Man's Fall Into Sin

MAN'S FALL INTO SIN
When you look at man today, he is abnormal. He is abnormal because he is not the way he was created to be. On the one hand, there is a nobility about him. He sometimes reflects the greatness of the image and likeness of God. On the other hand, there is a cruel part of man. This part of man did not belong to man from the beginning. There is a part of man that is evil and which fills him with guilt and shame. The Biblical account of man's transition from righteousness to sin is found in Genesis 3:1-24. Genesis 2:1-25 closes with the man and the woman in the garden. At the beginning of chapter 3, we are introduced to a new character. It is the serpent. The Temptation.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any east 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'?” 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 midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.'” 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.” (Genesis 3:1-5).

Rabbinic legend has it that the serpent originally walked erect and that it was not until God's curse on this animal in Genesis 3:14 that it was reduced to moving upon its belly. There is nothing in the Bible to specifically state such a position and therefore such an interpretation is reduced to mere speculation. The significant actor here is not the snake, but the true power behind the snake—that old serpent, the devil.

Satan often works through intermediate agencies. He uses fallen angels. We refer to them as demons. He also uses human agents, either through possession or merely through indirect manipulation. In this case, it seems logical to assume that he utilized an animal. Such an example of the manipulation of animals was seen in Matthew 8:28-32 when Jesus can demons out of two men and permitted them to enter into a herd of pigs. In this case, Satan was careful to appear in a form that would not arouse terror or revulsion in the woman. He came in the guise of a beast of the field. There is a lesson here. It is that Satan does not go around with a red suit and a pitchfork. He is a counterfeiter and a deceiver. He dresses in the clothes of the clergy and he speaks religious words, making his lies attractive. His tactics, as demonstrated in this passage, involved suggesting was seemed to be a harmless gratification of a natural desire. He does not present himself as an enemy of God, but only as a neutral bystander who is somehow surprised by what he presents as God's unreasonable demand. He works to place God on trial in the mind of the woman. She will be asked to pass judgment upon the actions of God.

People do the same thing today when they ask, “How could a loving God pass judgment upon people?” When they ask such a question, they are following in the footsteps of Satan as he denies God's promise of judgment. The idea that there is no future judgment comes from Satan himself. The Sin. 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. (Genesis 3:6). The Lord had given some very specific instructions regarding their behavior in the Garden. There was a great deal of liberty regarding their actions with only a single prohibition given. 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.” (Genesis 2:16-17). This condition gave man the freedom to choose for God or against God. He could obey and live or he could disobey and die. There are several things which we ought to note from this temptation.

First of all, notice that the temptation came from an outside source. There was nothing within them to tempt themselves. Allow me to let you in on a secret. I don't need an outside source to tempt me to sin. And neither do you. I have something within me that like sin - that finds sin fun. It isn't that the “devil made me do it.” It is that I wanted to do it.

We call this a sin nature. It is an orientation to sin. But Adam and Eve were not created in this way. They had no orientation to sin. They had the ability to choose not to sin. And so, their choice to sin was all the more despicable. The temptation began by questioning and misdirection: And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?” The serpent did not begin the conversation with an immediate denial of what God had said. Instead, he merely posed the question of what God had said. He did this by means of a deliberate misquote of the words of God. He asked, “Is it true that God will not let you eat from any of the trees of the garden?” The question is designed to make the woman focus upon that particular tree that was forbidden.

(The serpent plays the role of a neutral bystander who is shocked by the limitation God has placed upon His creatures. He is placing God on trial. The same argument is used when the unbeliever asks, “How could a loving God pass judgment upon His people?”)

Satan's tactics have not changed. He continues to draw your attention to that which is forbidden. In so doing, he draws your attention away from that which God has given you. The temptation proceeded with a misunderstanding of the danger: 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 midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.'” (Genesis 3:3-4). In repeating the prohibition, the woman says that they are not permitted either to eat or even to touch the forbidden fruit. Yet when the prohibition is initially given in Genesis 2:16-17, there is no mention of a prohibition against touching the fruit. It is only eating the fruit that is forbidden. This may reflect a misunderstanding on the part of the woman. She may have thought there was something physically poisonous about the fruit. This created a conflict in her mind when she looked at the tree and it looked good. The woman looked at the tree and it looked good -- she 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 (Genesis 3:6).

If you let your life be driven by what looks good, you will doom your life to an existence of sin and misery. We are never called to follow that which looks good. We are called to follow that which is good.

There are three areas of impact that are mentioned in light of this temptation. These three areas correspond to three types of temptation outline in 1 John 2:16. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. (1 John 2:16). The tree was...|Good...|Delight...|Desirable...|
|for food|to the eyes|to make one wise|
|The lust of the flesh|The lust of the eyes|The boastful pride of life| Temptation is like that. It does not just manifest itself in one form. Its attractions are often multifaceted.

It is almost as though it were an afterthought that the text adds that she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. We are not given any further details as to his involvement in the temptation, though it is striking that her husband was with her and that this may have also been true throughout the temptations. Some have speculated that Adam's sin was deliberate while Eve's was the result of her temptation. The words of Paul are used to give evidence to such an idea. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression. (1 Timothy 2:14).

Paul's words are evidently citing the temptation and fall. When he points out that it was not Adam who was deceived, he is citing the woman as the object of the original temptation. It is an unwarranted assumption to conclude that Adam's involvement in the transgression was beyond that of a passive participant in following the example of his wife.