The Foundations of the Faith

Studies in Genesis 1-11

Sermon Number Seventeen: The Doctrine of the Fall (part 2)

Jim Bordwine, Th.D.

Introduction

REVIEW

In the previous sermon in this series, we began to examine the doctrine of the fall as it is presented in Gen. 2 and 3. I noted a simple, three-part division suggested by the story itself. The Scripture records the condition or stipulation under which Adam and Eve were to occupy the Garden; then we read of their failure to abide in that condition or keep that stipulation; and, finally, we learn of the consequences of the failure.

We saw that the condition or stipulation is preceded by some background information. For example, we read that God, after having created man from the dust of the ground, placed him in a specially prepared location (2:7, 8); and, then, v. 9 of this same chapter includes a report that God caused various kinds of trees bearing food to grow in the Garden, including the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Next comes a description of the area in which the Garden of Eden was located (cf. 2:10-14). Finally, after Adam and Eve were created and instructed about their duties as God’s unique creatures, we read:

15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.”

The text explains that the condition under which Adam labored involved two tasks: he was to tend to the Garden while enjoying its beauty and provision (“cultivate it”); and he was to make it secure (“keep it”). I pointed out that in vv. 16 and 17, it becomes apparent that Adam did not have absolute freedom in this Garden. God restricted his access to one particular tree. This illustrates the pattern which is to be in place between God and His creatures. God, as Creator, speaks and informs Adam of the nature of their relationship and of Adam’s duties; and Adam, as the creature, listens and, presumably, carries out God’s expressed will.

So, Adam is placed in the Garden, given a two-fold assignment and then given a specific and easily understood order. He was allowed to eat from every tree except one. God established a condition under which Adam had to operate. There is nothing complicated about this condition. In fact, given that this was an expression of a fundamental principle, it had to be uncomplicated; it had to be a circumstance in which the most basic element of the Creator-creature relationship could be made plain to Adam. That most basic element was the nature of God’s authority and the nature of man’s response to that authority.

I then noted that, as we are taught throughout God’s Word, there must always be some negative consequence for not keeping the duty made known by God. And so it is in this passage. We find a corresponding penalty threatened if Adam failed to do what God commanded: “ 17 ... but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” The condition established by God made this one thing crystal-clear: obedience to the will of God means life and disobedience to the will of God means death.

END OF REVIEW

01. The Presentation of the Doctrine (continued)

That brings us to the second element in the three-fold division of this doctrine as it is presented in Gen. 2 and 3, which is the failure of our first parents to abide by the condition established by the Creator:

3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.’” 4 And the serpent said to the woman, “You surely shall not die! 5 For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

We are all familiar with this story. Nevertheless, I want to walk us through it by pointing out several important elements in this record. First, notice the description of the serpent: “Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made...” (v. 1) The KJV says “more subtil” (sic); the NKJV says “more cunning”; the NIV says “more crafty,” like the NASB. Every version rightly conveys the same basic idea. The Hebrew term which is used (awroom) means “crafty, sly, shrewd.” Often this word is used to describe a desirable quality, normally translated as “prudent” (cf. Pro. 12:16, 23; 13:16; etc.). The word refers to taking advantage of a situation to gain the most good or to accomplish one’s aim. That is why it can be used to describe both the wicked (cf. Job 5:12) and the righteous (cf. verses cited in Proverbs). So, it is the context which determines the moral character of the craftiness.

Biblically speaking, the crafty man is the man who attempts to turn circumstances to his benefit. This is how the serpent is described in our passage. His goal is to influence this circumstance to his advantage; that is, so that he might see accomplished his plan instead of the plan currently in place. It soon becomes apparent that his goal is to call into question the condition which God established for Adam and Eve—and not only to call it into question, but to have that condition violated. Therefore, the serpent uses his superior cunning to lead first the woman and then the man into sin. In this case, therefore, the context makes clear that the craftiness of the serpent is wickedly employed, indeed.

The second element to notice is the serpent’s question to the woman: “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden?’” There is a progression to be seen in the serpent’s approach. He does not immediately challenge the condition established by God, but asks an “innocent” question designed to engage the woman in conversation. Soon, of course, the serpent directly contradicts God, once he gets the woman’s attention. So, the third element is the woman’s answer: “2 From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.’”

Some have implied a dissatisfaction on Eve’s part with God’s prohibition because she quotes God as saying, “You shall not eat from it or touch it...” The latter part of that statement is not found in the previous material. God commanded Adam not to eat of the tree, but the Scripture says nothing more than that. It is possible, however, to understand Eve’s sin as developing in stages (this is certainly the case when we come to the point where Eve actually eats of the fruit). Her addition, “you shall not touch it,” definitely represents an overstatement of the fact, and perhaps a bit of interpretation on her part, but to what degree she is at this point being motivated by sinful impulses is hard to say. That is why the text emphasizes that the eating of the fruit would constitute the failure to obey. This leaves no room for debate about the nature of Eve’s thinking or the motivation behind her words.

Now comes the fourth element, which is the serpent’s bold, undisguised contradiction of God: “You surely shall not die!” (v. 4) Here, again, I call attention to the progression in his tactic. He got Eve to repeat the condition under which harmony would be preserved between Creator and creature and now he attacks that prohibition by directly repudiating the warning issued by God. Remember how I stressed the simplicity of the condition God imposed—if Adam ate from that one particular tree, God plainly warned him that he would die. Now, the serpent’s contradiction is just as direct: “You surely shall not die!”

Immediately, therefore, two mutually exclusive perspectives are set in opposition to one another. The story maintains its uncomplicated character. Now, it is God’s word against the word of the serpent, or God’s interpretation of the Creator-creature relationship against the serpent’s interpretation. What is being decided at this moment is the identification and nature of ultimate authority in this reality where the woman finds herself. She knows what God has done and she knows what God has commanded, but now she must factor into her perception the exact alternative of God’s warning.

Of course, the serpent does more than contradict God’s warning about death. After denying that death would come to Eve if she disobeyed God, he proposes that God is simply trying to keep a desirable thing all to Himself: “God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (v. 5) “That is why God told you not to eat this fruit! He told you that you would die just to scare you away from this tree because He doesn’t want you to be like Him.” What the serpent failed to say, of course, is that this was not a good and desirable thing; in fact, it would mean that Eve had taken the place of God as the interpreter for her existence. This was the serpent’s plan all along. He wanted Eve to join him in opposition to the Creator.

Notice the serpent’s exact wording: “your eyes will be opened.” This phrase in itself suggests to Eve that God is withholding something; there’s something out there which God is trying to conceal, something Eve should have. The serpent made it sound as if God was selfishly guarding the knowledge of good and evil so that He would not have to share this ability with His creatures. Eve had only to eat from that tree and, behold, she would attain an ability or discernment which God was trying to reserve to Himself.

The whole context has changed now. The serpent has introduced ideas which stand opposed to the reality God had established for Eve. In a sly manner—true to character, of course—the serpent has said: “Maybe there’s more to this; maybe God hasn’t been completely forthcoming about this tree. Look at the tree; it doesn’t look dangerous to me. Maybe God’s warning is empty and designed only to keep you subdued; maybe God doesn’t want to let you have what He has. Think about it, Eve; doesn’t my explanation make more sense?”

The serpent’s reasoning is designed to lead Eve beyond the point where she must decide who to believe, which would be bad enough; his words are intended to lead her to question the character of God. As I said before, obedience is the central issue at stake in this story, and the principle of obedience rests upon the absolute authority and trustworthiness of God. We obey because we know that God is right; and when we disobey, it is because we conclude, even for a brief moment, that God is wrong. Sin is a declaration that God is wrong. So, the serpent is asking: “Is it possible that God’s nature is such that He can and should be believed and obeyed no matter what He says and no matter what circumstances may look like, or is God One who may deceive you for His advantage?”

All of this adds up to the temptation faced by Eve. Who would be the interpreter of this existence? Whose law would rule? The implications of the serpent’s alternative opinion are horrendous, of course. If he is correct, then God is a liar and that means that He cannot be trusted and that everything Eve has learned in her brief existence is an elaborate deception. And this brings us to the fifth element in the story, which is the woman’s decision: “When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.” (v. 6)

I think it is worth noting that God did not make the forbidden fruit unappealing. In fact, like everything else God had made, no doubt, it was quite appealing to the senses. The Creator did not make the fruit on this tree ugly or repulsive to reinforce His condition and guarantee that the woman would not go near it. That is because of the nature of this test or condition. The only significant factor in this situation was God’s word. Everything else was “equal,” we might say, so that whatever action Eve took would have to be based on one primary notion: whether to believe her Creator. She weighed God’s command and the serpent’s recent reasoning and made a decision.

The fruit on the tree was “good for food”; the fruit was a “delight to the eyes,” which means that its appearance brought pleasure (based upon the use of taavah). And Eve concluded that “the tree was desirable to make one wise.” This is where Eve crosses the line from simply listening to the serpent, which was unwise in itself, to believing the serpent. This statement indicates that Eve reached a conclusion and her conclusion was that she wanted what she thought the fruit could supply, which was an ability or attribute like that which God possessed. At this moment, that which had been primary, namely, God’s word, becomes secondary in Eve’s thinking. She was now being governed by another principle and that was the principle of self-determination. Eve’s action indicates that she now has fully consented to the reasoning of the serpent.

This was, then, the culmination of the serpent’s craftiness. He succeeded in getting Eve to place her judgment above God’s judgment and her subjective opinion above His objective law which had reigned up to this point. So, the text tells us, “she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.” Remember that previously, I have stressed the simplistic nature of this story. God created Adam and Eve, placed them in the Garden, gave them a plain command not to eat from one tree and here they are doing exactly what God told them not to do—they are eating the fruit of that tree. The way in which this story is recorded leaves no doubt that Adam and Eve did just what they were commanded not to do. So, there can be no question regarding the fact of their transgression. That is part of the value of the style in which this event is related to us.

Much has been written about Adam’s involvement in this episode. Grammatically, the text does not necessarily teach that Adam was with Eve during this whole discourse with the serpent. It is quite possible, and maybe even preferable, to understand this verse as saying that Adam was not present during the discussion. Whatever the case, God chose not to give further details of Adam’s involvement at this time. What is apparent is that the same temptation to disobey God’s declared will was offered to him with the same shameful result. Although it is not emphasized here, Adam bears primary responsibility for what happens, as later Scripture makes clear. He is the one who was charged with keeping the Garden and that, in itself, symbolized something which the Bible later makes abundantly obvious, which is that Adam was functioning as a representative head for humanity (more on this notion later when we consider the development of the doctrine of the fall).

The final verse contains the sixth element, which is an immediate recognition of a disruption: “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.” (v. 7) I have felt for some time that this statement is highly significant when it comes to interpreting the immediate result of Adam’s sin. I would call attention to 2:25: “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” The word translated “ashamed” (boosh) is found in a particular verb form (hithpolel) which stresses the perception of Adam toward Eve and Eve toward Adam. In that unfallen, innocent state, Adam and Eve occupied their roles according to God’s design and even their bodily forms complemented their callings. The very first thing said after their transgression, however, is that they knew that they were naked. In other words, there was a sudden and uncomfortable awareness of one another in this new context of having disobeyed the Creator.

My belief is that Adam and Eve instinctively knew that they no longer were functioning according to God’s intentions—Eve had dealt with the serpent on her own and Adam had followed her in the temptation to sin. Both of these actions were contrary to the manner in which God made them and the tasks he assigned to each of them—Adam was to be the leader and protector, while Eve was to be the helper. Their very designs—she as a woman and he as a man—continued to remind them of their respective roles and this is why now, after they ate the forbidden fruit, they are ashamed of their nakedness; it was a glaring reminder of what they were supposed to be toward one another and of what they no longer were because they had disobeyed God. Therefore, they took steps to cover themselves and thereby silence the testimony of their own bodies. In that action, we have a picture of man’s pathetic attempt to make things right again. A few leaves sewn together could not match the extent of the ruin which had now entered creation.

This disturbing awareness that something now was wrong leads to the third and final section of this story, which is the result of the failure to abide in the condition established by the Creator. This will be the subject of the next sermon.

02. Development of the Doctrine

To follow later...

03. Application of the Doctrine

For our application, I want to return to each of those six elements which I just identified. Each element reminds us of certain basic principles which are crucial to a well-ordered Christian life. First, I called attention to the description given of the serpent; and second, the question posed by the serpent to Eve. These two element combine to give us insight regarding the serpent’s method of operation and goal. This is our first encounter with Satan. Elsewhere, he is called a deceiver, a liar and the father of lies, the adversary. Scripture leaves no doubt regarding his moral character, nor does the Bible leave any doubt about the fact that Satan desires our ruin.

We don’t talk a lot about the devil these days and that’s probably just fine with him. But the story of the fall requires that we not only talk about him, but also be reminded of his ways; and, at the same time, living as we do in the post-resurrection age of the reign of Christ, we can be encouraged regarding the end toward which the deceiver is headed. We know that he is opposed to everything righteous and everything honoring to God; we know that he hates our Savior and he hates us and he hates our children. We know that he does what he can to stop the advance of the Church—he is on the losing side if there ever was one, but that doesn’t stop him. The devil is not known for giving up even when he cannot win; he is known for causing as much trouble as possible down to the very last and slimmest opportunity.

In our passage, he is described as “crafty” and we saw just how shrewd he was in the temptation of Adam and Eve. His initial question was designed to conceal his true intention and he succeeded. Briefly then, let us be reminded that we do have an adversary in this life and let us be reminded that he is working to oppose the Kingdom of Christ and the redemption of our race. We don’t fear him, because he has no power over us, but we should not discount his existence or be unwise regarding his ways. At the same time, we should be glad for the coming day of his judgment when, once and for all, our enemy will be cast into hell by our victorious Savior and King. Christ is, even now, destroying the works of the devil and will continue to do so because He has triumphed over the tempter who brought misery into this world. We are living proof that he cannot retain his captives when the gospel comes. And that same gospel which has led to our reconciliation to God will also culminate in the serpent’s eternal judgment.

The third element in the story was the woman’s answer. There is a simple lesson here: God’s word does not need our additions or elaborations. As I noted before, it’s difficult to say just what prompted Eve to add to God’s prohibition. He said “don’t eat from the tree,” but she added, “and don’t touch the tree.” Possibly, we are seeing in her addition the first stage of her sin. Whatever the case, all would have to agree that her addition to God’s command did not help in the least. Negatively, Eve’s answer played right into the hand of the serpent. He was attempting to incite dissatisfaction and restlessness in her and he succeeded.

This portion of the story reminds me that we are forever wanting to do something to God’s word. We want to make it clearer, more attractive, less offensive, more popular, shorter and less complicated or easily digestable. So, we condense it, commercialize it, trivialize it and dumb it down. We have Bibles for men, Bibles for women, Bibles for teenagers, Bibles for children, study Bibles for charismatics, study Bibles for Reformed Presbyterians and study Bibles for Dispensationalists. All these publications have one common theme: the word of God needs help.

Now, I’m not saying that study Bibles are evil, nor am I saying that Bible study tools are unnecessary. But I am saying that enough is enough. Look around at what we have done with the word of God in our day. You can get it in the traditional way—that is, bound in a book; or you can download it on the Internet or you can carry it around in your shirt pocket in a small electronic device. What is astonishing is that with the unbelievable proliferation of the word, our culture is in its death-throes. Something is wrong and what is wrong, I believe, is our treatment of God’s Holy Word. In our effort to make it useful and acceptable to the public, we have done just what Eve did, only on a much grander scale—we have added our own little touches to God’s revealed will. Eve elaborated upon what God had commanded and she did so without His authorization.

Maybe that is why we are not seeing the blessings we might expect as God’s word is so widely available. Maybe God doesn’t approve of the irreverence and lack of fear which sometimes go hand-in-hand with the commercialization of His word. Maybe He’s showing us that just having the word in a multitude of forms is meaningless if you don’t really believe it or if you don’t really and truly recognize whose word it is or if you are not satisfied with that word as He gave it. This is what happened with Eve.

Let’s get back to the point where the Holy Word of God is read in our hearing and in the hearing of our families; let’s get back to the point where we pray for discernment and for the ability to listen to the preached word profitably; let’s get back to the point where we are raising ourselves to the level of Scripture in our vocabulary and understanding instead of issuing edition after edition of the Bible designed to accommodate our embarrassingly ignorant society. The big question is this: Is the word of God sufficient? Again, let me be clear—I am not suggesting that Bible study tools are unnecessary and, therefore, we all should just sit around waiting for a private interpretation. I am suggesting that we have to be extremely careful about our motivation when buying and using some of what is being produced. We have to make sure that we are not moved by a subtle doubt about the sufficiency of what God has said and the manner in which He has said it.

The fourth element was the serpent’s bold, undisguised contradiction of God. God told Adam and Eve they would die if they disobeyed, but the serpent said: “you surely shall not die!” Again, we have illustrated a simple, but all-important principle. God’s command and the serpent’s assurance were mutually exclusive; both could not be true. This reminds us that whatever form failure to keep God’s word takes, it is, in the final analysis, a direct and deliberate contradiction of that word. God’s word is either kept or it is not kept; there is no such thing as almost obeying—you either do or you do not. Maintaining this razor sharp distinction between right and wrong, between obedience and disobedience, is crucial for us if we are going to understand what happened to our race, why we stand condemned before God, why we must constantly struggle to subdue our flesh and why we must discipline in our homes. If there were such a thing as partial obedience or, more importantly, if God did accept a “version” of obedience and did not demand complete conformity, then we would not be in the mess we’re are in and there would have been no real need for a Savior. The death of Christ proves that God accepts only conformity.

The story of the fall illustrates plainly that there is God’s word and everything else is contrary to that word and wholly unacceptable to Him. It illustrates in a vivid way, the two options open to man in every situation: he can do what God says or he can not do what God says; and these two options are, once again, mutually exclusive. No clearer picture could be given of this truth than God saying “you will die” and the serpent saying, “you will not die.” God’s nature does not allow for “attempts” at obedience or “good tries” when it comes to His word. His creatures do what He says or suffer the consequences. Keeping this in mind will not only help us be more diligent in our daily walks, but will also make us more grateful for the One who paid our debt.

The fifth component in the story was the woman’s decision. The lesson here is a reminder that no matter how good things look and no matter what advantage we think we might gain, doing what God forbids is always the wrong choice. There simply is no other conclusion. Once we abandoned the notion that God determines right and wrong, which is what we do when we sin, then we do what Eve did, we operate according to the principle of self-determination. And the Scriptures warns us just as plainly as God warned Adam and Eve, that if we rely on that principle, we will be deceived. Especially in our present condition, the Bible declares, our hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked. They can do nothing but  lead us astray if they are allowed to govern apart from God’s constant instruction.

The sixth element in the story was the immediate recognition of a disruption, which Adam and Eve experienced. Among other lessons that could be mentioned here, one stands out and that is the great gulf between the sin which had been committed and the attempt made by the transgressors to atone. The sewing together of the leaves for loin cloths was an attempt at atonement; it was an attempt to cover sin, as the story makes absolutely clear. The magnitude of the offense, however, was far, far beyond their ability to correct. The Creator was offended by their actions; Adam and Eve sinned against Him, One who is holy in all His being and their was no attempt, no gimmick, no action which could reconcile these two parties.

Sin is contrary to God’s nature—to what He is in His essence. Nothing in creation could make up for what Adam and Eve did. A simple act of disobedience, we might say, but that in no way mitigates the consequences. The fact that man could fall and be condemned just on the basis of one act of disobedience should tell us how pure God is and how unacceptable is any violation of His will. As the Bible goes on to teach, man could never be reconciled to God by his own devices, so God came, in the form of a man, to pay for our sins. It took a sacrifice of infinite worth to atone for man’s offense.

Conclusion