Genesis 3:1-13.
 The Ultimate Temptation

Copyright © 2007, American Journal of Biblical Theology
 www.biblicaltheology.com    Scripture quotes from KJV

One common temptation that all people face is to doubt God and His Word. Disobedience ultimately results in eternal separation from God, described quite graphically in scripture as the many agonies of hell. As human beings we tend to resist any kind of rules or regulations, and this author is no exception, never quite losing that rebel edge. God's prohibitions, specifically those which prohibit sin, are designed to be a blessing to us, for we are given an opportunity to express our faith in God through obedience with established godly boundaries. However, many people take those boundaries, those rules and regulations to be oppressive, and in rejecting them they are rejecting the God which defined them, and as a result they rebel against God and face an eternity separated from Him.

Deut. 30:20. That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

John 14:15.  If ye love me, keep my commandments.

How can we show that we honor and love God? The primary way we do so is through obedience to Him. This lesson will reveal the results of disobedience of God's commands.

Gen 3:1.

Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

"Now..." links the fall of mankind from innocence (Gen. 3:1-24) with the creation story (Gen. 1:1-2:4) and with the establishment of right relationships on earth (Gen. 2:4-25). God provided that the man and the woman could express their trust in Him through their obedience. The verse continues with "the serpent...". What or who is the serpent? Check out Rev. 20:2

Rev 20:2. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 

Of course, the identification of Satan as a serpent is a metaphor.  Satan is not a literal, physical, snake.  However, the metaphor serves a great purpose as it helps us understand the characteristics of Satan who we can metaphorically refer to as "a snake", and both the characteristics of the snake and the snake-like characteristics of God's judgment upon Satan form a vivid picture that is easily understood.  If, indeed the serpent is a metaphor for Satan, who is Satan, and how are the snakes or serpents of today related?  (By the way, in this study, I have capitalized the name "Satan," as that is literally proper, but in most of my writings I prefer to render the name as "satan" as a subtle method of reducing his authority.  Using the name of serpent also reduces his name from a personal name to a simple noun.) 

Isa 27:1. In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea. 

Gen 3:14-15. And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: ¹⁵And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

We may be able to note that the literal, physical serpent is to us a vivid reminder of the fall of man. What do you think of when you consider a snake?  Most people shudder in fear when surprised by a snake.  As a bit of a reptophile, even I tend to keep most snakes at a distance.  God's prophesy has indeed come true. When did the serpent strike the heel of man?  One could argue that Satan has continually nibbled at the heel of man as he continues to tempt man to turn from God.  The ultimate snake bite is often considered Christ's death on the cross.  Personally, I tend to lean towards the former argument since I see Christ's death on the cross a failure for Satan, not an attack.  When will the serpent's head be crushed? The crushing of the head is a death-blow, and we see Jesus' final judgment on him as he is cast into the "lake of fire" of the Revelation, the eternal abyss that is separated from the love of God forever.   We get the impression that the serpent in the garden was attractive. He is described as subtle, or cunning. Note that there is a play on Hebrew words here, for the word selected for subtle, ('arum) is very similar to the Hebrew word for naked ('arom).

Does it seem strange to you that a serpent, or snake, spoke to Eve? Remembering that the serpent motif here is a metaphor, are there any other references in scripture of animals speaking? Num 22:28. Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?" In any event, the serpent directed his comments to the woman, and in the form of what may appear as an innocent question. 

Note the subtleties: 

1. The serpent seemed to be aware of God's command.
2. He did not mention that they could eat from all of the other trees. 
3. He did not identify the Tree of Knowledge specifically

Through this strategy Satan left the idea that God was being unfair and did not have her and the man's best interests at heart.

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

The woman quickly tried to correct the serpent and paraphrased the prohibition. What is the difference between her paraphrase and God's actual command? Her description lacked the word, "all".  She may have already had thoughts about that tree. What are some prohibitions we live with? Do we resent them? What generally happens when people are presented with a set of rules? I am reminded of a Burger King slogan: "Some times ya gotta break the rules."

What protection was provided to Adam and Eve by their obedience concerning the prohibition of eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge? If they eat of that tree, that is, gain an understanding of right and wrong, they will forever be responsible, and no longer innocent. This is very similar to the growth of a child. When first born, the child is innocent. However, the child soon starts to learn the difference between things that are right and things that are wrong. Which side of that line does the child always choose? At some point the child always decides to select things that are wrong, and that spirit of rebellion forms the very basis of who we are.

So, are we to place the blame on our bent for rebellious, self-centered indulgence and greed on Adam and Eve because they demonstrated the same? Of course not... we not only exhibit the same trait, Adam and Eve are simply illustrations of our own wickedness.  There is no person who would not have fallen in the garden, because God gave us a choice to choose him or rebel, and all people initially choose to rebel.  (Rom. 3:23).  To place blame on Adam and Eve would be the height of hypocrisy.

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 

Again, Eve misquoted the command of God. What is different here? She noted that the tree is in the midst of the garden. Though this is an accurate assessment of its location, her reference to it may imply that she was already focused upon it, to the point that the tree of life was secondary in position. Perhaps this is why the serpent focused his attack on Eve. She may have been more susceptible to the temptation because she had already questioned God in her heart, and desired that which she was commanded to reject.  Over the years many have tried to use this example to reduce the value of women in gender studies and gender comparisons, but to do so is inappropriate and unfair.  One should remember that Adam was a witness to this entire event.

At this point, Eve had exposed her true colors, opening the door for Satan to attack with full force. What happens when we allow temptation to get our attention?

James 1:14-16.  But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. ¹⁵Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. ¹⁶Do not err, my beloved brethren.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Usually temptation begins with twisted truth. Now that the serpent had Eve's attention and desire where he wanted it he felt free to directly contradict God's word. He now goes into the attack mode. What is the first contradiction Satan stated? He used the words, "You shall not die."  This is a word that carries a double meaning in Hebrew just as it does in English.  The word refers not so much to the end of life, as it does to the separation from life.  In what way was Satan correct in his lie? Eve would not die physically.  Eating of the fruit would not cause her to drop to the ground dead.  However, the truth is that eating of the fruit would cause her to separate herself from God, experiencing the consequences of that separation.   Never forget the definition of death is: separation.

God created man as male and female as he had done with the plants and animals, necessitating reproduction for the continuation of the species. In this manner they were "immortal" anyway. However, unlike the animals, God also created man in His own image. He breathed into them the breath of life, a spirit which is individually immortal, and has an eternal nature which is the same as God's. 

When God said that their disobedience would cause them to die, he was stating that they would be separated from Him. From what would they be separated, mortal relationship with creation, or spiritual relationship with the creator? It is an eternal separation, therefore it is spiritual. Satan was directly contradicting God in principle, but telling a half-truth in word. How many times do we become tempted by half-truths?

We will later see the consequences of this decision both on Satan, and on the couple, Adam and Eve.  In every instance, the judgment is one of separation of relationships.  Where, prior to the fall, the relationships among all of the parties of this event could have been fully loving and fruitful, they would all be broken.

Gen 3:5. 

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Now Satan had Eve questioning the validity of God's word. He now takes the half-truth one step further. What does he do? He describes a deceitful God who is not acting in her best interest. He is using cunning logic to usurp the authority of God and presents a false gospel. What reward is Satan implying Eve will get by stepping out on her own and disobeying God? To be like a God, knowing good from evil.  This, again is a half-truth.  Certainly, God knows the difference between good and evil.  However, so does the innocent.  Adam and Eve knew that it was wrong to disobey God's command to eat from the tree.  Even a domesticated dog knows the difference between what is right and what is wrong.  

What is the advantage Eve experienced when she did not have this knowledge that the tree offers? She would remain innocent, having chosen to obey God.

What is the result we experience of obtaining this knowledge? To eat from the tree is to act on our rebellion against God by committing sin.  The consequences of this knowledge is more than we can bear. We are crushed under it, not being able to remain innocent, but rather, we yield to it and exchange our innocence for guilt.  Again, what Satan said was true. Eating of the tree would open her eyes, and she would have the knowledge of good and evil that God has.  She would also then find that she had rebelled against God and would suffer the consequences of that rebellion.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 

So, the stage has been set. Eve has lost focus on the command of God, lost interest in being obedient to Him, and her focus is firmly on the temptation. In what way can we generate a response to temptation which will avoid taking this last step experience by Eve? When tempted we can:

• Recognize our true relationship to God
• Determine what the true Godly response would be
• Pray and seek God's wisdom.

How did Eve respond?

• She saw it was good for food. The temptation addressed her basic need for hunger. Were there any other sources of food which would properly meet this need? Of course, the fruit of all of the other trees was theirs for the taking.
• It was pleasing to the eye. The temptation addressed the lust within her. Were there any other scenes in the garden which were pleasing to the eye? Probably all of them!
• She saw it as desirable for gaining wisdom. How did she know she would gain wisdom from it? She listened to the false teaching of the serpent instead of the true teaching of God.  Disobeying God does not bring wisdom.  Wisdom comes from obedience to God.

We, consequently, see here a complete example of the progression of activity which leads to sin. An idea is developed drawing focus to itself. The person responds by focusing on it, desiring it, and then rationalizing away its danger or impact. Finally, what did Eve do? She took of the fruit and ate it.

Where was Adam all this time? HE WAS RIGHT THERE. How many times have you heard that Eve was to blame and Adam was tempted by Eve? The only difference was that Eve first touched the tree, as it was Eve that was attacked directly by Satan. They both experienced the conversation with Satan and they both ate of the fruit.  Sorry, Adam, you are just as much to blame here.

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. 

What the serpent said was true. They were no longer innocent, and were given the full knowledge of good and evil and the consequences of the latter. Again we see the play on words with the word naked. They saw their nakedness. They saw their own craftiness and cunning and the unholy, guilty feelings within them. They felt dirty, and felt the need to be covered.  In an innocent relationship there is no need for cover. 

As a result, they manufactured clothing from the plants. Were they physically naked any more? No.  However, their spiritual nakedness could not yet be covered until God's promise for salvation would be fulfilled.