The Fall of MAN I
(Genesis 3:1-16)
EDEN TO ZION VIDEO SERIES
Transcript
Introduction
Hello, I’m Stephen Buckley, and we’re in a series working our way through the grand narrative of the Bible, from Eden to Zion, in which you will build a biblical worldview, to function by as a Christian and mature in your relationship with Christ Jesus.
Having taken a substantial detour since chapter 2 of Genesis, to step back and develop in our understanding of the aspects that make up the biblical worldview – God’s law and order, the canvas of existence or what we call the field of play with its historical and eschatological narrative, and the players or characters that are active within – so that we can understand who the Creator God is, how he has designed and established his universe, his boundaries, how we are interact with others and so forth… and today we are turning to Genesis 3, the pivotal moment in the history of man, up until the cross.
Understand what took place in the garden, and you better understand the questions of suffering, temptation, judgement, the devil’s schemes, the nature of man, the foundation of the gospel, and you blame God less for your own circumstance.
Such is the significance of what took place, this will be the first part, with part 2 shortly after. We’re going to be patient with the text and let the questions and answers soak in and simmer.
Setting the Scene
Let’s place the scene and imagine the setting.
Days after creation, it was a fresh spring afternoon, and Adam the anointed priest-king of Eden would walk through the garden sanctuary from the east, the rivers flowing around him, and as he approached the holy mountain of the LORD, he had two very obvious choices, a tree that would bring life, or a tree that would bring about death.
Satan set out to remove the human king of Eden and prevent God’s plans of expanding it globally. If he could sit on the throne of Eden, perhaps he too could sit on the throne in heaven.
Satan Manifests as a Serpent
Genesis 3, the temptation scene, is the third of seven scenes, that began with Genesis 2.
We read:
“Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.” (Gen 3:1a)
This creature is the Hebrew word for serpent. It doesn’t name the serpent.
This tempter appears in animal form and verbally communicates with cunningness. This isn’t just a serpent but a clever, sharp, shrewd talking serpent, with high intellect and knowledge that surpasses the man and woman. In the book of Numbers we’ll come across the donkey who God opened the mouth of to speak, and here we witness a serpent who is speaking.
It begs the question then, who is animating the serpent? It doesn’t explicitly say it’s Satan, but as Wenham notes, “Early Jewish and Christian commentators identified the snake with Satan or the devil”.
Revelation 20 says: And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, (Rev 20:2).
Revelation 12 says: “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)
I then will use the serpent, Satan, and the Devil interchangeably.
Angels will usually appear as a man but here Satan appears as a serpent. Angel means messenger. Satan is designed in part to deliver messages from God as a representative of God and therefore in the form of a man, reflecting his creator. Instead, he arrives with his own message, representative of himself, in the form of a serpent, reflecting his new creaturely character.
Either he manifests as a serpent, or he possesses a serpentine creature, or he brings a serpent into the garden and somehow deceives Adam and his wife to believe the serpent is the one who is speaking to them.
Walter C. Kaiser Jr. (who I really appreciate) argues that “the serpent” is “probably a title, not a particular shape he assumed or the instrument he borrowed to manifest himself.” But the serpent is categorised as a “beast of the field”, which makes no sense if Satan appears as a man or it’s referring to his actual status of an angelic being. Why would he be compared to other animals and be described as “more crafty than any other.” He’s not described as “more crafty than any other angelic creature”, he’s “more crafty than any other beast of the field”.
Also, we must ask, why would he be given this title apart from manifesting as an actual serpent? Were serpents originally, naturally crafty or cunning? No. You can’t apply the trait to Satan from the serpent - The serpent is crafty because Satan is appearing as one. The serpent could not originally be associated with Satan. Satan is now associated with the serpent (and vice-versa) and referred to as “the ancient serpent” because of his initial trickery in the form of one.
There is a connection with the Hebrew word for serpent and the Hebrew word for bronze, which could indicate “a shiny and luminous appearance, which would arrest the woman’s attention.” Hamilton also notes that there is a connection between the Hebrew word for serpent and a Hebrew verb meaning “to practice divination”. Already we have a picture of something slightly sinister.
We are not told the name, but we are told about the character and the origin of the serpent.
Firstly, the character of the serpent is described as “more crafty than any other”, or the “most cunning”. Not just a little bit crafty, but the most, more than any other. This is an undesirable characteristic in stark contrast to being more wise than any other. This definite characterisation of a person within the Hebrew narrative is unusual, as if Moses is telling us to pay special attention to this character – he is not what he appears.
This word crafty or cunning can be translated as shrewd, which can be positive and account for wisdom, but shrewdness misused turns to deception. There is a connection with crafty (associated with wisdom) and man’s search of wisdom in the fall. The serpent’s craftiness/wisdom led to the certain wisdom the couple received. So, I like that it’s translated as crafty or cunning, because of what is about to play out, but know that Satan as the serpent was once shrewd for God, but now chosen to be shrewd for his own gain.
The previous verse, the last verse of chapter 2, uses the word naked, so then here the use of crafty is a Hebrew play on words. Sailhammer says “The link provides an immediate clue to the potential relationship between the serpents “cunning” and the innocence implied in the “nakedness” of the couple.”
So, there are clues from verse one, as to what is about to take place.
So that’s his character.
Secondly, with regards his origin, verse one tells us that he is a creature “that the LORD God had made.” The LORD God has no rival. Good and evil do not have dual and parallel origins. In the beginning there were not two. In the beginning God. No door is open to label the serpent as divine. Described as an animal created by God underscores his subjection under the sovereignty of the creator. Genesis three leaves no room for alternative deities.
Why did he manifest or possess a creature and not appear as a handsome and sophisticated man before the woman? One consideration is that Adam and his wife were naked. If he appeared as a man wearing clothes, they may raise suspicions, even questions as to why he felt the need to cover himself. I doubt he would temp in the appearance of a naked man. Perhaps he thought if He came as something other than a man, a creature lower than her, he would be no threat to Adam’s authority; no threat to the family unit. Adam too would not feel threatened by a talking snake rather than another man. Adam thought he was the only man, so it would also raise suspicion perhaps: “Where has this man come from, and why is he speaking to my wife?” Whatever Satan’s crafty reasoning he chooses to enter the garden as a serpent. His craftiness would not match God’s. His show of evil would be used to show good.
This scene is within the secure boundaries of the garden of Eden. But the serpent is a “beast of the field” not the garden. The habitat of the beasts of Eden, were the field of Eden, beyond the garden. It is highly likely the garden is off limits for the beasts. What then is the serpent doing in the garden? Was this the moment of the fall of Satan? Was this the first bold transgression of Satan that led to his status of being declared evil?
Moses would go on to classify, according to the Word of God, serpents as unclean animals in Lev 11 and Deut 14. That would be long after, but by the same author, and long before this Noah was made aware which animals were clean and which were unclean to prepare them to board the Ark. It could be a post-fall classification, though the creation account clearly distinguishes between domesticated animals which likely grazed the garden, and the beasts of the field outside of. Adam, having named all the animals would be aware this reptilian serpent was a “beast of the field” and straying from its natural habitat, likely off limits.
Dialogue between Serpent and The Woman
Verse one continues and here we witness the dialogue between the serpent and the woman:
“He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 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.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”” (Gen 3:1b-5)
Satan to The Woman
“He said” masculine singular “to the woman.” There is only two of them in the garden. They are not difficult to find. Why would the serpent approach the woman and not the man or both of them? The serpent understands the nature of man (namely the differences between the sexes), and so he challenges the woman because she is the more agreeable, vulnerable, more sensitive one. He goes for the weak spot. His first aim is for the “weaker vessel”. As we’ve seen in the previous two studies, it has nothing to do with intellect but the nature of woman. Men have been designed to take leadership and therefore are more likely to be detached from emotions, are less easy to manipulate and so forth. What’s more, is that she was not given the law directly from God, so she may begin to question her Husband who delivered the law to her. Satan also knows that if he can persuade the woman to remove herself from the covering and place of submission to her husband, then one step further would be to remove herself from the covering and place of submission to God. In fact, the first step involves the second.
“Did God actually say?” I quoted this in the series introduction, and I even mentioned it in the previous teaching. This is the apparently innocent question that leads down the slippery slope to sheol. Not “did the LORD God say” nor “did God say” but the sceptical “did God actually say” or as some translate, “did God really say”. It amplifies any incredulity and distrust of God’s word in the mind of the woman. It makes her question what God did say.
The Serpent’s opening line is less of a question than it is a poke at the word of God with feigned shock to cause confusion. “Did he really say”!! This smooth talker, sounds pleasant, even helpful. If the serpent was British there might even have been a hint of sarcasm on his split tongue. “Did he really say?”
The Serpent is deliberately distorting God’s words in saying “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” (Gen. 3:1). God prohibited only one tree, not all of them, not “any tree”. Satan reverses the truth that their permission far outweighs their prohibition. This talking serpent is flipping the freedom vs limitation ratio – suggesting they are victims. They have much freedom and little limitation, and now it seems like little freedom and much limitation. There will have been hundreds of trees, possibly thousands, with just one, off limits. He placed emphasis on what they are prohibited to eat (a tiny percentage), subtlety ignoring all of the freedom they have. The opposite of counting your blessings: counting your prohibitions.
This is the tactic, to paint God as an oppressive, overly protective, grossly jealous, controlling beast, and almost as if he has set the tree up as a trap in the garden. He’s mentally closed the boundaries of the garden in on the couple as if it’s a small garden and this tree is the centrepiece. As if their only choice to live truly free is to eat from the forbidden tree. Recognize the tactics of Satan.
And here is another tactic. Satan does not use God’s name, Yahweh – even though first verse in the narration does. Within this chapter alone the narration uses LORD God, YHWH Elohim, nine times. But Satan only refers to him as God (Elohim), not Yahweh Elohim. He intentionally distances God by removing his name, making sin appear less personal. He removes the personal nature and implies ambiguity of the creator and covenant maker. “Which God?” “Which distant creator?”
The serpent is addressing the woman, but he is, in a sense, speaking to the man also. He will entice the man to sin by using his wife. Adam is his primary target. Therefore, as Hamilton points out, ‘you’ in “You shall not eat” “You will not surely die” “when you eat… you will be”, he uses the plural form of the verb. So he is speaking to the woman but he is speaking over her to her husband also, you both: “when you [both] eat… [in a moment] you [both] will be like God”
The Woman’s Response
This is the woman’s opportunity to contend for the word of God and correct the serpent. If Adam is in ear shot, which it suggest he was, it was his opportunity too. The woman attempts to correct but gets it wrong.
First, she acts as the spokesperson in place of Adam using the plural, we: “We may eat”. Satan uses the plural you, but directs it at the woman, and then the woman takes the leadership in saying, “we may eat”. She should defer to her husband, but instead assumes the position of declaring the law of the land.
She is right in saying they can “eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden” but she omits “every” garden tree. God said, “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” (Gen 2:16-17a). There is slight difference in saying, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden” (Gen 3:2) and we “may surely eat of every tree of the garden”. She adopts the posture of counting the prohibition. The serpent paints God as authoritarian and a little cruel, and she adds a brush stroke.
The woman too follows Satan’s use of God (Elohim), dropping the personal YHWH God. She doesn’t use his name. She mirrors the serpent in distancing YHWH from the conversation.
When she refers to the instruction about the tree of the Knowledge of good and evil, firstly she is not specific which tree. Both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil were “in the midst of the garden” so she is not clear.
Secondly, she adds to the law: “neither shall you touch it, lest you die.” God did not say they couldn’t touch it, just not to eat of it. This small embellishment of God’s word opens the door to more considerable errors. Mankind is obsessed with adding and subtracting from God’s word. When you add, you detract.
The scripture warn us:
You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2)
“Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it. (Deuteronomy 12:32)
Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:6)
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)
You could accidently touch something. But you can’t accidently eat the fruit of the tree. “I could die simply by leaning on the wrong tree, how harsh is that!” No, God has given you much freedom and distinct choice to decide if you want to disobey. You can’t just go for a jog through the garden, take a breather up against a tree, and now you’re dead. Is there even a suggestion in the woman’s tone that God is a little harsh for the death sentence?
She does not ask how Satan knew, about any prohibition?
She could have said, “Actually God did not say... he said…” and quoted him verbatim. She has only heard the law from Adam, unless YHWH reiterated to both in an earlier meeting, but we are not told that, so we assume the law was only given to Adam before his wife was created and then he taught her the law. Could Adam have communicated it incorrectly? It’s fairly short to remember, it’s not as though he is remembering the Torah off by heart, so we’ll give him the benefit of doubt. Did his wife misinterpret the instructions? Is she then deceived into calling into question God’s law and gets flustered in the confusion? Did Adam add to the instructions when teaching his wife, not to touch the tree, as an extra barrier to protect her. Did he say, “We are not to eat of it but let’s be safe and not go near it, don’t touch it”. Which could be a sensible thing to do, but if true, and dependant on how he delivered this message, this addition may have caused in part the woman to mis-state God’s word. The days of dialogue between the couple are not for us to know, but pondering questions like this can help us to identify where we may go wrong.
So, she assumed leadership, depersonalised the Creator-law-giver, she edits the law - the Word of God, she is unclear about the Word of God, and finally adds to the Word of God.
This is the first conversation about God and his Word, and it’s not a good one.
Satan’s Assertion
Satan has the last word and presents himself as the one telling the truth and that it is God who was deceiving them.
“You will not surely die”
Satan knows they will not die physically, immediately, which is true. But he is twisting God’s words because that is not entirely what God meant. Also, their “eyes will be opened”, and they do in a sense become “like God” (see v22). He twists the meaning of God’s Word. He doesn’t directly tell the woman to disobey God. He doesn’t tell her to eat from the tree. Nor is he lying directly. In one sense what he says is true, but completely disingenuous and deceptive. Half-truths are the tool of seduction, masquerading as the whole truth; lots of information but little accuracy, in waxing untruth.
As a reader it makes us question, what did God mean by dying; by eyes being opened; by becoming like God. We know the way he is positioning his statement is wrong, but it keeps us gripped to find out how.
Satan wanted to be like God. He is presenting himself as God to her. He is enticing her to follow his ways. “We can all become gods.” Once he has removed the threat of death, Satan convinces her that sin is to protect God, rather than herself. In flipping the motive, he pretends God doesn’t want us as knowledgeable competition. Judgment from God then, is flipped to become blessing. This pattern is still being used today to encourage sinful behaviour. As Prager puts it, “Exaggerate, then denigrate the other side’s motive, then promise a reward.”
He is saying she can be more than she is. Hamilton says: “Deification [which is when a person is treated like a god] is a fantasy difficult to repress and a temptation hard to reject.” The pull of social media celebrity status plays into that fantasy. All she has to do, is decide her own will is going to override her devotion to God’s will. She is beginning to conceive that she can ascend above the limitations imposed on her by her creator.
He began with feigned shock, and now goes in for the kill, asserting his explanation. He plays down the reason for God forbidding eating from the tree. He points to God’s Words, then points to how God was thinking when he delivered his Words. “For God knows that when you eat…” He behaves as though he knows God’s inner thoughts and lords his supposed superior knowledge over the woman to dogmatically imply God didn’t mean what he said. He is saying, judgment won’t follow transgression of God’s Word, no, blessings follow transgression. You’ll be godlike, knowing good and evil. You will see clearly. This way you (you too Adam) could fulfil your true potential and destiny.
The serpent is implying “God was keeping this knowledge from the man and the woman… [rather than] God was keeping this knowledge for the man and the woman”. What more good could they have required than being placed at the heart of the “very good” creation? Rather than trusting God to provide all the good they need, “Could God have left an extra bit of knowledge of good?” they questioned.
An exchange of misquotation, denial, and slander.
The serpent only speaks twice, and not in the form of a long, complex, Shakespearean, philosophical, soliloquy. One question followed by a couple of short assertions was all it took to undermine God’s authority and trust in his provision.
Rather than relying on God, we allow our feelings to run away from us, and base the foundation of a ‘new truth’ on ourselves. ‘My truth.’ In suppressing the truth, we create a God in our own imagine. One that we feel comfortable with. One that allows us to continue in our sin. Convinced our reward is around the corner, the reality will eventually hit that the LORD God will appear for an account.
This is the breakdown of order and harmony in the garden. Order turns disorder, harmony gives way to friction, security and assurance turns to suspicion.
Every day since, man has repeated Satan’s mantra, "did God really say.” Today, even Christians are spouting Satan’s words - Did God really say? We question from the wrong posture; we aren’t clear on what was said; we edit out the blessings and abundant provision; we add to His Word our tradition, and paint God as an impersonal harsh master; or a fluffy timid person void of the severity of his wrath. We won’t accept God’s word. We want to be like God.
The Woman Eats
Verse six kick offs scene four, the central scene of the seven. It climaxes with the couple eating, and it begins with the woman taking initiative.
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, (Gen 3:6a)
We mentioned in our study of Genesis 2 that the forbidden tree is adorned with good fruit. The fruit does not contain poison nor is it an eye saw in the midst of the garden – it is as the woman acknowledges atheistically pleasing. The tree is not bad or evil. The tree was pleasant to look at and good for food. A married person may say, well this other person is pleasant to look at and sex is good – but it’s outside the boundaries of God’s law. In the woman’s eyes it was that this “tree was to be desired to make one wise” that most aroused her attention. There were many other trees with good fruit and “a delight to the eyes” but eating from this tree would uncover mysteries. The first two points makes her view this tree as the same as the others: it plays down the difference – another beautiful tree with good fruit, what is the harm – but at the same time heightens the difference. The result of eating this tree would in her estimation receive a certain wisdom. The Hebrew words for “delight” and “desirable” are from roots meaning to “covet” found in the ten commandments. She covets that what eating the fruits would bring about. If only she tastes the fruit, will she be happy. She believes a lie.
We are not told what type of fruit she eat. This tree could have its own unique kind of fruit, and therefore wouldn’t be known today, and would make no sense to name it, and it would therefore stand out from the rest of trees in the garden so that there was no confusion as to which one it was. If it was one of the common trees today, and the scriptures told us which one, I suspect many would dare not eat from it and they’d probably all have been burned by now. Then stories develop of men hiding away the last forbidden trees and unhelpful mysteries of these trees would be written about. The only tree mentioned is a fig tree, but it doesn’t fit that they covered themselves with leaves from the tree they’ve just eaten from. Often it’s depicted as an apple tree because the Latin word for evil is similar to apple. Tradition has it that the Pomegranate has approximately 613 seeds that represent the 613 distinct commands in the Torah. It’s a very cool connection if true (which is why I used a picture of pomegranates in the thumbnail image for this video) but I’m not convinced. Revelation 22 says that the future “tree of life” will have “twelve kinds of fruit” (Rev 22:2). Perhaps the original tree of life also had “twelve kinds of fruit”. We are left to wonder about both trees, and that it how God has decided to leave it. They should not have known what the tree of knowledge of good and evil tastes like, and we are not to know what the tree was.
John in his first epistle warns his fellow Christians of lust and pride by harkening back to this garden scene: “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—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. 17 And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.” (1 John 2:15-17) Some translate desire as lust: “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16 NIV)
She “saw that the tree was good for food” (Gen. 3:6) – enticed in her thoughts about the reward of its taste and how satisfying it may be: the desires or lust of the flesh. It was a “delight to the eyes” - enticed by its colours and attractive design: the desires or lust of the eyes. She thought that the “tree was to be desired to make one wise” - oh how her husband may respect her knowledge above his: the pride of life. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, are what separate us from God. When we fall into temptation, we make a law unto ourselves and eat the fruit thereof. Rather than fellowship with God, fellowship with the Devil, that ancient serpent.
The woman ate, removing herself from the covering of her husband and God. She sort her will over God’s revealed will. Extension of limits over set boundaries. Autonomy over submission. Rebellion over obedience in a person.
She assumes the role, not just of her husband, but of God, assuming the role of ‘knowing good’. This isn’t general rebellion. The scriptures could have just said, “they disobeyed God”. The scene is a quest for pseudo-godliness, a “quest for wisdom and “the good” apart from God’s provision.”
Yet, “true godliness is an expression of [Godly] character.” As Sarna says, “The deceptive nature of the serpent’s appeal lay in its interpretation of godliness which it equated with defiance of God’s will, with power, rather than with strength of character.”
Adam Eats
Verse six continues:
and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (6b)
The description of the first sin within verse 6 is apparently an “extremely difficult pronunciation” making it impossible to skim read and calling the reader to pay close attention.
She makes her own judgment without asking her husband. Her mind will decide apart from her husband’s Word and God’s Word. Having tasted the delicious fruit with no consequence in sight, the woman then passed it to her husband.
We can identify the fatal steps: “she saw” “she took” “she gave”. If you don’t correct attitude, you move to next step of engaging in fantasy, walking a treacherous line. If don’t pull back, you will fall into temptation, outwardly sin, and entice others to, or at least present the temptation for others.
Oswalt says: “The human problem is that we will not accept God’s gifts within the limits imposed by him. We wish to be God dispensing the gifts.” Satan too wants to be a god giving gifts to the woman. The woman then wants to be the one giving the gift to Adam.
Questioning the words of God, seeing his wife did not drop down dead, without hesitation he fell into temptation.
She doesn’t say a word – she does not try to temp the man vocally - she just takes and gives. She offers the man, and he takes no questions asked.
He raises no questions, neither rebukes her. He doesn’t approve; we are simply told, he ate.
She usurps leadership. He passively abdicates.
As Hamilton says, “Hers is the sin of initiative. His is the sin of acquiescence.” He just goes with it, perhaps even reluctantly without question.
“he ate” is the midpoint of the central scene. It is at this very point that everything changes. This is the climax of the climactic scene.
He ate, removing himself from God’s covering and submitting to Satan. This is a pivotal moment that has affected mankind ever since. It is termed by Christian’s as “The Fall of man” or the “The Fall” for short.
This is the first instance when man wanted to be godlike. Being made in the image of his likeness was not enough. They wanted moral autonomy. They wanted to be gods.
Proverbs 1:32 says, “therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way, and have their fill of their own devices.”
Ezekiel 28 & Isaiah 14
When studying Genesis 2, in video number 6 titled the Garden of God, roughly 56 minutes in, I made the case that the classic passages within Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 are not referring to the fall of Satan. In fact, I understand they are referring the fall of man, merging the story with the king of tyre and Babylonian king respectively.
Regarding Isaiah 14, with the target verses being 12-14, the emphasis here is human pride, not angelic pride, and that is how the great expositors of the Reformation understood it as do some highly regarded scholars today.
It’s possible that Adam is the “Day Star [or morning star], son of Dawn!” (Isaiah 14:12) the title we gave to Satan with the Latin translation “Lucifer.” It would make sense if the first Adam, of the newly created Eden, Morning Star son of Dawn, fell from heaven, then the second Adam, would be referred to as the “bright morning star” (Rev 22:16; cf. Rev 2:26-28; 2 Peter 1:17-19; Num 24:17), in the context of the newly restored Eden. Where the first Morning Star failed, the Second Morning star will fulfil.
Let me demonstrate that Jesus is depicted returning to the earth as the morning star and the sun rising upon the earth.
“He said, “The LORD came from Sinai and dawned from Seir upon us; he shone forth from Mount Paran; he came from the ten thousands of holy ones, with flaming fire at his right hand.” (Deuteronomy 33:2)
In the book of numbers the messianic prophecy calls him “a star” (Num 24:17)
Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD rises upon you. For behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and thick darkness the peoples; but the LORD will arise upon you, and his glory will be seen upon you. And nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising. (Isaiah 60:1-3)
“For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the LORD of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall. (Mal 4:1-2)
God came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah His splendor covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise. His brightness was like the light; rays flashed from his hand; and there he veiled his power. (Hab 3:3-4)
Jesus said: “I am the light of the world.” (John 9:5)
Referring to his return he said: “For as the lightning [a beam of light] comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” (matt 24:27)
“until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts” (2 Peter 1:19)
“the morning star” (Rev 2:26-28)
“bright morning star” (Rev 22:16)
For me, in Isaiah 14 Adam was the son of first dawn of creation the day star, and the second Adam (Jesus) is our bright shining hope, the bright morning star who will be the son of the dawn of new creation.
The focus passage of Ezekiel 28 (namely verses 11-19) is essentially a picture of Paradise lost, again because of the human condition of pride. This priest-king mis-represented God and will therefore be removed from his position and land.
Adam, as described in this passage was “the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty” is now a signet of pride, he’s become worldly wise, and smeared the reflective beauty of the LORD.
We read: “Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor” (Eze 28:17)
Pride always goes before a fall. Adam is endowed with status, wisdom, beauty, wealth, every opportunity for greatness. For priestly duties he was adorned with “every precious stone” as a “covering” “crafted in gold… settings and engravings” (Eze 28:13). Yet he wanted something more.
They could have eaten from all but one tree in paradise. They had no financial stress, no hunger, no physical ailments, no groans to be relieved from suffering. But we always want more to satisfy our lust and pride. There is a story about John D. Rockefeller, widely considered the wealthiest American of all time, and the richest person in modern history who when asked by a reporter, “How much money is enough?” He responded, “Just a little bit more.” Mankind has proved to be obsessed with choice and knowledge rather than boundaries and innocence.
The kings that follow Adam, including the king of Tyre of Ezekiel 28, and the king of Babylon of Isaiah 14 would build upon this pride. As John Oswalt beautifully puts: “The frightful nature of this kind of pride is seen in the fact that it would prefer the world to be a desert in its own hands than a garden in the hands of someone else. In fact, the capacity to destroy and oppress becomes a source of pride… This is perversion at its plainest.”
The man described as “blameless” (vv. 15) is now blameworthy. Now “unrighteousness was found” (Eze 28:15) in him.
We can’t expound and apply every word or phrase in these passages to Adam because again the authors are merging the story of the fall of man within with the story of the fall of the kings of their day, but rarely does one come across the connection with these passages when studying the fall of man.
What is interesting, is that there isn’t haranguing prose of the thoughts of the man and woman (or the serpent for that matter), nor does it present them in some sort of crisis and in which they have to make a decision. As if, not only are they individuals but representatives of the story of humanity. Their story is our personal and collective story.
Their rebellion demonstrates they truly have free choice. Free moral agents. It wasn’t a facade. God wasn’t bluffing.
Adams fails to protect his bride
He failed in the roles God bestowed upon him.
Adam failed as the son of God. In the position of Son, he smeared the image of the heavenly Father. Rather than the sons and daughters of Adam as righteous and regal, now they would inherit sin and inherit a very different kingdom.
Adam failed in his priestly-King role.
Adam failed as the garden priest to keep watch, guard the garden sanctuary.
As priest he failed to preserve order and distinctions. Now they would begin to unravel. Chaos and transgression of distinctions now have a foothold.
God gave to Adam and Adam was to deliver the Word of God to his wife precisely and in the correct interpretive manner.
They were declaring independence from the Creator-King-God. Their mistrust of God’s faithfulness seeking out their own desires.
As Adam submitted to Satan, he chose to remove himself from God’s covering and place himself under the rule and covering of Satan. Adam the King of Eden effectively handed his crown to the Serpent. This legal transfer means that Satan now has dominion over the land rather than man.
The Priest-King aspect of the image now distorted.
Adam failed as a prophet of God. He should have stepped in and spoken on behalf of God.
Adam failed as bridegroom. He should have protected his bride.
Adam failed to die to his own desires and sacrifice himself in order to guard the garden from Satan, sin, and the deathly consequences. He failed to protect and save his bride from the serpent and her own sin.
The bride was deceived but the bridegroom wasn’t. Commenting on 1 Timothy Mounce says: “the implication of the Genesis account is that Adam was present, watched his wife being deceived, was not deceived himself (1 Tim 2:14a), and yet said nothing.”
He let her assume the headship and priestly-king role.
He could have stepped in at several opportunities. He could have not taken the fruit from his wife when she offered. He could have rebuked her for eating. He could have grabbed the fruit from her hand to stop her eating and led her away from the tree and the serpent to safety. He could have corrected the serpent’s words. He could have corrected his bride’s words. He could have said, “Step back, I’ll deal with the serpent.” But what he should have done, was capture that serpent and kick it out of the garden, or perhaps he should have put the serpent on a stick! And then investigate how an evil talking serpent slithered into the garden, and report and inquire of the LORD God on the matter.
Interestingly in Numbers 30 we see the introduction of “statutes that the LORD commanded Moses about a man and his wife and about a father and his daughter while she is in her youth within her father's house.” (Numbers 30:16) Throughout these 16 verses we see that the husband is responsible for the vows his wife makes if he stands by and does not say anything that same day. The same goes for a father whose daughter is living at home.
“But if her husband makes them null and void on the day that he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows or concerning her pledge of herself shall not stand. Her husband has made them void, and the LORD will forgive her… But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity.” (Num 30:12,15)
Adam failed to protect his bride and immediately make her comments null and void. Adam failed, but Jesus will step in on that day, and forgive her, having borne her iniquity.
Immediate Result and Cover-Up
Verse 7 tells us of the immediate result and response:
Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. (7)
She listened to the voice of the serpent over her husband, he listened to voice of his wife over God. And there are immediate consequences. Notice the consequences are only described after he ate.
Their eyes were opened. The serpent was correct, but in a very different way than they expected. In light of ravaging “wolves” Jesus told his disciples to “be wise [shrewd NIV] as serpents” (Matthew 10:16) In terms of self-preservation, and not being naïve, to complement dove-like vulnerability and openness in serving others. The serpent is described as shrewd, and they follow his kind of shrewdness, but in doing so immediately realise their nakedness. This was not the blessing they fantasised over. How foolish they must have felt.
They thought their eyes being opened would glean a wisdom and knowledge to be like God, knowing good and evil. Now they stood next to each other aware they were nude. A certain knowledge of good and evil that did not elevate them but separate them from God.
Sailhammer observes that the Hebrew for “naked” in 2.25 is slightly different than “naked” in 3.7. Here in chapter 3 this same word was used by Moses when referring to the exiles of Israel who have come under the judgment of God:
“Because you did not serve the LORD your God with joyfulness and gladness of heart, because of the abundance of all things, 48 therefore you shall serve your enemies whom the LORD will send against you, in hunger and thirst, in nakedness, and lacking everything. And he will put a yoke of iron on your neck until he has destroyed you.” (Deu 28:47-48)
They were naked also in the sense that they have come under the judgment of God, having been given an “abundance of all things” but “did not serve the LORD your God with joyfulness and gladness of heart”.
They have lost a certain innocence and feel a sense of shame of their nakedness. If Satan appeared as a naked man, they would be startled to realise he was naked too. Instead, the serpent’s tongue continues to flick as he hangs among the trees.
They stepped outside the boundaries of man. They transgressed God’s covenant. They discovered mysteries that were forbidden for man to know. They refused to stay within ordained limits and wanted to be limitless like God.
Immediately they became aware of their nakedness, their child-like innocence removed from their senses.
Now sexuality would be erotic. I once heard a preacher say: “If you don’t think there is a difference between sexual intercourse that is divine opposed to profane, trying praying beforehand and asking God to bless the sex.”
They knew about sex for procreation in an innocent sense. Now the “erotic aspects of human sexuality” became apparent.
Fig leaf covering
Rather than calling on God, they tried to save the day themselves.
Having removed themselves from the spiritual covering of God, they attempted to cover themselves with leaves from the trees to hide their shame.
Man was made from the earth. The garment of vegetation was given to the earth for a covering. Now man covers himself with this garment of vegetation. It’s ironic then he will become the earth, returning to it in death. Your covering was God, living upon the vegetation; You chose an alternative covering, of vegetation, and soon you’ll be sent under it. "Oh, you want to go under the covering of vegetation?... I'll help you with that." Choose your coverings wisely.
They don’t seek the Lord. As guilt kicks in, they try to cover over their guilt, their shame, their sin, themselves. They self-cover in an attempt to self-atone.
They would require garments of skin reckoned with blood.
We are told they use fig leaves, perhaps the largest leaves of the garden or the part of the garden they were in. They wouldn’t want a casual jog through this massive garden up the mountain, naked. They accomplish the covering of themselves, but they cannot paper over their sin. They are not acquitted.
Are they covering themselves from each other? Yes. But are they perhaps covering themselves more so knowing they will have to stand before their LORD God creator, naked? They can hide their body, but they cannot hide from God. Covering themselves shows they knew their relationship with their creator had changed forever. Fellowship would now not be naked, but separated by clothes that represent innocence lost.
In Genesis 1 regarding his creation we read that “God saw… that it was good” (Gen 1 see v4,10,12,18,21,25,31). Here in Genesis 3 we read: “the woman saw that the tree was good”. In Genesis 2 God takes the rib of the man. Now the woman takes the fruit of the tree. God made all that man requires, now they make loincloths. As well as directly disobeying God’s Word, this pattern expresses a desire to be like God.
Claiming the fruit to be wise, they became fools (Rom 1:22). The West today, claims to be wise: we see, we take, we make, out and beyond God’s covering. We are the most foolish we’ve ever been.
They heard the Sound of the Lord
And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. (v8)
Reality hits the garden home. He is not ‘God the distant creator,’ impersonal and ambiguous, but ‘YHWH God’ who personally walks the garden.
Adam and his wife recognised his voice or sound – perhaps YHWH is singing or whistling praise; perhaps they hear the sound of his sickle cutting through branches as he walks like the owner of a vineyard coming for his harvest; or perhaps it’s simply the sound of his footsteps through the garden– what is apparent is that they didn’t wonder “who is this?”, they recognised his presence, because of previous encounters. In my home, I can tell who of my family is walking into a room without looking, by the sound of their presence. I know which of my sons is about to appear from the speed and sound of their footsteps, and the muttering of breath. I can distinguish between my wife and daughter by hearing them walking. Adam and his wife knew this was YHWH God.
The verb used as Hamilton explains “suggests iterative and habitual aspects”. Wenham too says the text implies a “daily chat” was the custom. The speed in which the chapters flow indicate it hadn’t been long since creation, therefore it could not have been a weekly walk, but rather a daily one. Yahweh then would be taking his usual daily walk in the garden at a particular time.
“in the cool of the day” – or the or “breeze of the day” means as the sun was going down. This was an early evening walk as the sun begins to set. This was a time of sacrifice and offering in later temple sanctuaries (1 Kings 18:36; Daniel 9:21) which was called being “in the presence of God” (2 Chronicles 20:1). Indeed this term for “walking” is employed when speaking of God’s presence in the sanctuary (Lev 26:12; Deu 23:15; 2 Sam 7:6-7). Did Adam hide after sinning rather than go serve in the sanctuary and make offering to the LORD at the proper time, and when he didn’t show up the LORD wondered where he was? Of course, he knew where they were, but it would give the LORD a secondary reason to ask of his whereabouts.
These are the things I ponder.
Sailhammer suggests a connection with the word “sound” and the LORD’s call to obedience. Throughout Torah we witness the sound of the LORD as his presence comes. At Mt Sinai when the LORD came they heard “the sound of the trumpet” (Ex 20:18) and they said “If we hear the voice of the LORD our God any more, we shall die.” (Deu 5:25) The sound of the LORD is an immediate call for order and accountability.
Others have suggested that rather than the plain reading of the sound of the LORD walking through the garden, the couple heard the sound of mighty winds, like his presence came in a tornado of judgment similar to that of the presence of the LORD coming upon Sinai in smoke and thunder. For example, Jeffrey J. Niehaus translates the verse as “Then the man and his wife heard the thunder of Yahweh God going back and forth in the garden in the wind of the storm…”
I can picture this, however that they recognised the sound of his presence, means they would have been familiar with however he appeared. So if he came in a mighty wind of judgement they wouldn’t have recognised this sound. What’s more, is that there no mention of the couple unable to stand because of the wind or deafening sound like Sinai. Therefore, I favour a more a traditional understanding, not that he is coming with a soft tone and high fives, but approaching in a familiar way, with a firm tone that will demand answers, because he wants them to confess.
The last use of the phrase “the man and his wife” were the last words of the previous chapter: “the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” (Gen 2:25) Now “the man and his wife hid themselves” because they were naked and ashamed (albeit with a makeshift covering).
The trees of the garden were primarily for fruit, to look at in appreciation, and as canopy to serve and guard under. Now they shy from the open dwelling, hide themselves from the sight of God and his expectation to bear fruit.
Even if they hide among fig trees in an attempt to camouflage themselves, it’s ridiculous to think you can hide from the creator of the trees and of the couple. Nothing is concealed from God.
Not that they didn’t believe he knew where they were. They hid in fear “from the presence of the LORD God”. My daughter once put a pillow over her face when she crossed me – she didn’t think I couldn’t see her – I didn’t come to her steaming with rage, I simply walked up to her (trying not to laugh) – she simply didn’t want to face the man to whom she was accountable. It was the Son of God whose presence they feared.
They hid their shame. Now they hide from Yahweh. They were bold in sin, but now the Fear of the LORD returns to the garden of God.
We can see that the three phrases, “good for food” “delight to the eyes” “make one wise” is now balanced out with “eyes… opened” “knew… they were naked” “hid… among the trees”. Sin promises pleasure and but ultimately produces pain.
The inquest
The narrative then moves to the inquest of scene 5.
But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” 11 He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” (9-13)
“LORD God” – This is personal.
“the LORD God called to the man”
Even though the woman had sinned first, Adam had been given the authority, he was the covering for his wife, he had been given the instructions, the commandment, he had been warned of the consequences. He then, is responsible for the sin in the garden, and for this reason the LORD calls for Adam, not the woman, nor both of them together. He is the appointed head, the priest-king of Eden. He will be held accountable for garden activity.
Knowing precisely where they are, he calls to the man, “Where are you?” God is gracious. He does not shout them out their hiding place. He doesn’t blow them out. Again, I don’t think this question fits if he came in a tornado of thunder. He calls to him, like a gentle shepherd to lost sheep. He intends to draw them out willingly than drive them out of hiding. He doesn’t ask, “why are you hiding” – that would draw attention to the folly of their decision to hide from their creator. When God asks a question to elicit information which he of course already knows, he is giving an opportunity to come clean.
The man, and likely the woman with him emerges sheepishly from their hiding place.
The man does not answer the question of where, but why.
To be fair, her doesn’t say “we heard” “we were afraid” “we were naked” “we hid ourselves” implicating his wife, he refers only to himself: “I heard” “I was afraid” “I was naked” “I hid myself”
He doesn’t fully disclose his reason. He explains he hid because of the consequence of eating from the forbidden tree – that he was naked. He skips over the transgression even though the consequence is evident of it.
His reasoning does not even ring true. He had covered himself with an apron of fig leaves and therefore wouldn’t be naked before the LORD. So why did he hide? His fear of the LORD having transgressed his commands, not just fear of being naked before him.
The LORD gives Adam a second chance to admit his failing by asking directly, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” (vv 11)
God asks who told you, you were naked? A serpent? the woman? Did you realise yourself? What is the source of your shame?
Without pausing, to allow Adam to answer his open question, his second closed question brings to the forefront the transgression. He doesn’t immediately charge the man with transgression. He wants him to acknowledge his wrong and confess.
Adam’s response could have been, “Yes.” How many times, when confronted with wrong do we go on rambling about the circumstance and play down our involvement?
Adam blames both his wife and God saying, “The woman whom you gave”. It’s her fault, it’s your fault. “she gave me fruit of the tree”, all I did was eat it.
His defensive manner implies if God had never made the woman he wouldn’t be in this mess. He presents God’s good gift to him as the basis of his trouble.
We blame our parents, our financial circumstances, governments blame their predecessors, companies blame the markets. We rationalise our crime. It all flows back to Eden. Accountability will come and his days of patience asking “where are you” will end. The LORD God will call all of man to stand before him and give an account of himself.
This is the first case of the trespasser convincing themselves they are the victim. He mentions himself last – to play down his part of the matter. Demonstrated in this scene is that the immediate effect of sin means man turns on his closest companion, and drives a wedge between himself and God.
The LORD turns to the woman and again it’s a rhetorical question, just one, in simple form: “What is this that you have done?”
Her answer is significantly shorter in length than her husband. She’d just witnessed her husband dig a hole for himself and could have thought, I won’t do that. But She follows suit with the blame game.
She doesn’t blame God for creating the serpent, and she doesn’t blame her husband for not protecting her, but she does push blame over to the serpent for deceiving her.
She does admit she ate from the fruit and that she was deceived at least. The latter being apparent in the text and confirmed later by Paul who comments on her being deceived and as we’ve seen in the previous two sessions, reasoning for why the principle of male-headship must be preserved. To be saved means to be preserved from the danger of destruction.
In wider application, we can all be deceived, we can be cheated out of blessings when we step out of God’s ordained coverings.
Promise in Judgement
As we transition to the penultimate sixth scene of judgement after inquest, we note that the serpent of old is not given a chance to respond. The LORD does not inquire of the serpent’s sin. Not another word is spoken from the serpent’s mouth. The LORD moves straight to judgement, beginning with the serpent before the woman and finally the man. He spoke to the man first – to hold him accountable as the head of the family and of mankind. But in judgment he now speaks in reverse order.
We therefore recognise the chiastic pattern in whom the LORD addresses.
Man
Woman
Serpent
Woman
Man
As illustrated in this chiastic pattern, when we sin, Satan is at the centre of man’s trouble. Satan’s tactics to get to the man are frequently through the woman. Man should take leadership and protect the woman from the serpent.
Each sinned. The serpent, the devil, Satan sinned against LORD God. The woman sinned against LORD God. The Man sinned against LORD God. And it is against him. It’s personal.
In each judgment, God speaks of both function and relationship:
Serpent is cursed in movement and relationship with the woman.
Woman – pain in childbirth, and relationship to husband.
Man – pain in work, and the relationship to the land.
Judgement on the Serpent
God turns to the Serpent, the culprit of deception, the father of lies. He, who is of a higher order than Adam is dealt with first. I’ll read the full judgement and then we’ll break it down:
“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.”” (Gen. 3:14-15)
The Serpent’s Curse v14
Again, LORD God, personal.
The LORD begins with “Because you have done this,” echoing v 13 “The serpent deceived me”.
It begins with was he has done, underscoring the gravity of his actions before decreeing judgment.
The Serpent was not God, and a curse proves his deified-mask to be false. The serpent or any other combination of polytheistic god’s are false too.
Out of the three, only the serpent is said to be directly cursed.
Again, if this was Satan in some kind of angelic form or the form of a man it makes no sense. The serpent is cursed in a way that is contrasted to “all livestock and… all beasts of the field”.
The curse includes some form of physical change to the serpent that results in its belly descending to the ground causing a new form of locomotion.
For me the serpent will have been some kind of quadruped: A lizard/dinosaur/dragon creature with legs or appendages that elevated the creature off the ground. Which would fit with other images of the Devil throughout the bible such as a dragon.
Scholars and commentators do not come to an agreement whether it had legs or even wings perhaps. Those who lean toward serpents originally having legs include: Mathew Henry, John Gill, Allen Ross, Poole et al. even Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus said the curse, “deprived him of the use of his feet.” Those who lean against the creature previously having legs, include Wenham, Sailhammer, some of my favourite commentators actually. Most commentaries I’m come across do believe there was a physical transformation, as I do. I don’t blindly abide by my favourite commentators or the consensus, I study as best I can, ask the Holy Spirit to teach me in the process, and make my own conclusions, knowing I’ll be held accountable for them.
If the serpent already slithered along its belly, what was the point of the curse – was it purely spiritual – if so, why compare it to creatures which had legs. Pretty much all livestock and beasts of the field – land animals - have legs. What’s more, is that the phrase “cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field”, means a curse will affect all the creatures to some degree but much more so on the serpent. And as we’re about the find out, God’s judgment will include other physical changes in mankind and the earth. If then there are physical changes to many aspects of creation, why not the prime offender. And I’ll return to this point later in the chapter.
Why would God change the nature of serpents above all others when it was Satan using the form of a serpent as a tool to deceive? Is that fair on serpents? Well, animals only exist in the context of man given mission to rule the earth. They do not bear the image of God; they are not sacred. That Adam allowed Satan to use the form of a serpent to deceive means God must make an example of this creature as a living memorial on display to man. Man stands upright and now in stark contrast the serpent is laid out on the ground. Man points to the heavens, the serpent points to the dirt. The state of the serpent kind is a reminder of what took place in Eden, that judgement includes the physical, and that final judgment is to come.
I suspect this serpent form was larger than often depicted. Perhaps more like a komodo dragon. Perhaps he stood on his back legs so that he was upright, and eye to eye with man. Perhaps to gain confidence in his authority – “I’m not a man, I’m not a threat to the sanctuary, but I stand tall like you but having more knowledge”. Possible. God’s judgement would then mean he could no longer stand up.
Also, without legs this beast of the field becomes quite useless for man to put to work. What do you do you with snakes? A snake show?
That the LORD is addressing “the serpent”, means Satan must still be in serpent form. The immediate physical judgment on the creature means God forces the serpent to change its posture. The serpent is prostrated on the ground before the LORD God.
Hamilton makes a reasonable point that if one argues “on your belly you shall go” means a change to the creatures nature, then “dust you shall eat” must also be a literal decree. But, does the second part have to be literal if the first part is? I’m not sure. We all agree the creature will not actually eat dust, but does it have to be entirely symbolic. It’s figurative of his new posture of being on his belly. We say phrases like “drive as quick as you can, and burn some rubber.” The first demand is literal, the second is not, but it’s figurative of the new state of driving fast. The serpent is physically made to lower its body (with the removal of legs) meaning its mouth is so close to the ground, that one could rightly describe it as eating dirt. During a jujitsu contest, it is easy to imagine a commentator describing events saying, “he took the other guy to the ground, got his arm behind his back, pushed he head to floor, and made him eat dirt.” No one listening would blink an eye. They wouldn’t think he means the man made his opponent eat actual dirt, but it’s descriptive hyperbolic language of what literally took place.
It’s not just an expression or just a literal transformation. The physical is an expression of subjugation. The serpent’s new posture makes him eat dust, so to speak. He tempted the woman to eat and now he is forced to eat that which the man was man from. There is a universal warning for us all here: Alter your posture, before God forces you. Either now or then "at the name of Jesus every knee will bow" (Phil 2:10).
The scriptural authors would harken back to this judgment when speaking of future judgement:
“May desert tribes bow down before him, and his enemies lick the dust!” (Psalm 72:9)
“With their faces to the ground they shall bow down to you, and lick the dust of your feet. Then you will know that I am the LORD; those who wait for me shall not be put to shame.” (Isaiah 49:23)
Future messianic elements to both. But again, here we have the literal bowing down, with the figurative “licking the dust” to drive the posture change home.
This is a permanent alteration of nature – “all the days of your life” – the curse applies to the serpent and all his descendants.
Hamilton translates cursed as banned. Though Wenham does not agree. We could say he is banned from the cattle and beasts of the field. He becomes this weird creature set apart from the rest. Made to be lowly and lonely. As we referenced, Moses would label him detestable: “Whatever goes on its belly, and whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet, any swarming thing that swarms on the ground, you shall not eat, for they are detestable.” (Leviticus 11:42) The serpent deceived to eat, he was made to eat, and later he is not to be eaten.
The serpent once “more crafty than any other beast of the field”, is now more cursed than them all, eating dust in humiliation. Curse is the opposite of bless. Close relationship or banned. Blessed in activity and nature or cursed. Curse is judgement for transgression. God uses Government to punish evil with evidence of wrong in court, but secret and hidden transgressions can be dealt with by God through curse. That God announced this judgement means the effect is guaranteed.
Isaiah indicates that even in the future Kingdom, the curse will be removed from all animals, but not so for the serpent: “The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food.” (Isaiah 65:25) The serpent remains a living prostrated symbol of God’s judgement at least in the millennial reign.
Promise & Plot v15
Verse 15 is referred to as the proto-evangelium, meaning “the first good news.”
Let me read this again:
“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.””
This is the germination of messianic prophecy.
Firstly, “I will” – God will! God will, put enmity or hostility between the serpent and the woman and their offspring.
This is not a prophecy about man killing snakes and snakes plaguing man. Although their weirdness and creepiness is a reminder. I recall the night I slept on the sofa in my friends living room. It was the worse night sleep of my life, because in this same room was a glass box that contained his pet python. And what’s more, it repeatedly got out of its glass box, like daily. As you can imagine I kept waking to check if it was still in its box. So, creepy they are because of the curse, but the meaning is far greater.
Both serpent and man acted together against God, so now God will turn them against each other.
Not just the couple and the serpent, their offspring.
This word “offspring” as it’s translated in the ESV or “seed” as it’s also commonly translated, is understood in two senses. The word is frequently used in the OT for the immediate offspring. The grammar indicates an individual is involved. The singular pronoun construct of both the woman’s seed and the serpent’s seed imply individuals are the target. In several passages the word is “a collective referring to distant offspring or a large group of descendants” which is why it is translated as offspring in many translations.
Therefore, this seed or offspring can refer to immediate or distant offspring, singular or collective (one or many). Like the English for seed or offspring, the Hebrew singular can mean both one and/or many.
So, we understand this as both individual and representative of a group of descendants.
This is the beginning of two people groups represented by two individuals. Those who trust in and abide by God’s Word, and those who trust in and abide by the words of the Serpent. Satan thought he could persuade all mankind to follow him, but a division means only some will follow him.
When it comes to the seed of the woman, the Septuagint translates as “her seed” and the Latin Vulgate as “her sperm” and so many have picked up on the oxymoron and applied it to virgin birth. Others see this as a bit of stretch, as though we are expounding not the original language but translations with interpretive spin. But it is the seed of the woman (even it’s metaphorical), which is curious because the seed is always traced through the male line. Genealogies follow the male line throughout Genesis. So, there is an implication that this seed is special – as if without a biological father. From the canon of scripture, Isaiah would later confirm that a “virgin shall conceive and bear a son” (Isaiah 7:14) and we recognise Jesus, born of a virgin is the promise seed.
And it’s incredibly interesting the way the Septuagint translates this verse, indicates a messianic interpretation – long before Christ. These translators, and no doubt the biblical authors understood more than we tend to give them credit for.
Is Moses aware of what he is writing? For our hermeneutic to be solid, and ensure we are not reading into the text that which is not there, did Moses really intend both the corporate (collective) and messianic (individual) meaning?
Well, Moses will have recognised he was part of the promised corporate offspring – the people of Israel. He would go on to develop the significance of the seed.
His description of the heel coming down on the serpent means he also understood that an individual would be eventually crushed by an individual.
Moses was fully aware of the concept of the one-and-many. He understands Adam, the same word for man, was both an individual and representative of mankind. Moses goes on to emphasise the seed of Abraham (Gen 22:18), a seed that will reverse the curse of the fall. Paul would later confirm that Moses’ use of seed was not plural but collective singular, pointing to one who represents many (Gal 3:16). He was aware of the idea of a messianic individual who is the leader of a people, who will eventually defeat the serpent, the wicked leader of a people, after generational struggle.
That Moses pays great attention to the genealogies in Genesis shows he is documenting the lines from this first couple in anticipation of the promised seed.
What’s more, is that Moses characterises individuals as new Adamic figureheads: Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah… could it be this one, or that one, foreshadows, but not yet… he’s building up to the climactic entrance of messiah.
We can trace the seed in scripture throughout the first 2500 years of history because Moses develops the motif throughout Genesis, and indeed the rest of the Torah.
Moses, the one who “the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (Ex. 33:11), far from ignorant, was theologically aware. And therefore, our hermeneutic (which attempts to follow the biblical authors hermeneutic) stands.
The verb translated in the ESV as bruise is used twice in verse 15, because it is essentially the same Hebrew word. Some translations such as the NIV use crush for the first instance and strike for the second.
To be consistent Hamilton says whichever word we choose it should be translated the same.
On occasion, as others do, I may refer to Jesus as “the serpent crusher” – and crush fits well with a leg stamping on the head of a serpent, but a serpent does not crush the heel of a leg. It may strike or bruise the heel, but it doesn’t crush the heel. Also, the translation crush would imply the serpent’s injuries are fatal, but the strike on the heel is not. Which is sort of true of the final outcome, but not true to the individual words employed here, if that make sense?
The ESV, NASB, King James etc use bruise twice. Bruise, although a verb can be an adjective describing the outcome of the strike. Whereas strike is a verb that speaks of intention and leaves open the outcome.
Hamilton concludes with strike as the most appropriate term for both. The NLT uses a pair of “strikes”.
Wenham translates both as ‘batter’ arguing that the “the imperfect verb is iterative” implying “repeated attacks by both sides to injure the other.” Which is an interesting insight.
We recognise a pair of “bruises” or “strikes”, and we have contrasts of head and heel, and he and you.
The phrase ends with the serpent striking the heel. Does this mean the serpent wins? They both strike at each other, so is it a draw? We must look at the picture as a whole. The serpent is being cursed, not the man who represents the seed of the woman. His curse means he is now flat on the ground while the man stands tall. The serpent can only bite the man’s heel, whereas the man can crush the serpents head with his foot. His humiliation to eat dust points to the future total defeat of the serpent. So it’s good to zoom in on each word, but also to stand back and look at the picture as a whole.
Who is the seed of the woman?
We have identified the seed of the woman as Jesus, the Son of God, who’s Father is heavenly and not biological. The bruise of the heel was the crucifixion. It seems like the end, but the empty tomb demands it is not.
The fact we are driven to dig into the text to answer who the seed is, is really the point. To raise the question in all our minds: who is the promised seed?
Who is the woman?
Though the seed with come through the line of Adam’s wife, and sometimes we can jump to Mary as the woman, the OT frequently pictures Israel as a woman, and as we’ll read in a moment, Revelation 12 pictures the people of Israel as a woman, who gave birth to and are represented by the promised seed, Christ Jesus.
The letter to the Galatians highlights the meaning of the word offspring with regards the covenant with Abraham: “Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.” (Gal 3:16)
God made the promise to Abraham and his offspring, his family. There is only one family of God who will receive the promises. “Abraham’s seed (singular) is Christ (v. 16), and all those “in Him” are part of Abraham’s seed (v. 29).”
So, technically, the woman throughout scripture is symbolic of the people of Israel; Jesus is the seed singular; and the collective seed is faithful Israel with faithful gentiles grafted in, who are the family of God. Because as Paul goes on to say, “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29)
The serpent, in the form of, or possessed by Satan represents sin and the power of death and evil. But there’s more than that.
Who is the seed of the serpent?
It is none other than the antichrist, the in-place-of-Christ, the in-place-of-messiah. The one who will present himself as saviour to the world but is the seed of the ancient serpent.
The antichrist could be a man who is possessed by Satan, in the same way he may have possessed a serpent in the garden, and his possession of Judas Iscariot, who was called the son of perdition, as a foreshadow of the antichrist (John 17:12; 2 Thess 2:3).
Yet there is another possibility alluded to here in Genesis 3:15. Arnold Fruchtenbaum comments that: “This contains an implication of a supernatural conception on the part of Satan that will produce the Antichrist. Like the Messiah, the Antichrist will not have a natural human father. He will be generated by Satan.”
In the days of Noah, fallen angels, “the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them” (Gen 6:4) called “the Nephilim” (Gen 6:4). In a similar fashion, Satan himself could lay with a woman and produce a half-human half-angel being. The seed of Satan, born of a woman. If Jesus returns in our lifetimes, then this half-human half-angel being, the son of Satan, may be alive today, hidden until the proper time.
God comes in the person of his son Jesus Christ, born a man who is representative of the corporate offspring of Israel and those who follow him, and Satan comes in the person of his son Antichrist, born a man, representative of his corporate offspring, his followers.
In the years to come, choose your saviour wisely. There will be a choice of God’s seed or the serpent’s seed. A choice of saviours in a seed, born of women, with very different fruit, and very different destinies.
Adam was supposed to subdue the beast, but he himself was subdued by the beast, the serpent. The promise is that the seed would one day subdue the beast.
When you consider this judgement on the serpent in the garden… This is the Son of God speaking to Satan, telling him, one day, I will crush you. If he returns in our lifetime, he is effectively saying: I will judge your seed in 6000 years, throw you into the pit for the millennium, and 7000 years from now I will throw you in the lake of fire where I threw your son.
Think about that.
The fallen world is bookended by humble posture toward the Son of God. The serpentine creature of the garden and the dragon of Revelation. The posture change and the final crushing of his head.
Redemptive history between these bookends sees a battle that rages between offspring who follow Satan’s ways and offspring who follow God’s ways. A battle of Kingdoms. The climactic events of the battle being the striking or bruising of both.
From this moment Satan began to wait for the anointed seed. From this point on he would look to extinguish the seed before it had chance to grow: – the patriarchs, Israel, the Jewish Jesus. This was the beginning of Antisemitism.
In the UK there is confused theology surrounding Israel’s place within God’s plans of redemption. It may be in germ form, but here is God “declaring the end from the beginning” (Isaiah 46:10).
To follow the plot, we must follow the seed, the offspring. We will follow the seed through the Torah and beyond, and here are some highlights:
The offspring (both plural and singular) of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: “And behold, the LORD stood above it and said, “I am the LORD, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring. 14 Your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south, and in you and your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” (Gen 28:13-14)
The individual who will “crush the forehead of Moab” (Num 24:17).
David was promised: “When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.” (1 Sam 7:12)
The psalmists:
“‘I will establish your offspring forever, and build your throne for all generations.’”” (Ps. 89:4)
“You crushed Rahab like a carcass; you scattered your enemies with your mighty arm.” (10)
“I will crush his foes before him and strike down those who hate him.” (23)
“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive… after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet… all things are put in subjection” (1 Cor 15:22-27)
“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.” (Rom 16:20)
“14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death [bruise] he might destroy [bruise] the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.” (Heb 2:14)
Revelation 12 depicts the battle between the dragon or serpent and the woman’s offspring:
“And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. 5 She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.” (4b-6)
“Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, 8 but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world” (7-8)
“Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” (v17)
Satan the beast, his seed the antichrist is a beast, and his empires are symbolised as a beast. Satan has gone from serpent to enraged dragon. From beast of the field to beast of the whole earth.
We are reminded:
“Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” (Rev 20:4b)
Ultimately: “the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” (Rev 20:10)
It’s a fatal blow.
The picture Moses paints in one verse is of a man who’s leg comes down to stamp on the serpents head, the serpent strikes the heel causing a temporary bruise, the man pulls up the heel momentarily, but then comes down a second time, crushing the serpents head. This moving picture tells the story of the gospel from beginning to end, including the two comings of Messiah.
From the beginning God is committed to redeem his creation. A plan to save and redeem God’s image-bearers and “reconcile to himself all things” (Col. 1:20) reversing the curse on creation – the details of which Adam and his wife can only imagine. A promise of reversal before judgement.
Satan takes the land, goes after the people, then stops them becoming a blessing. Sound familiar? The Abrahamic covenant is a promised reversal of this. Each covenant throughout the story of the bible gives more insight as to how God will go about restoring the earth unto the Kingdom of God.
We can note from the start, if a man was established as head of family, priest-king of Eden, head of humanity, then the promised seed must be a man, and a man who will restore the image of God distorted by man, defeating Satan’s rule and grip on the earth. One man must win the battle and subdue the earth and all that dwells upon it.
It reveals he is a God who is both wrathful and merciful, of kindness and severity, gracious and truthful. A God of justice. Adam and his wife were gifted everything – perfect home, perfect father, great prestige, overflowing produce, harmonious vocation and relationships. Yet they sinned against the gift giver. And yet God offered them a path for salvation. Those who repent are given hope, those who persist in rebellion will meet the fate of their father, the serpent.
Of interest, in the millennial Kingdom, the serpent will remain cursed in locomotion, but the serpent will no longer be a threat: “The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den.” (Isa 11:8) They will symbolise Satan’s humiliation of been thrown down to the pit, unable to cause hurt.
Some see this as an unconditional covenant of grace with those represented by the promised seed. If so, it’s unusual that he would speaking to the enemy rather than a man whom he calls to walk blameless with him. Having said that, there is reason to believe the man and his wife were stood by witnessing this judgement and receiving the promise embedded in judgment. And we’ll come back this covenant in the next session.
However we categorise it, promises have been made and a program has been initiated in Genesis 3. A program for mankind to salvage the mediatorial Kingdom of God that is characterized by war, rebellion, and salvation through violent means. The key is the seed, the Messiah who will eventually win the battle of the seeds, dealing with man’s problem of sin.
From Genesis 3 to Revelation 20, the serpent, the devil, wages war against God. We have just two chapters either side acting as the redemptive programmatic bookends. The creation of the heavens and the earth, including the garden of Eden (Genesis 1 and 2), and the creation the new heavens and the earth with its new Eden (Revelation 21 and 22).
Judgement on the woman
The LORD then turns to the woman.
The woman was not said to be cursed like the serpent, nonetheless her personal punishment was twofold:
“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.”” (Gen. 3:16)
Without sin, birth would have been a straightforward, painless experience.
The first part of this verdict on her sin means a physical change in the woman’s anatomy. She would now feel the full pain of childbirth. I sat through the birth of my children – It’s not fun for anyone - It feels like a punishment on the husband too.
The woman chose to independently, step out and open herself up to the world, therefore she will now feel nature without the protective covering of the LORD.
She was commanded to multiply and now her pain will multiply in the process of multiplication.
Hamilton says, “At the point in her life when a woman experiences her highest sense of self-fulfilment (according to OT emphases), she will have some physical anguish.”
Fruchtenbaum translates it as: “I will greatly multiply your pain and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children”. He comments that it is not just birth pains but monthly menstrual pain woman would now suffer. He argues women would now menstruate every month as opposed to originally less frequently, reasoning the increase in potential conception “is necessary to populate the earth in the face of physical death that will limit human populate.” I see his point, but I’m not so sure.
She will feel pain but is promised she will carry a child and give birth. Promise through pain.
God could have cursed her such that her womb was permanently closed. But the promise of the seed of the woman remains.
The pain is both a reminder of the fall, and of grace in the promised seed.
Jesus would point to the pain of childbirth to teach about suffering in this age before the joy to come: “When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world. So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you.” (John 16:21)
With the symbolic imagery of a woman as Israel, Jesus would teach of the birth pains at the end of the age. The birth pains of a woman are symbolic of the climax of this age.
Suffering before glory. This new physical state will teach us about times of pain before birth of a new heavens and new earth, and for Israel, national re-birth.
The second part of the sentence on the woman regards her relationships.
From now on, the woman shall desire the authority of her husband. She will fight from his covering and continue to not be in submission.
The meaning of this phrase pivots on the word “desire”. The Hebrew word is only used on two other occasions throughout the OT. In Song of Solomon (7:10) it refers to sexual desire but that wouldn’t make sense here. She already desired her husband because he is attractive – they already desired each other. What’s more is that this is a different author writing centuries later. It’s more than that.
The other use of the Hebrew for desire is in the following chapter, Genesis 4:7. “sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.” (Gen 4:7) Without straying into our Genesis 4 teaching, here we see sin’s desire for man, but the need to resist those urges. Cain’s emotional state meant he is an easy target for the crouching sin – like a lion ready to pounce. Cain should fight the desire to sin. Sin is not to rule over you, but you must rule over it.
The desire of the woman is a sinful desire like that of the desire of sin crouching at Cain’s door. She will desire the authority of her husband and seek to rule him. A desire to tamper with the God ordained design and roles within the relationship.
Harmony with crouching sin can become severe discordance. As a team they were called to rule the world, but now they would try to rule each other.
In dialogue with the serpent, she assumed the authority of her husband, and now her sentence means she will continually desire her husband’s authority and want to rule over him. She will have a tendency to refuse to be under the mission of her husband, jockeying for position and authority. But she must rule over these urges.
Wenham notes: “Evidently he [Moses] does not regard female subordination to be a judgement on her sin.” On the contrary, she must rule over her sin that sees her remove herself from such subornation. He role in marriage remains the same.
A desire for independence, apart from her husband, and apart from God. This the beginning of feminism. Feminism today is symptomatic of the fall. It is one thing to desire equality of value in society, it is another to rage against male authority, in a man-hating fashion. Sadly, feminism, dressed in egalitarian clothing is now deeply embedded within the western church, rehearsing the prophecies of the garden, rather than seeking God’s divine creation order.
“but he shall rule over you”
The man will continue to be your covering. Nothing changes regarding God’s order. The curse brought distortion of original roles, not new ones. The curse did not change ordained roles between the sexes.
The man’s authority remains, but there is hint that now he will lord it over her in an overly dominant way. There is with this statement a certain force in its understanding. Implying almost as if he will abuse his position.
Here begins the battle between the sexes.
They became one flesh and now in judgment they will tear each other apart.
The woman was originally naturally more sensitive than Adam, but as a result of the fall men suffer from insensitivity, and women hypersensitivity.
Men can swing from extremes of leadership from aggression to passivity. Women will swing from being a pushover to, and more likely, have the tendency to usurp his authority.
Today common phrases such as “she wears the trousers”, “he’s under the thumb”, attest to this truth. We don’t have to look far to see the sexual, physical, emotional, psychological abuse from both sexes – which is to act out on and develop upon these tendencies.
Adam and his wife would have to work at their marriage. A relationship of service, helper, and sacrifice, would be turned into fighting for authority, domination, and the rest of it.
Feminism is an outworking of six thousand years of this struggle. Chauvinism is an outworking of six thousand years of this struggle.
Understand the original design; understand what went wrong; diagnose the issues in your relationship; rule over your sin; live by the original ordained order.
Considering the primary fall tendencies to desire and lord-over, Paul would go on to explicitly teach the original order for wives to submit to husbands and husbands to love their wives. The answer is never to forge our own order. But to return to God’s original order and economy of man.
God spoke to the woman as woman. Her judgment is personal – The woman was blessed in marriage and blessed to multiply and now she will receive pain in both areas. The blessings of life will be seen through pain.
What is clear is that sin has consequences. Adam was warned, and it is true.
This is as Hamilton states, a “classical outline of salvation history… God acts and speaks; man rebels; God punishes; God protects and reconciles.”
The woman represents the bride of Christ, who will be saved.
* * *
For a specific reference please contact us here.