s Word.
Although Eve should have known better, she sinned without fully realizing that her sin was inconsistent with the true character of God. Adam, on the other hand, fully understood, and is therefore ascribed a far greater culpability, as is evident from God prefacing Adam’s chastisement (but not Eve’s) with explicit reference to his intentional disobedience (3:17).
Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
Since both the man and the woman ate, why is the man deemed more culpable than the woman? Perhaps because he had heard the prohibition against eating directly from God but also he had experienced firsthand, in a way that Eve had not, the paternal love and grace of God in receiving from His hand, especially in God providing Eve herself. Tragically, however, Adam kept silent during the temptation, and in so doing he gave a certain degree of “tacit approval” to the validity of Satan’s alternative and improper characterization of God’s motive. For this reason, the text emphasizes that the woman was deceived (3:13, cf. 1Tm 2:14, “the woman being deceived”). Although Eve should have known better, she sinned without fully realizing that her sin was inconsistent with the true character of God. Adam, on the other hand, fully understood, and is therefore ascribed a far greater culpability, as is evident from God prefacing Adam’s chastisement (but not Eve’s) with explicit reference to his intentional disobedience (3:17). In , a husband is held responsible for his wife’s vows. In fact, if he hears his wife make a vow but does not speak up, he is responsible for her vow (). Similarly, Adam was responsible to speak his disapproval during the temptation and since he failed, is considered more culpable. Not only did the man fail to speak and stop the woman, but joining her folly, he also took the fruit, and he ate.
Why was it wrong for Adam and Eve to gain the knowledge of good and evil? Or was it?
2. Humanity’s Response to Sin (3:7–8)
Having knowledge of good and evil is not a sin in itself—the question is where should we get this knowledge? The sin of Adam and Eve is that they want to be like God. This means that they do not want to depend on God for the guidance of what is good and evil. Satan’s deception in verse 4 distorts God’s original intention of being a loving Father who wanted to teach His children in His ways. By falling for his lie, Adam and Eve chose the shortcut, to know it for themselves, to become judges who want the option in the future to say what is good and what is evil. By doing so, they usurp the role of God being the only judge in these matters. The Hebrew word translated “knowledge” may imply “knowledge by experience” rather than theoretical knowledge.
Having knowledge of good and evil is not a sin in itself—the question is where should we get this knowledge? The sin of Adam and Eve is that they want to be like God. This means that they do not want to depend on God for the guidance of what is good and evil. Satan’s deception in verse 4 distorts God’s original intention of being a loving Father who wanted to teach His children in His ways. By falling for his lie, Adam and Eve chose the shortcut, to know it for themselves, to become judges who want the option in the future to say what is good and what is evil. By doing so, they usurp the role of God being the only judge in these matters. The Hebrew word translated “knowledge” may imply “knowledge by experience” rather than theoretical knowledge.
3:7a. The reference to the eyes of the couple being opened is an idiom that expresses their acquisition not of new visual information but of new knowledge, that is full wisdom, the developed understanding of what is good and what is evil Such knowledge or wisdom is of course a good thing, and its attainment was just as much an intended goal for Adam and Eve as it is for people today. Yet God had intended for them to attain this understanding of good and evil by dependence on Him, through the process of taking continual recourse to Him and instruction from Him. Because they did not, ironically their immediate acquisition of this full knowledge (i.e., their “open eyes”) also enabled them to realize that since the manner in which they acquired this knowledge (by breaking God’s command) was “evil,” they were guilty and deserving of punishment from God. Thus, in the following phrase and they knew that they were naked, the word “naked” (’erummim) does not signify merely the state of being unclothed (this is denoted by a different Hebrew word, ’arummim, translated “naked” in 2:25), but also their state of shameful and guilty nakedness resulting from sin, specifically in connection with God’s punishment for sin (cf. ; , ; ). The sense of this statement therefore is that their newly acquired knowledge of what constitutes good and evil “opened their eyes” to see that what they had done was evil and had justly left them “naked,” that is, exposed, to God’s impending punishment.
Let’s go to
The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”
To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,
but he shall rule over you.”
And to Adam he said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”
We know the offspring of Eve ultimately points to Christ (see (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ). But who are he offspring of the serpent? Look at and
Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.
“What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God.”
And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.
concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
The Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Job Connection?
The Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Job Connection?
In , Ezekiel delivers a prophecy against the king of Tyre. Do you think there is a connection here?
3:7b. The loin coverings the couple made from fig leaves should be understood not only as an attempt to cover their physical nakedness, but also, in light of the previous comment, as an attempt to assuage their sense of “exposure” to the impending punishment that they know their sin justly deserved. In addition the “donning” of these loincloths highlights the typical impact of sin on our human relationships (especially when that sin is jointly committed), namely, division and disruption. This is consistent with the fundamental concept of “death” as noted in 2:17, as separation rather than cessation. In this case the “death” or “disjunction” was not in the fact of their relationship (the couple was still “married”), but in the ideally intended experience of that relationship, outwardly reflected in the barriers they set up between those parts of themselves that are most representative of physical intimacy.
Moreover, the word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord God:
“You were the signet of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
You were in Eden, the garden of God;
every precious stone was your covering,
sardius, topaz, and diamond,
beryl, onyx, and jasper,
sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle;
and crafted in gold were your settings
and your engravings.
On the day that you were created
they were prepared.
You were an anointed guardian cherub.
I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;
in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created,
till unrighteousness was found in you.
In the abundance of your trade
you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;
so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,
and I destroyed you, O guardian cherub,
from the midst of the stones of fire.
Your heart was proud because of your beauty;
you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.
I cast you to the ground;
I exposed you before kings,
to feast their eyes on you.
By the multitude of your iniquities,
in the unrighteousness of your trade
you profaned your sanctuaries;
so I brought fire out from your midst;
it consumed you,
and I turned you to ashes on the earth
in the sight of all who saw you.
All who know you among the peoples
are appalled at you;
you have come to a dreadful end
and shall be no more forever.”
Moreover, the word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord God:
“You were the signet of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
You were in Eden, the garden of God;
every precious stone was your covering,
sardius, topaz, and diamond,
beryl, onyx, and jasper,
sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle;
and crafted in gold were your settings
and your engravings.
On the day that you were created
they were prepared.
You were an anointed guardian cherub.
I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;
in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created,
till unrighteousness was found in you.
In the abundance of your trade
you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;
so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,
and I destroyed you, O guardian cherub,
from the midst of the stones of fire.
What in these verses gives you an indication that we are not really referring to just a human?
Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
3:6 Since there is no mention of the woman leaving the serpent to find Adam, Adam was most likely present for the entire conversation.
Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.
“What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God.”
And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.
concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
3:7 Both Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit (v. 6), so they both experienced the new knowledge of rebellion. Their consequent behavior illustrates this: they covered themselves when they perceived that they were naked.
He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
3:7–13 Eating the fruit transforms the couple, but not for the better. Now ashamed of their nakedness (cf. 2:25), they attempt to clothe themselves. Conscious of the Lord God’s presence, they hide. When confronted by God regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the man blames the woman, who in turn blames the serpent.
And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
3:15 While many modern commentators interpret this part of the curse as merely describing the natural hostility that exists between men and snakes, it has traditionally been understood as pointing forward to the defeat of the serpent by a future descendant of the woman, and this interpretation fits well with the words and the context. This defeat is implied by the serpent’s being bruised in the head, which is more serious than the offspring of Eve being bruised in the heel. For this reason, v. 15 has been labeled the “Protoevangelium,” the first announcement of the gospel. This interpretation requires that the serpent be viewed as more than a mere snake, something which the narrative itself implies, given the serpent’s ability to speak and the vile things he says. While the present chapter does not explicitly identify the serpent with Satan, such an identification is a legitimate inference and is clearly what the apostle John has in view in and 20:2. The motif of the offspring of the woman is picked up in with the birth of Seth; subsequently, the rest of Genesis traces a single line of Seth’s descendants, observing that it will eventually produce a king through whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed (see Introduction: History of Salvation Summary). he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. Some interpreters have suggested that by saying “he” and “his,” the intended meaning is that one particular offspring is in view. Within the larger biblical framework, this hope comes to fulfillment in Jesus Christ, who is clearly presented in the NT as overcoming Satan
3:15 The offspring of the woman who inflicts decisive defeat on the serpent is Christ (). But earlier in time, within the OT, there are partial defeats through people who prefigure Christ and foreshadow the final conflict. (See Overview of the Bible.)
3:16 By way of punishing the woman for her sin of disobedience, God pronounces that she will suffer pain (Hb. ‘itstsabon) in the bearing of children. This strikes at the very heart of the woman’s distinctiveness, for she is the “mother of all living” (v. 20). Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. These words from the Lord indicate that there will be an ongoing struggle between the woman and the man for leadership in the marriage relationship. The leadership role of the husband and the complementary relationship between husband and wife that were ordained by God before the fall have now been deeply damaged and distorted by sin. This especially takes the form of inordinate desire (on the part of the wife) and domineering rule (on the part of the husband). The Hebrew term here translated “desire” (teshuqah) is rarely found in the OT. But it appears again in 4:7, in a statement that closely parallels 3:16—that is, where the Lord says to Cain, just before Cain’s murder of his brother, that sin’s “desire is for you” (i.e., to master Cain), and that Cain must “rule over it” (which he immediately fails to do, by murdering his brother, as seen in 4:8). Similarly, the ongoing result of Adam and Eve’s original sin of rebellion against God will have disastrous consequences for their relationship: (1) Eve will have the sinful “desire” to oppose Adam and to assert leadership over him, reversing God’s plan for Adam’s leadership in marriage. But (2) Adam will also abandon his God-given, pre-fall role of leading, guarding, and caring for his wife, replacing this with his own sinful, distorted desire to “rule” over Eve. Thus one of the most tragic results of Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God is an ongoing, damaging conflict between husband and wife in marriage, driven by the sinful behavior of both in rebellion against their respective God-given roles and responsibilities in marriage. (See notes on for the NT pattern for marriage founded on the redemptive work of Christ.)
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
3:17–19 God’s punishment of the man involves his relationship with the very ground from which he was formed (see note on 2:5–7). Because he has eaten that which was prohibited to him, he will have to struggle to eat in the future. Given the abundance of food that God provided in the garden, this judgment reflects God’s disfavor. Adam will no longer enjoy the garden’s abundance but will have to work the ground from which he was taken (3:23; see note on 2:8–9). The punishment is not work itself (cf. 2:15), but rather the hardship and frustration (i.e., “pain,” itstsabon; cf. 3:16) that will accompany the man’s labor. To say that the ground is cursed (Hb. ’arar, v. 17) and will bring forth thorns and thistles (v. 18) indicates that the abundant productivity that was seen in Eden will no longer be the case. Underlying this judgment is a disruption of the harmonious relationship that originally existed between humans and nature.
3:19 Further, the man’s body will return to the ground (v. 19), i.e., it will die (which was not true of the original created order; cf. ). For this reason, the Bible looks forward to a time when nature will be set free from the consequences of human sin; i.e., nature will no longer be the arena of punishment, and it will finally have glorified human beings to manage it and bring out its full potential ().
Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.
3:14 It is unclear how the serpent (nachash in Hebrew) is more cursed than any other animal. This supports the view that the nachash is not an ordinary member of the animal kingdom and the serpent imagery evokes other ancient Near Eastern parallels. See note on v. 1.
The Curses LBG:G111
The language and context suggest that this condition was new in some way. Since the Hebrew word used for serpent, nachash, and its affiliated imagery are often paired with chaotic and disorderly forces in opposition to the divine order in the ancient Near East, there is no need for a literal zoological explanation. Rather, this passage indicates that the serpent, God’s cosmic enemy, has been made docile (i.e., he is defeated).
We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous.
Ancient Near Eastern texts, such as the Akkadian work Descent of Ishtar, depict serpents as inhabitants of the underworld that feed on dust and clay.
The Descent of Ishtar COS 1
And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.
3:15 This word refers to hostility, not fear. The curse is not aimed at the woman, but at the serpent. Its language speaks of combat—specifically between the serpent and its offspring (those that follow its ways), and the woman and her descendants.
The serpent is a divine enemy of God rather than a member of the animal kingdom. As such, this text contains a prophecy indicating that animosity and spiritual war will ensue between the serpent (nachash in Hebrew) and humanity (compare note on v. 1). In the nt, the offspring of the devil are equated with evildoers who oppose God’s will and the Messiah, Jesus (; ; , , ).
In the Hebrew text, the singular pronoun here refers collectively to the offspring (zera’ in Hebrew) of Eve. The nt presents Jesus as the ultimate human descendant of Eve who defeats Satan or the devil (; ; ; compare ). Paul seems to reference this line when he tells the Roman Christians that God will give them the power to crush Satan ().
Luminescence is a characteristic of divine beings or divine presence across the ancient Near Eastern world and the Old Testament (e.g., , [cf. ]; ; ). This description of the divine cherub in Eden is designed to convey divinity— a shining presence. There are more details. The anointed cherub ultimately gets cast out of Eden, out from “the midst of the stones of fire.” We already know from other data that Eden is the place of the council. The “stones of fire” is another clue in that direction. This phrase is associated in other Jewish texts (1 Enoch 18: 6– 11; 1 Enoch 24– 25) with the supernatural, mountainous dwelling of God and the divine council. 7 It may be objected here that Eden was the dwelling place of God and so the “stones of fire” do not only point to the divine beings of Yahweh’s council.
3:16 The Hebrew word used here is also used to describe Adam’s punishment: He will work the ground in pain. The original tasks given to both Adam and Eve (tending to creation, and being fruitful and multiplying) now involve great difficulty because they live outside Eden (; ). Compare note on 2:18.
The Hebrew word used here, teshuqah, occurs elsewhere only twice (4:7; ). In the Song of Songs the term seems to indicate sexual desire, but that meaning does not work well in this context. In the word connotes desire to control or desire to conquer (compare note on 4:7).
3:17 The context of the curse shows that serious effort and the overcoming of obstacles will be necessary to make the earth produce what human survival requires.
3:19 The consequences of sin include lifelong toil. This line could be understood as indicating that only death is the release from that curse of toil, or that natural death may be another consequence of sin (compare ). It is unclear whether natural death existed prior to Adam and Eve’s sin—whether in Eden or elsewhere (see note on ; note on 6:3).
NICOT
3:20 Eve’s name in Hebrew, chawwah, is related to the Hebrew verb chayah, which may be translated “to live.” This is wordplay—Eve is described as the mother of all life.
Look also at and
3:14–24 The Divine Court in Session
In this passage God changes roles from Creator to Judge. This represents a watershed in Genesis and moves the narrative from the ideal world of Eden into the world familiar to the readers both ancient and modern who recognize that the post-judgment world is their world; its guilt, suffering, and pain are all too familiar to them. They know that the curse imposed on the ground is the curse that afflicts everyone who seeks to eke out an existence from the soil.
The serpent, the ground, and the human couple are all criticized and punished, but only the serpent and the ground are cursed. Found guilty of leading the woman astray, the serpent is condemned to crawl in the dust (3:14). Furthermore, Yahweh will cause enmity to exist between woman and serpent that will be perpetuated through their respective descendants, or seed (3:15).
“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!
You said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
in the far reaches of the north;
Following the cursing of the snake, the text introduces the punishment of the woman (3:16). Unlike the serpent she is not pronounced “cursed,” but she clearly loses some of the benefits of the blessing that God had pronounced earlier. Her punishment relates primarily to her role in procreation. Procreation is the foundation of all other blessings; it is the gift of life itself (1:22, 28). The punishment does not cancel the blessing of procreation, but it introduces pain (עִצָּבוֹן/ʿiṣṣābôn) into the process (3:16). Disobedience brings sorrow and distress to the woman in the very function that makes her distinctive from the man. Just as the blessing is associated with the idea of “multiplication of seed,” God now says “I will multiply your pains.”
The final aspect of the woman’s punishment is in relation to her husband (3:16). While the woman’s longing will be for her husband, he will rule over her. This probably means that the harmonious relations that existed between the man and the woman would now be disrupted, leaving the woman vulnerable to exploitation.
when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
“How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn!
How you are cut down to the ground,
you who laid the nations low!
You said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
in the far reaches of the north;
Two perspectives on work are highlighted in this passage. On the one hand, work can bring a great deal of fulfillment and blessing to a person, but on the other, work is not always fully satisfying and sometimes does not yield adequat Cursing, however, introduced alienation instead of harmony, exploitation instead of structured authority. The comprehensive way in which the new situation affected the relationships of those involved may be seen from the following:
Blessing, as we have seen, was a powerful, beneficial directive made for the benefit of the created order. Cursing, on the other hand, was a powerful detrimental pronouncement aimed at punishing the disobedient creatures. The areas of human life affected by the pronouncement of divine judgment are reminiscent of those targeted earlier for blessing. In terms of procreation and authority, the pronouncement of blessing provided for well-structured, clearly defined relationships between the human couple themselves and between them and the animal kingdom (1:22–1:30; cf. 2:18–25). Furthermore, blessing was pronounced in the context of harmonious relations between humankind and their divine Creator (1:26–28). Cursing, however, introduced alienation instead of harmony, exploitation instead of structured authority. The comprehensive way in which the new situation affected the relationships of those involved may be seen from the following:
Relations between the couple and the serpent are affected; “I will put enmity between you and the woman.” (3:15)
A shining appearance conveys a divine nature.
Relations between human beings suffer; “Your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (3:16)
The damaged relationship between humanity and deity is exemplified by the expulsion of the human beings from the garden.
While human beings still enjoy some of the benefits of blessing such as the ability to procreate, they must contend with the new situation where the world and its inhabitants are out of harmony with their Creator. The human beings are still distinguished from the animals because they have been made in the “image of God,” but the harmonious relations that characterized their early existence are now history. The punishment of the man and woman culminates in their expulsion from Eden (3:22–24). God, “like a landlord dissatisfied with his tenants, evicts them.” The human beings are not expelled from the earth completely but only from the particular parcel of land on which they rebelled. This, however, does not cancel human responsibility in relation to the ground (3:23). Adam must still work the soil, but the benefits he receives are greatly reduced and thorns and thistles hamper his efforts (3:19, 23). Human beings will eat “the plants of the field” until they return to the dust (3:18–19). The ground from which Adam was formed will eventually claim him again, but until then his life will be hard labor as he struggles to cultivate the soil.
Taken together, these episodes are a theological morality tale about the futility and danger of trying to recover Eden on any terms other than those God has set.
Takeaways
Takeaways
It’s not a sin to be tempted; the sin occurs when we give in to the temptation
Although God forgives, sin still has consequences
We cannot, on our own merit, recover Eden. We must rely on God’s provision
What can we learn from these verses to apply to our daily lives?
This expulsion from the garden of Eden is the first record of exile in the Bible, and it happens as a result of disobedience. Many of the earliest readers of Genesis may have been exiles, and this record of the exile of Adam and Eve would have been very pertinent for them. The prophets clearly taught that Israel’s exile from Canaan, like the exile of Adam and Eve, was decreed by God because of disobedience (e.g., ; ).
Heiser Notes
The truth is that an ancient reader would not have expected Eve to be frightened. Given the context— she was in Eden, the realm of Yahweh and his elohim council— it would have been clear that she was conversing with a divine being. As we’ve seen in earlier chapters, the biblical author has telegraphed that Eve was on divine turf.
In ancient Near Eastern literature of the Old Testament world, animal speech is not uncommon. The context for such speaking is that of magic, which of course is tied to the world of the gods, or direct divine intervention.
Animals were often the vehicle for manifesting a divine presence or power in a story. The kind of animal would often depend on characteristics associated with that animal, or on the status of that animal in a culture’s religion. Consequently, the point of is not to inform us about ancient zoology or a time when animals could talk. We’re not in the realm of science by design. Genesis telegraphed simple but profound ideas to Israelite readers: The world you experience was created by an all-powerful God; human beings are his created representatives; Eden was his abode; he was accompanied by a supernatural host; one member of that divine entourage was not pleased by God’s decisions to create humanity and give them dominion. All that leads to how humanity got into the mess it’s in. In some respects, we know that the Genesis “serpent” wasn’t really a member of the animal kingdom. We have other passages to help us grasp that point, particularly in the New Testament. The vocabulary used by the writer reveals several things about the divine enemy that has emerged from the council. If we’re thinking only in terms of a snake, we’ll miss the messaging.
You can see quickly that, other than , the other source of verse citations is . That’s one of the chapters conceptually linked to . Its connection is explicit.
refers to “Eden, the garden of God … God’s holy mountain.”
You were in Eden, the garden of God;
every precious stone was your covering,
sardius, topaz, and diamond,
beryl, onyx, and jasper,
sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle;
and crafted in gold were your settings
and your engravings.
On the day that you were created
they were prepared.
You were an anointed guardian cherub.
I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;
in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
God proceeds to acknowledge the great intelligence of this prince, but reminds him that he is no god, and certainly not the Most High (). This sort of arrogance must be punished. Judgment will come. God asks sarcastically (v. 9), “Will you indeed still say ‘I am a god!’ before the face of your killers?” In verse 10 God adds a strange detail: “You will die the death of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers.” Since the prince of Tyre is an uncircumcised Gentile anyway, the phrasing seems to lack coherence. If we read a little further in Ezekiel, the point would be clear to an ancient reader. The underworld realm of the dead, Sheol, is described by Ezekiel as the place where the uncircumcised warrior-king enemies of Israel find themselves (, , ; ). This is the place of the Rephaim dead, quasi-supernatural beings we’ll encounter later. It is at this point that God has the prophet raise a lament over the prince of Tyre, the brilliant prince whose arrogance led to his fall, not only to the earth but under the earth.
These verses raise questions. The prince of Tyre wasn’t in Eden— he was in Tyre. We see now that, although is about the prince of Tyre, in describing this prince’s arrogance, downfall, and original state, the prophet utilizes an older tale of a downfall in Eden.
This “prince” was in Eden, the garden of God (v. 13). He is beautiful— words like shining or radiant are what come to mind when reading about the panoply of gems that were his “adornment” (vv. 12b– 13).
(). Was Adam an “anointed guardian cherub”? Where do we read in that Adam was filled with violence, or that his sin was propelled by the fact he was egotistically enamored of his own beauty and splendor? When was Adam cast to the ground to be exposed before kings (v. 17)? All of the phrases alluded to in the questions above are important. Dealing with Is Ezekiel drawing on a tale about the rebellion of a divine being against God, or about Adam’s rebellion against God? I believe the former is more coherent, a decision that links what’s going on here back to the only divine rebel in — the serpent.
Luminescence is a characteristic of divine beings or divine presence across the ancient Near Eastern world and the Old Testament (e.g., , [cf. ]; ; ). This description of the divine cherub in Eden is designed to convey divinity— a shining presence. There are more details. The anointed cherub ultimately gets cast out of Eden, out from “the midst of the stones of fire.” We already know from other data that Eden is the place of the council. The “stones of fire” is another clue in that direction. This phrase is associated in other Jewish texts (1 Enoch 18: 6– 11; 1 Enoch 24– 25) with the supernatural, mountainous dwelling of God and the divine council. 7 It may be objected here that Eden was the dwelling place of God and so the “stones of fire” do not only point to the divine beings of Yahweh’s council. That much is true, but there’s more to the phrase than a dwelling place. Other scholars have also drawn attention to the ancient Near Eastern propensity to describe divine beings as stars. refers to the sons of God as “stars,” and refers to a being fallen from heaven as the “Day Star, son of Dawn” (ESV) who wanted to ascend above the “stars of God” in the divine realm. The “stones of fire” therefore do not only describe an abode, but also divine entities in that abode. 8 The “ground” to which this haughty divine being is cast and where he is disgraced is also of interest. The Hebrew word translated “ground” is ʾerets. It is a common term for the earth under our feet. But it is also a word that is used to refer to the underworld, the realm of the dead (e.g., ), where ancient warrior-kings await their comrades in death (, , ; ). Adam, of course, was already on earth, so he couldn’t be sentenced there. And he didn’t wind up in the underworld. Yet this is the sort of language we would expect if the point was the expulsion of a heavenly being from the divine council.
Since we know that we are not dealing with a mere animal in , but rather a divine being that is cast as creaturely, the description that this figure in the garden was an “anointed guardian cherub” makes sense. A cherub was a divine throne guardian in the ancient Near Eastern worldview. 14 Ancient Near Eastern art and engravings have many examples of such throne guardians as animals, including serpents. There is little coherence to viewing the guardian cherub in as the human Adam. Let’s summarize where this leaves us. browbeats the prince of Tyre using an ancient tale of divine arrogance in Eden, where a member of Yahweh’s council thought himself on par with the Most High. This divine throne guardian was expelled from Eden to the “ground” or underworld. These elements show up in another passage: We’ll consider what Isaiah says next and then take a fresh look at what went on in Eden.
As in , the figure in who is the target of its diatribe goes to Sheol, the underworld. The Rephaim are there, here identified again as the dead warrior-kings (“ you have become the same as us”). The king of Babylon will be one of these living dead, just like the prince of Tyre. Recall that shifted from the prince of Tyre to a divine figure in Eden. That shift informed us that the writer was using a story of cosmic, divine rebellion to, by comparison, portray the arrogance of the earthly prince. After verse 11, shifts to a divine context with clear links to . Those connections in turn take us conceptually back to .
The figure to whom the king of Babylon is being compared is a divine being fallen “from heaven” (v. 12). He is called the “morning star, son of dawn.” The language takes us back to , where the sons of God were called “morning stars.” But the Hebrew terms in are different than those in . “Morning star, son of dawn” is an English rendering of the Hebrew helel ben-shachar, which literally means “shining one, son of the dawn.” When we talked about in chapter 3, I noted that “morning stars” were the visible bright stars seen on the horizon as the sun rose. Astronomers (ancient and modern) knew another celestial object that behaved the same way— an object so bright it could still be seen as the sun rose. That object was Venus, and so Venus, though a planet, became known to the ancients as the “bright morning star.” In essence, borrowing the language of , Isaiah portrays this particular divine being as hopelessly enamored of his own brilliance. So great was his arrogance that he declared himself above all the “stars of God” (kokebey el), the other members of the divine council (). That this “shining one” sought superiority over the other members of the divine council is indicated by the phrase “raise … my throne” and his desire to “sit” on “the mountain of assembly.” That this “mountain of assembly” speaks of the divine council is clear from its location in “Zaphon” (“ the north”; tsaphon) and the clouds. The “seat” language is familiar from (the “seat of the gods”). reads like an attempted coup in the divine council.
THE NACHASH OF
The pivotal character of is the serpent. The Hebrew word translated serpent is nachash. The word is both plain and elastic. The most straightforward meaning is the one virtually all translators and interpreters opt for: serpent. When the Hebrew root letters n-ch-sh are a noun, that’s the meaning. But n-ch-sh are also the consonants of a verb. If we changed the vowels to a verbal form (recall that Hebrew originally had no vowels), we would have nochesh, which means “the diviner.” Divination refers to communication with the supernatural world. A diviner in the ancient world was one who foretold omens or gave out divine information (oracles). We can see that element in the story. Eve is getting information from this being.
The serpent (nachash) was an image commonly used in reference to a divine throne guardian. Given the context of Eden, that helps identify the villain as a divine being. The divine adversary dispenses divine information, using it to goad Eve. He gives her an oracle (or, an omen!): You won’t really die. God knows when you eat you will be like one of the elohim. Lastly, a shining appearance conveys a divine nature. All the meanings telegraph something important. They are also consistent with the imagery from and .
The curse levied at Adam () did not supersede God’s mandate to subdue the earth and take dominion. But it did make the task harder.
The wording of is veiled. For The goal of his rule on earth through humanity would not be abandoned. A descendant of Eve would come forth who would someday undo the damage caused by the divine rebel, the nachash. That this descendant is linked to Eve implies that the score will be settled through her bloodline. This human threat to the nachash is fitting. The seduction to sin meant that Yahweh would have to be true to his word and eliminate humanity. The nachash counted on the justice of God to eliminate his rivals. God was just in this regard. Elimination from Eden did indeed mean death, but not in the sense of immediate annihilation. God would see to it that their lives ended, but not before continuing his plan. Humanity would die, but it would also, at some point, produce a descendant who would ultimately restore God’s Edenic vision and destroy the nachash. Adam and Eve had contingent immortality prior to the fall. They had never-ending life, depending on certain circumstances. The imagery of Eden, home of the life-giver, and its tree of life convey the notion that, so long as Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life, called Eden their home, and didn’t do anything that resulted in mortal injury (they were truly human after all), they would live. 5 Protected in their perfect environment, they could multiply and carry out their tasks as God’s representatives on earth until the job was done.
But the judgment on Eve also tells us that the nachash would have offspring as well. The rest of the biblical story doesn’t consist of humans battling snake people. That’s no surprise, since the enemy of humanity wasn’t a mere snake. The Bible does, however, describe an ongoing conflict between followers of Yahweh and human and divine beings who follow the spiritual path of the nachash. All who oppose God’s kingdom plan are the seed of the nachash.
Consider what happens to the nachash against the backdrop of the judgment language found in and :
The nachash was cursed to crawl on its belly, imagery that conveyed being cast down (, ; , ) to the ground. In and , we saw the villain cast down to the ʾerets, a term that refers literally to the dirt and metaphorically to the underworld (; , , ). The curse also had him “eating dirt,” clearly a metaphorical reference, since snakes don’t really eat dirt as food for nutrition. It isn’t part of the “natural snake diet.” The point being made by the curse is that the nachash, who wanted to be “most high,” will be “most low” instead— cast away from God and the council to earth, and even under the earth. In the underworld, the nachash is even lower than the beasts of the field. He is hidden from view and from life in God’s world. His domain is death.
The seed of the nachash is therefore literal (people and divine beings are real) and spiritual (the lineage is one of spiritual rebellion). This description has secure biblical roots. Jesus told the Pharisees, “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father” (), and called them “serpents” and “offspring of vipers” (). In the apostle John expressed the notion of spiritual seed— good or evil— manifesting itself in the human heart.
THE DIVINE TRANSGRESSIONS OF AND 6 ARE PART OF A THEOLOGICAL prelude that frames the rest of the Bible. These two episodes, along with a third we’ll cover in this chapter, are core components of the supernatural worldview of ancient Israelites and the Jewish community in which Christianity was born. Taken together, these episodes are a theological morality tale about the futility and danger of trying to recover Eden on any terms other than those God has set.