The Fall of Man
Those of you who are dispensationalists view the 3rd chapter of Genesis time frame in the dispensation of innocence. God tested man during this time by commanding Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
His purpose in this test was to determine whether or not he would be obedient before God and could be trusted to carry out the responsibilities of rulership. Lucifer was anxious to see that man would fail this test, so that once again he could gain dominion over the Earth he once enjoyed.
The Serpent
The instrument Satan used as his mouthpiece to bring temptation before Eve was the serpent. The animal, in this case, should not be confused with a common snake, for this serpent did not become such until after the Fall. We are given several statements that describe him as probably a beautiful being:
- He was a beast of the field, but was more subtle, cunning, an dcrafty than the others (Gen. 3:1).
- He could talk and carry on intelligent conversation (Gen. 3:1-6).
- Eve was not frightened by his presence, but was amazed at his reasoning abilities and was actually deceived by his words (Gen. 3:1-6).
- He evidently walked upright (Gen. 3:14).
- He was close to Adam and Eve, and had knowledge of God’s Plan for them (Gen. 3:1-15).
The modern concept of Satan as a red devil with horns and a pitchfork is obviously not true. Satan will use whatever tactics are available to him to lure an unsuspecting soul into his trap. If necessary, he can transform himself into “an angel of light” (II Cor. 11:14). Such was the case with Eve, for he chose that which would attract her the most effectively. If Eve had avoided the tree altogether, it would have been impossible for her to have eaten of the forbidden fruit. This is the reason why it is so vitally important to “abstain from all appearance of evil” (I Thess. 5:22).
Temptation of Man
The serpent began his conversation with the woman by doubting God’s Word - “Has God said…?” (Gen. 3:1). He proceeded with contradicting God’s Word - “You shall not surely die” (Gen. 3:4).
Satan has used this same lie down through the centuries, even in the teaching of some churches, that a person can continue in sin and retain his Eternal Life! The serpent then tempted Eve with the very desire that brought about the fall of Lucifer - “You shall be as gods” (Gen. 3:5 ; Isa. 14:14). Insubordination and slander against authority are two sins which Satan takes great delight in seeing others involved in.
Following this temptation, notice the progression with which Eve succumbed:
“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” (Gen. 3:6).
The first temptation of man had to do with food - the forbidden fruit - and the first temptation of Jesus had to do with food - turning stones into bread (Lk. 4:3). Satan tempts man easiest in the area of his appetities, and he tempted Eve with all three categories of temptation the world has to offer:
- The lust of the flesh ;
- The lust of the eyes ; and,
- The pride of life ( I Jn. 2:16).
Eve SAW the tree, she TOOK of the fruit, and DID eat. As is usually the case - others are affected by their own sin - She gave to Adam and “he did eat”. This is the natural progression of temptation leading to sin:
“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts He any man: But every man is TEMPTED, WHEN HE IS DRAWN AWAY OF HIS OWN LUST, AND ENTICED. Then when LUST has CONVEIVED, it BRINGS FORTH SIN: and SIN, WHEN IT IS FINISHED, BRINGS FORTH DEATH” (James 1:13-15).
Fall of Man
When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, they immediately lost thier innocence and sinless countenance and knew that they were naked. They also lost:
- Spiritual, physical, and Eternal Life as God had promised (Gen. 2:17);
- Fellowship with God and the Creation (Gen. 3:15) ;
- Dominion over the Earth (Ps. 8:3-8) ;
- The Perfect Image of God (Gen 1:27) ;
- The right to the Tree of Life (Gen. 3:22-24) ;
- Their home in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:22-24) ; and,
- Freedom from disease, sorrow, afflictions, and suffering (Gen. 3:16-19).
The man and his wife were ASHAMED and sought to cover their nakedness with aprons made out of fig leaves (Gen. 3:7). The fact that they were ashamed was the one ray of hope for their future. Because if they had lost thier ability to sense the shame of guilt, they would have been no different than evil spirits, and their Salvation would have been impossible. Although the God-consciousness within their spirit had been overwhelmed, it had not been totally extinguished.
After this, Adam and Eve heard the Voice of God as He walked in the Garden. The Voice that once had been their greatest joy now became their greatest fear, and they fled trying to hide from the all seeing, all knowing, all mighty God.
God first of all called unto the man, Adam, who answered the Lord, saying that he had heard His voice, but was afraid because he was naked. When God asked Adam if he had eaten of the Tree of the Knowwledge of Godd and Evil, he passed the blame to his wife, Eve:
“The woman whom You gave to be with me, SHE GAVE ME OF THE TREE, and I did eat” (Gen. 3:12).
Actually, Adam paritally was blaming God as well, saying, in essence, “If You hadn’t given me this woman, I wouldn’t have eaten of the tree!” God then inquired of Eve, who passed the blame on to the serpent:
“The SERPENT BEGUILED ME, and I did eat” (Gen. 3:13).
Curse Upon the Serpent, Woman, Man, and Earth
After God patiently gave the couple the oppurtunity to defend their actions, He turned to the serpent and His Attitude changed dramatically. God did not give Satan the opportunity to defend himself, but treated him as already condemned. The words that God spoke to the serpent partially are fulfilled in th eserpent and partially fulfilled in Satan, for the law of double reference, is applied in this case. The words spoken to the serpent also mark the beginning of the second great covenant in scripture - the Adamic Covenant:
“And the Lord God said unto the SERPENT, Because you have done this, you are CURSED above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life: And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His Heel” (Gen. 3:14-15).
The curse upon the Serpent will continue even throught the Millenium, when the curse will be lifted from the other animals. This will be a constant reminder of the wages of sin to the inhabitants of the Earth (Isa. 65:25). Satan clearly is referred to by the phrase “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between you seed and her seed.” for the woman knew clearly that her false friend was the cause of all her misery. From this day forth she would regard him as her worsh enemy!
The “seed” of the serpent refers to natural snakes, the decendants of the original serpent, but also has a double reference to all ungodly men, who are called children of the Devil (Jn. 8:44). The “seed” of the woman refers to the natural decendants of Eve, and to one “Seed” in particular, the Lord Jesus Christ! Genesis 3:15 is the first Prophecy concerning th Redeemer defeating Satan at Calvary!
Following the curse of the serpent (which included Satan), God turned His attention to the woman:
“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desires shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16).
The curse upon the woman included a painful process of childbirth, and the forfeiture of her co-equal status with her husband.
God next addressed Adam:
“And unto Adam He said, Because you have hearkened unto the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree, of which I command you, saying, You shall not eat of it: CURSED is the ground for your sake; in sorrow shall you eat of it all the days of your life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to you; and you shall eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of you face shall you eat bread, till you return unto the ground; for out of it were you taken; for dust you are, and unto dust shall you return” (Gen. 3:17-19).
Because Adam had been given dominion over all the Earth, and was commanded to care for the Garden, the curse upon man extended beyond himself, to the very ground from which he was formed. In the final analysis DEATH was the ultimate curse upon the entire Creation. What God had spoken, He was faithful to perform: “In the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die” (Gen. 2:17).
Promise Of A Redeemer
Although God was bound to punish sin, He did not forsake the man and the woman who He cared for with an everlasting love. God made a covering for Adam and Eve from the skins of animals. He slew the animal as an example of the sacrifices they should offer in looking forward to the promised Redeemer!
Where False Doctrine and Heresy in the Modern Church World Get PWND
Excerpts from Expositors Study Bible and God’s Plan For The Ages.
10 Comments, Comment or Ping
Matt Oxley
just curious tony
are you familiar with the Serpent Seed doctrine? That Cain was in fact a result of consumation between Eve and the Serpent rather than adam…it stems from the definition of Beguiled in one of the passages you have outlined…beguiled, in this sense, meaning tempted into relationship with.
interesting stuff …can’t remember which of the crazies thought that one up…Andrew Murray maybe?
Matt Oxleys last blog post..Joe Biden is afraid of something
Oct 21st, 2008
Tony
I do have to say, Matt, that the serpent seed doctrine is new to me. I was not aware of that theology. I am not surprised though that someone would want to teach that kind of thing. Some people, in my mind, get terribly off base when it comes to biblical things.
I used to have a friend who SWEARS that the forbidden fruit is an apple, and to this day she will not eat anything containing apples or drink juices because they contain apples.
The serpent seed thing…crazy!
Tonys last blog post..Genesis 3 and the Fall of Man
Oct 21st, 2008
Matt Oxley
no apples? thats insane…slap that friend of yours for me…jeesh
here is the wikipedia on Serpent Seed…its pretty wild
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_seed
some of the adherents think race is a sign of the seed as well…it might be a bit offensive to some folks…for good reason
Matt Oxleys last blog post..Joe Biden is afraid of something
Oct 21st, 2008
TheRevRuss
Tony, thanks for the post and I have to say I’m in partial agreement, but there are a couple of things I’m taking issue with.
1) You said “The fact that they were ashamed was the one ray of hope for their future. Because if they had lost thier ability to sense the shame of guilt, they would have been no different than evil spirits, and their Salvation would have been impossible.” - This seems to be logically inconsistent with the entire account. If it’s a good thing that they are ashamed, they should have been ashamed the entire time, no? That is to say, what you’re implying is that it was indeed bad for them to be naked so it’s good they noticed it. I would disagree and say that there was nothing wrong with their being naked (not suggesting we all run around naked now) but the problem was with the fall, it twisted something beautiful (nakedness) into something “dirty”. Does that make sense?
2) All of this seems to be undermined by your argument of the gap theory that Gen 1:1 is it’s own creative event, followed by a destruction in verse 2, followed by a re-creation in verse 3. What’s the point in sending the savior to redeem from death? Why not just “start over” like he did the first time? To see what I’m getting at, I recommend this article from Answers in Genesis (which you may have read) - http://tinyurl.com/gap-theory. I’m not necessarily trying to get you to change your mind, but please try to read it and see the implications of what your viewpoint is suggesting because, whether intentional or not, you’re implying that : a) death really isn’t as bad as all of Scripture suggests it is and b) by using the gap theory, you’re allowing science to be the “trump card” over and against Scripture.
Forgive me, brother in Christ, if I have come across as challenging or disrespectful. That is most certainly not my intent. I fully believe you believe what you are presenting and I also fully believe you have no ill intent. I’m just asking you to carefully and prayerfully consider the two viewpoints and ask yourself “why do I have the need to believe science is more correct than God’s Word?” I’m not saying throw out science completely; I’m just saying try to compare the implications for the 2 viewpoints and see which one has graver consequences. You know my email address so I’m happy to carry this discussion on more via email if you so choose. God’s blessings.
TheRevRusss last blog post..What’s really at stake?
Oct 21st, 2008
Tony
Russ,
I love that you commented, and I am in no way offended and you have not come off as disrespectfull in any way. I will be the first to say that I don’t have all the answers, some of the fringe things like this (i.e. not pertaining to salvation) i believe we can have differing views and obviously still go to heaven. But as far as your first point, I see where you are coming from on that, but although I have a differing view on that written down, I will take it a little further. I really believe that the fact that Adam and Eve put “leaves” on their bodies to cover their sin, is a type of us as human trying to find a way for our own salvation by our works, and god killing an animal to cover them, speaks of Christs death to save us and take away our sins. Adam and Eve had not seen death until then and it was used to “cover” them.
As far as the Gap theory, up until about 2 years ago I believed that the earth was just simply 6,000 years old and that the scientists were probably faking the dinosaur fossils and exaggerating time lines of certain events to make the earth seem older. I don’t think that my belief in the “gap theory” at all allows science to trump over scripture, because I believe that they can in fact work hand in hand. To me, to say that science is way off base, but live in a world where there are scientific breakthroughs, etc with technology and the like, is unacceptable. This belief is just my way of my mind “grasping” the notion of certain scriptures in the Bible, and seeing the earth a little older. I know some people that think that noah brought over 2 of every dinosaur on the ark. It is just stuff like that, that the atheists love to flaunt and say how stupid me, as a Christian is.
Anyhow, thanks for your comments, I appreciate someone with knowledge on the subject and at the same time understands that this isn’t a “soul saving” issue.
God Bless
Tony
Tonys last blog post..Debt Consolidation Is A Great Call.
Oct 21st, 2008
TheRevRuss
Tony,
Thanks for your courteous response. It’s nice to know Christians can have these discussions and not lose sight of the cross in the process. I think it’s absolutely essential that we (i.e. all Christians) not lose hold of the gospel in the process of discussions. In fact, as I read somewhere else, these discussions should force us into studying the Word even more, not drive us away from it.
As for the Adam and Eve thing, I totally agree with your recent comment - that their attempt to cover themselves was an attempt at works righteousness and God’s response was, in effect, a “type” of Christ, i.e. a foreshadowing of the final sacrifice of Christ on the cross. What I was questioning was the statement you made about it being a good thing that they were ashamed. Perhaps you simply meant that it was good that they recognized sin in general. What I was getting at was that it shows evidence of the corruption of sin that they were ashamed about something they should have never been ashamed about. That is to say, I thought you were implying that being naked was bad (pre-fall) and that it was good they recognized that. If that was your point, I’d still disagree, but I’m thinking that was not what you were driving at.
As far as the bigger issue, again, in and of itself the “old-earth/new-earth” debate is not a salvation issue. However, my concern again is the implications it has and the slippery slope it can lead to. First, I’ll certainly admit that Scripture does not clearly give us the age of the earth. However, to suggest that there was a pre-creation (Gen. 1:1), a devastation (Gen. 1:2), and then a re-creation (Gen. 1:3ff) implies that death was part of the system before the fall in Genesis 3. That goes contrary to much of Scripture where Adam, through his sin, is held accountable for the death brought onto all creation and Christ who defeated death by his death and resurrection. If God just arbitrarily wiped out the earth after verse 1 and started over, why not do it again after the fall in verse 3? Why waste the time sending His Son to die? Do you see what I’m getting at here?
As for the science over Scripture, again, try to understand where I’m coming from here. Again, you obviously have a strong faith in Christ and you believe in the Scriptures. However, my point is that with this “gap theory” you’re still allowing science to overrule Scripture in this sense: you’re taking what secular science says (e.g. earth being billions of years old, dinosaurs being extinct before men, etc.), taking it to be irrefutable and then reading that back into Scripture. Again, please understand, I’m not saying we ignore science. All I’m saying is it shouldn’t be allowed to interpret how we read the Bible, artificially putting billions of years between 2 verses of Scripture just so it makes the science palatable. Again, I’d encourage you to read the article from AiG because they certainly don’t throw out science and they do a far better job of articulating this.
The last comment I have is with regard to your concern against the attack of an atheist. I certainly see where you’re coming from here, that you want a certain amount of credibility but do you really think that by agreeing with them on the age of the earth you’ve gained any reasonable ground? Furthermore, should we as Christians really desire to fit our explanations into their worldview? I’m not saying we don’t reach out in love, but as Christians who adhere to the Word of God, Scripture is pretty clear that in one way or another, we’ll face persecution for standing up to the faith. My point being they think everything about the Christian faith is pretty stupid - Jesus, true man and true God? Prove it, they say. Died and rose again? Yeah right, they sarcastically remark. Frankly, there’s a whole bigger worldview issue going on - they have a presupposition that starts with “there is no God” which is a matter of faith - something we’ll never be able to “argue” them into. In a sense, it’s the same thing going on between you and me here - we’re coming at this from 2 different angles. You want science to align closely with Scripture - so do I. The difference is how we’re allowing that to interpret the way we read Scripture. My answer to all the dating evidence of the fossils, age of the stars, earth, etc. is this: if we have a God who is all powerful, all knowing, all seeing, etc., etc. - a God who created completely out of nothing - is he really limited to work within our realm of knowable science or is it possible - possible - that he could do something crazy like create the entire universe in an “up and running” state that according to our fallible methods only appears billions of years old? I realize the atheists think that’s absolutely crazy, but frankly I think the idea that the earth is billions of years old is just as “unproveable” so it comes down to a matter of faith.
TheRevRusss last blog post..What’s really at stake?
Oct 21st, 2008
Matt Oxley
…
tony…
so glad you are beyond the Young Earth Creationist junk—what in the world would the scientific community gain by discrediting YEC beliefs? What would it profit us to plant fake dinosaur bones? Science is about finding truth and fact…not making things up just to piss off the church.
to believe YEC in light of modern science is to be in complete denial of reality.
Matt Oxleys last blog post..Vipers, Snakes, and Actors
Oct 22nd, 2008
TheRevRuss
Matt,
Wasn’t directed at me, I suspect it was aimed at my comments so I just wanted to add a few thoughts of my own and get your input.
I don’t for a minute believe that most scientists are just “making up things” to make Christians mad nor have I ever thought anyone has “planted” evidence. I’m sure there are some dishonest scientists out there just like I know there are some dishonest “Christians” out there. By in large, I think that scientists are genuinely trying to discover the origins of life, how life works, etc., etc. Furthermore, I acknowledge that they fully believe that which they discover. I just believe that most are starting with a presupposition that there is no God, so that’s exactly where their science leads. It’s just faith of a different color. It can’t be conclusively “proven” any more than my position can when it’s all said and done. It’s all in how you interpret the evidence. You can show me 10 “facts” for your side, and I can show you 10 “facts” on the same data from my side, and we’ll both come up with arguments all day long as to why the other person is wrong.
The YEC absolutely makes no sense if you take God out of the picture. Problem is for me as a Christian, I can’t do that so for me, as a Christian who believes in and enjoys science, the YEC is the best explanation I have seen that both acknowledges and respects science while at the same time stands firm on the Word of God. If you don’t believe in God, I wouldn’t expect you to believe in the YEC theory. And to answer your rhetorical question, you’re absolutely right - science has nothing to gain by discrediting this theory. I’ll freely admit it’s a theory - I have absolutely no way of conclusively proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Are you willing to admit the same for your position?
TheRevRusss last blog post..What’s really at stake?
Oct 22nd, 2008
Matt Oxley
YEC is not a theory RevRuss, it is a matter of faith and belief…you can choose to believe evidence or deny evidence but the facts that the evidence supports will not change. Since evidence, by your own admission, doesn’t really mean anything, we wont bother with points and counterpoints….just know this, if your evidence consists of “scripture” and skewed fossil records then it is likely flawed. If “scientists” that provide this “evidence” are attempting to PROVE that the Bible’s version of things is true then they are neither scientists nor following the scientific method…
Matt Oxleys last blog post..Vipers, Snakes, and Actors
Oct 22nd, 2008
TheRevRuss
Matt, I think you’re missing my whole point. I’ve fully admitted that YEC is grounded on faith and belief. All I’m trying to get YOU to recognize is that belief in scientific “fact” is faith, just of a different sort. Look, I’m not saying I think science is a bunch of “magic and witchcraft” like some of the fundamentalists do. All I’m saying is that in a manner of speaking, you are taking on faith the scientific “facts” of those who have studied before you. Can you prove to me, conclusively, 100%, without any shadow of a doubt that the universe in fact started from the big bang theory (as an example - maybe that’s not your belief) or whatever your belief is? Again, it all depends on starting points and presuppositions. Your classic argument against Christianity that we are somehow denying all science, reason, and logic is categorically not true. In my view, Scripture and the science that does support it is perfectly logical and I, no matter how hard I try, cannot see the other viewpoint as logical. It doesn’t mean I don’t understand where it’s coming from, I just don’t think it’s logical from my perspective.
As for the evidence, I’m not saying it doesn’t matter, I’m just saying the way it’s interpreted depends on your starting point. I could point you to countless articles on the Answers in Genesis website that “prove” the young earth theory, but you’ll be able to discount every single piece because it doesn’t match up with your presuppositions and admittedly, I can go the same way with your evidence. I just get a little tired of “pure science” being held up as this irrefutable, universal truth, and some sort of intellectual high ground when in fact it’s not. And I’m sure you’d say the exact same thing of my faith in God. The fact of the matter is, though I believe in an absolute truth, I recognize that my view of it is subjective because of my belief in God. As someone not believing in God, I wouldn’t expect you to accept Scripture as true and valid because to do so requires faith. Just as you can’t reasonably expect me to agree with your ideology because you’re starting from the point of “there is no God.” I guess I don’t know how to make myself any clearer on that.
TheRevRusss last blog post..What’s really at stake?
Oct 22nd, 2008
Reply to “Genesis 3 and the Fall of Man”