The Temptation and Fall (3:1-7)

Introduction

Pink. The third chapter in Genesis is one of the most important in all the Word of God. What has often been said of Genesis as a whole is peculiarly true of this chapter: it is the “seedplot of the Bible.” Here are the foundations upon which rest many of the cardinal doctrines of our faith. Here we trace back to their source many of the rivers of divine truth. Here commences the great drama which is being enacted on the stage of human history, and which well-nigh six thousand years has not yet completed. Here we find the Divine explanation of the present fallen and ruined condition of our race. Here we learn of the subtle devices of our enemy, the Devil. Here we behold the utter powerlessness of man to walk in the path of righteousness when divine grace is withheld from him. Here we discover the spiritual effects of sin—man seeking to flee from God. Here we discern the attitude of God toward the guilty sinner. Here we mark the universal tendency of human nature to cover its own moral shame by a device of man’s own handiwork. Here we are taught of the gracious provision which God has made to meet our great need. Here begins that marvelous stream of prophecy which runs all through the Holy Scriptures. Here we learn that man cannot approach God except through a mediator.[1]

Challenges

Origin of evil. There is no attempt to discuss the origin of evil in the passage. Moses, in the first verse, declares the serpent to have been made by God. However, beyond that creative act – which was good – Moses offers no discussion as to the origin of evil itself. Additionally, the author and original recipients seem indifferent to the question. Moses focuses rather on the origin of human sin and guilt.

By means of a brief point of application – God often does not answer the questions that plague our minds. If God does not answer the question throughout Scripture, we do not need to know the answer. I understand that may not satisfy and may even come off as a copout. Regardless, God has revealed all things sufficient for the equipping and maturing of every believer. If God has not revealed something, we do not need to know it.

Satan the serpent.[2] Moses does not indicate, anywhere in the text, the serpent was Satan.[3] In his commentary on Genesis, Mathews offers several opinions concerning the serpent. The serpent may have been a mythical creature symbolizing human curiosity or evil and chaos. Potentially the serpent represented Eve’s inner thoughts. However, the traditional view remains that the serpent was an instrument used by Satan.[4]

Even though Moses does not reveal the identity of the serpent – maybe because he did not know – both Paul and John, in the New Testament, appear confident that the serpent was in fact Satan. (1) God condemns the serpent in Genesis 3:14–15. God told the serpent someone would come from the women that would “bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel.” In Romans, Paul references this condemnation and reveals the serpent to be Satan. He writes, “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you” (Rom 16:20). (2) The apostle John as well identifies the serpent as Satan. In Revelation, John writes, “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” (Rev 12:9).[5]

Therefore, mirroring the confidence of the New Testament authors, we proceed forward with the assertion that – in some sense, indirectly or directly – Satan tempted Eve.[6] We do not need to know the particulars as to how this was accomplished

A talking serpent. The author offers no explanation as to why the serpent talks or why Eve seems unphased by the talking. Authors, scholars, and preachers offer plenty of speculation. (1) Adam and Eve were new and naïve. Everything around them was new. A talking serpent may not have prompted any suspicion. (2) Others have denied the literalness of the serpent and thereby would attribute the serpent’s speech to something such as Eve’s inner thoughts. (3) Others seem to explain the serpent’s speech as the personification/vocalization of ANE cultic thought.

While speculation abounds, let us settle a couple things and leave this alone. In the New Testament, Paul indicates that the serpent deceived Eve (2 Cor 11:3). In so doing, Paul appears to acknowledge the historical reality of this conversation and the distinctness between Eve and the serpent. Moses displays little concern over the identity of the serpent or the serpent’s ability to talk or Eve’s lack of awareness. Moses, instead, emphasizes the substance of the conversation between the serpent and Eve.

Adam for real? Like the historical reality of the serpent and his ability to talk, many doubt the historical reality of Adam (along with the historicity of the entire passage).[7] However, the New Testament assumes Adam’s historical reality. The genealogy in Luke traces Jesus’ lineage back to Adam (Luke 3:23ff.). Additionally, Paul acknowledges Adam as a real man who committed a real trespass, requiring another real man to live a perfect life and pay the payment of that trespass (Rom 5:18-19; 1 Cor 15:20-21).[8]

Temptation’s Traits

So then, we move forward with the assumption two real people (Adam and Eve) lived in an actual place, in which a serpent initiated an actual conversation with Eve – of which maybe Adam was present.[9]

Moses reveals his emphasis in the passage by means of time spent on each of the components. In the first 6 verses, Moses discusses the temptation of Eve by the serpent. The following eighteen verses (and arguably much of the rest of Scripture) outline the devastating consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin. Almost as a passing statement, in the second half of verse six, Moses acknowledges the actual sin of Eve and then Adam. He writes, “she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate” (Gen 3:6).

The story of the sin that resulted in the corruption of the entire creation and resulted in every following person’s individual corruption, brokenness, and sinfulness consists of four phrases in the latter half of one verse in Genesis 3. Eve ate. Gave the fruit to Adam. Adam ate. Everything fell apart from then on! The sin that has ravaged the world and resulted in all creation groaning was the simple act of eating a piece of fruit.

And yet behind the eating of that fruit lies a host of other problems.

Before we look at these other problems (what I have termed “temptation’s traits”) let me ask you to consider one thing. Be careful to not rank sin in your life according to your perception of its level of evil or abhorrence. All Adam and Eve did was eat a piece of fruit, and the consequences have extended to the death of every created thing. Consider the deserved consequences of your sin in light of Adam and Eve’s sin and following consequences.

Now then, to temptations traits. We can draw the following purpose from this passage.

Purpose statement. Succumbing to Satan’s temptations results in devastation.

Before acknowledging the traits of temptation outlines in this text, let me qualify a couple of things. (1) Moses’ intention is not to outline the traits of temptation or to offer the progression from temptation to a sinful action. Rather, Moses concisely unfolds the moment in which sin entered humanity and the ramification of that sin on mankind. In this moment, all following corruption and sin finds its birth, and in this moment, the need of a Savior manifests. However, Moses successfully outlines the first temptation and from it we learn a great deal.

Questions God’s instructions (3:1).

The serpent begins his conversation with a question of doubt, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” (Gen 3:1). In this case – God did not actually say that. God said, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden” (Gen 2:16). He does warn Adam and Eve to not eat of one singular tree in the garden, but He allows every other tree. In this instance, Satan twists God’s command to make it sound more demanding and harder than it truly was.

Temptation often begins with a seemingly innocuous question of God’s instructions. Did God really say that? Does God really not want you to be happy? Does God really not want you to find love? Does God really want you to always be holy? Does God really not want you to just be yourself?

In posing these questions of doubt, subtly, Satan insinuates that our opinion matters in these decisions. We begin to think God’s commands are somewhat dependent on our own circumstances or understanding – and sadly too often we conclude that God’s commands aren’t relevant to our particular circumstances.

Exaggerates God’s commands (3:3).

Both Satan and Eve model this exaggeration. First, Satan exaggerates. God says, “there is one tree I don’t want you to eat from.” Satan asks, “Really! You can’t eat of any of the trees!” No. That’s not what God said.

While somewhat correcting Satan, Eve adds her own exaggeration. First, she corrects Satan by saying, “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.’”[10] But then, Eve exaggerates. She says, “neither shall you touch it, lest you die” (Gen 3:3). That is not what God said. God said nothing about touching it. He also didn’t say you’d die if you touched the tree.

Is this not what we do with God’s commands though? We tend to exaggerate them.

God says, “love everyone.” We say, “Ok! God just wants me to be a doormat!”

God says, “be holy as I am holy.” We say, “So, I’m supposed to only and always be reading my bible and thinking about God.”

We exaggerate God’s commands and then conclude that his expectations are unreasonable and unbearable.

Magnifies God’s strictness (3:3).

In the exaggeration of God’s commands, we tend to magnify God’s strictness. Both Satan and Eve magnify God’s strictness. Satan acts as if Adam and Eve can’t eat from any of the trees when God only said they could not eat from one of them. And, Eve magnifies God’s strictness when she adds, “we can’t even touch the tree lest we die!”

In God’s defense – as if he needed any defense – God allowed Adam and Eve access to the fruit of every tree except one. Apparently, they could even enjoy, on some level, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as long as they did not eat from it. However, Eve over dramatizes the command. With eyes furrowed, and hand to brow, Eve acts as if God placed the best tree right smack dab in the middle of the garden and then told her and Adam – DON’T EVEN TOUCH IT!” That’s not what God said.

Frederick William Faber writes, in 1862, of this in his hymn “There’s a Wideness in God’s Mercy.” He writes in the third verse, “we make God’s love too narrow by false limits of our own, and we magnify its strictness with a zeal God will not own.”[11]

Amid temptation, we tend to magnify God’s strictness.

Denies God’s promises (3:4).

Rarely does temptation start with outright denial of God’s commands and promises, but it almost always works its way to denial. In verse four, Satan quickly rebukes Eve and says, “You will not surely die.” In one sense, Satan is right. Adam and Eve do not ultimately, physically die that day. God said, “in the day that you eat of it you will surely die” (Gen 2:17). However, we know Adam lived another 900+ years (Gen 5:5). Satan is also correct in that Eve would not die by touching the tree.

Satan’s half-truths and conniving manner of speech falsely directed Eve to denying God’s promises. Satan is so shrewd. He hints at things – forcing the naïve to draw inaccurate conclusions about God’s desires.

So then, what did God mean by death? While Adam and Eve did not ultimately, physically die that day, they did begin to physically die. More serious, they immediately spiritually died. They were immediately separated from God’s presence and the garden which was the source of life.[12] Paul references this death when he writes in Ephesians, “you were dead in the trespasses and sins” (Eph 2:1).

Augustine. When, therefore, it is asked what death it was with which God threatened our first parents if they should transgress the commandment they had received from Him, and should fail to preserve their obedience,—whether it was the death of soul, or of body, or of the whole man, or that which is called second death,—we must answer, It is all. For the first consists of two; the second is the complete death, which consists of all.[13]

Doubts God’s motives (3:5).

Satan offers a reinterpreted plan. Satan proposes an alternate explanation. Satan tells Eve, “Not only are you not going to die, God knows that when you eat the fruit your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Once again, Satan offers a half-truth. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, their eyes were open and they did come to understand evil. However, Satan presented this package as a wonderful thing God was keeping from them – when in fact, their opened eyes and awareness of evil was an awareness of their own act of evil.

God is good. Ηowever, Satan presents God as someone keeping them from happiness. Satan always presents God’s good gifts in a negative light. Satan presents God’s love as God holding back from man. Satan presents man’s service to God as oppression not a place of blessing. Satan presents ultimate destruction as liberation and freedom.

Appeals to our desires (3:6).

Following this repackaged lie of Satan, Moses tells the reader that Eve “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” (Gen 3:6).

Similarly, two New Testament authors acknowledge this progression. The apostle John defines the passions of the world by “the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world” (1 John 2:16). Similarly, James writes, “each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death” (James 1:14–15).

Eve, like all mankind, makes decisions based on her own assessment of the situation instead of the clear commands of God.

Leads to devastation (3:7).

As a result of Adam and Eve eating one piece of fruit, all mankind died. That is dramatic! However, this reality ought to prompt us to seriously weigh the consequences of our own sin. Our own sins sufficiently condemn us eternally to death.

Additionally, our present sins never result in lasting blessing. I say, lasting blessing because at times it appears that our sins did not necessarily immediately result in destruction. God’s blessings never follow from our sinful actions.

Resources for Bible Study

Tremper Longman III, How to Read Genesis (Westmont, IL: IVP Academic, 2005). (Chapter 10: Section – Genesis 3:15: The Protoevangelium)

Walton, John H. Genesis. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001. (“Bridging the Context” section of Genesis 3:1-7). Walton offers a concise discussion on the identity of the serpent and Satan.

Questions for Bible Study

1. What other scripture passages would indicate to you that this story in Genesis 3 is to be understood literally, not metaphorically or as a parable or myth?

2. Who/what is the serpent in Genesis 3:1? What other biblical text would you use to support your conclusion? Does it matter?

3. What issues might you take with Eve’s reply to the serpent? How does Eve’s response reflect mankind’s natural tendency to process God’s commands?

4. How have you understood death in this context? What other biblical passages might indicate the type of death spoken of in this passage?

5. Does Satan lie at all in this story? I’m suggesting that Satan doesn’t lie. How might I conclude that?

Footnotes

[1]Arthur Walkington Pink, Gleanings in Genesis (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2005), 33. [2]Many commentators either directly connect the discussion of the serpent in Genesis 3 to Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 12 or minimally acknowledge the tendency of authors to do so. Lamar Cooper offers three (or four) interpretations of the text in Ezekiel 28. (1) Metaphorical, describing the king of Tyre with bold and exaggerated terms, (2) allegory, in which another real character is addressed and connecting to the king of Tyre indirectly, or (3) a loose rendering of the Genesis account. (4) Cooper also offers a variant of the third interpretation in which the text of Ezekiel offers the background to the account of Genesis. (Lamar Eugene Cooper, Ezekiel, vol. 17, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 264–265.) Tremper Longman acknowledges this debate but concludes, “While space does not permit a rebuttal, arguments presented on the basis of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are not credible. The serpent simply appears with no explanation of its origin.” (Tremper Longman III, How to Read Genesis (Westmont, IL: IVP Academic, 2005), 167). John Calvin, more directly, proposes that such connections of Satan to Ezekiel and Isaiah “arise from ignorance.” The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance, to imagine that Luciferwas the king of devils, and that the Prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables. (John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 442.) Joe Thomas, in his study of Ezekiel, also offers four interpretations. (1) A human ruler or rulers of Tyre (Ralph Alexander, although controlled by Satan[1978] and human ruler [1986]; Joe Thomas, Peter Cragie; Ronald Clements; Iain Duquid; Lamar Cooper; Leslie Allen (says that the interpreter who applies vv 11-19 to Satan is “guilty of detaching the passage from its literary setting”); Christopher Wright; Daniel Block; Calvin) (2) A description of Satan (Warren Wiersbe, although he conveniently says nothing of the final three descriptions; Ronald Clements; Lamar Cooper; Origen; Tertullian, Jerome; M. Unger; Lewis Chafer; J. D. Pentecost; Charles Ryrie; Millard Erikson; Charles Fienberg). (3) A mythological rendering (Peter C. Cragie, sees this as a compilation of the biblical story of Eden and the Caananite story of creation; Walther Eichrodt) (4) Jerusalem's priesthood (Steven Tuell). Norman Habel offers a compelling interpretation which would connect Genesis 3 to Ezekiel. (Habel, Norman C. “Ezekiel 28 and the Fall of the First Man.” Concordia Theological Monthly 38, no. 8 (September 1967): 516–24.) [3]Bryna Brodt, in her Master’s Thesis, offers a comprehensive study of the literal, allegorical, and mythical interpretations of the serpent in Genesis 3. I struggled finding commentaries that addressed the issue in any length. However, Walton, in his commentary on Genesis, does offer a helpful section in regards to the identity of the serpent. [Bryna Brodt, “The Serpents Identity in Genesis 3: A History of Jewish Interpretation from the Bible Through the Thirteenth Century” (MA Thesis, Montreal, Canada, McGill University, 2002); Walton, Genesis, 207–10.] [4] Mathews, Genesis 1-11, 1a:233. “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.” [Mathews, 1a:234.] [5]A couple other New Testament texts indirectly reference the serpent. Paul writes in 2 Corinthians, “But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (2 Cor 11:3). Also, the author of Hebrews, although not as clearly, connects Christ’s work on the cross to the destruction of Satan which likely connects to the “crushing of the head.” He writes, “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, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery” (Heb 2:14–15). [6]Possibly, if the serpent was not Satan or indwelt/guided by Satan, Satan was still responsible. Maybe Satan’s responsibility in this text compares to his role in the interaction between Jesus and Peter. Peter rebukes Jesus, and Jesus says, “Get behind me Satan! You are a hindrance to me” (Matt 16:22-23). Peter was not indwelt by Satan, but he still ends up being a voice of Satanic lies and temptation. [7]James M. Boice offers four alternative perspectives of Genesis 3: fable, legend, myth, or parable. He states that he drew these descriptions from E. J. Young’s book In the Beginning. Boice does simply explain all the different views, and while it does offer a simple overview of alternative views, he doesn’t go into any kind of depth. (James Montgomery Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006), 160.) [8]“it may still be an open question whether the account transcribes the facts or translates them: i.e. whether it is a narrative comparable to such a passage as 2 Samuel 11 (which is the straight story of David’s sin) or to 2 Samuel 12:1–6 (which presents the same event translated into quite other terms that interpret it).” [Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1967), 71.] [9]Moses does not indicate whether Adam was present for this conversation. The conversation only takes place between the serpent and Eve, but Eve offers the fruit to Adam – and Moses does not indicate that she had to go find him. Additionally, he immediately takes the fruit. Why would he unless he had already processed the lies and alternate proposal of Satan? [10]There is question as to whether the tree was in the midst of the garden. Moses does not tell us in Genesis 2 that the tree was in the midst of the garden. Potentially Eve is over emphasizing this tree – as if it were the most prominent and best tree that God forbid them to eat. However, this is speculation. [11]Frederick William Faber, “There’s a Wideness in God’s Mercy,” Hymnary. Accessed April 30, 2021. https://hymnary.org/text/theres_a_wideness_in_gods_mercy [12]“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. 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).” [Mathews, Genesis 1-11, 1a:237.] [13] Augustine of Hippo, St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 250.