EXPOSITION
How long the paradisiacal state of innocence and felicity continued the historian does not declare, probably as not falling within the scope of his immediate design. Psalms 49:12 has been thought, though without sufficient reason, to hint that man's Eden life was of comparatively short duration. The present chapter relates the tragic incident which brought it to a termination. Into the question of the origin of moral evil in the universe it does not enter. The recta-physical problem of how the first thought of sin could arise in innocent beings it does not attempt to resolve. It seeks to explain the genesis of evil with reference to man. Nor even with regard to this does it aim at an exhaustive dissertation, but only at such a statement of its beginnings as shall demonstrate that God is not the author of sin, but that man, by his own free volition, brought his pristine state of purity and happiness to an end. A due regard to this, the specific object of the Mosaic narrative, will go far to answer not a few of the objections which have been taken to its historic credibility. Like the Mosaic record of creation, the Biblical story of the fall has been impugned on a variety of grounds.
1. The doctrine of a fall, which this chapter clearly teaches, has been assailed as inconsistent with the dictates of a speculative philosophy, if not also with the tenets of a Scriptural theology. While in the present narrative the origin of sin is distinctly traced back to the free volition of man acting without constraint, though not without temptation, in opposition to the Divine will, a more exact psychological analysis, it is alleged, declares it to have been from the first a necessity, either
(1) metaphysically, as being involved in the very conception of a finite will (Spinoza, Leibnitz, Baur); or
(2) historically, "as the expression of the necessary transition of the human race from the state of nature to that of culture" (Fichte, Kant, Schiller), or as developing itself in obedience to the law of antagonism and conflict (John Seotus Erigena, Hegel, Sehleiermacher, Schelling); or
(3) theologically, as predetermined by a Divine decree (supralapsarianism). Without offering any separate refutation of these anti-Scriptural theories, it may suffice to say that in all questions affecting man's responsibility, the testimony of the individual consciousness, the ultimate ground of appeal, apart from revelation, affirms moral evil to be no all-controlling necessity, but the free product of the will of the creature.
2. The narrative of the fall has been impugned—
(1) On the ground of its miraculous character. But unless we are prepared to equate the supernatural with the impossible and incredible, we must decline to admit the force of such objections.
(2) On the ground of its mythical form, resembling as it does, in some slight degree, Oriental traditions, and in particular the Persian legend of Ormuzd and Ahriman (vide infra, 'Traditions of the Fall'). But here the same remark will apply as was made in connection with the similarity alleged to exist between the Mosaic and heathen cosmogonies: it is immeasurably easier and more natural to account for the resemblance of Oriental legend to Biblical history, by supposing the former to be a traditional reflection of the latter, than it is to explain the unchallengable superiority of the latter to the former, even in a literary point of view, not to mention ethical aspects at all, by tracing both to a common source—the philosophic or theologic consciousness of man.
(3) There are also those who, while neither repudiating it on the ground of miracle, nor discrediting it as a heathen myth, yet decline to accept it as other than a parabolic or allegorical narration of what transpired in the spiritual experience of the first pair. History is often a parable of truth.
Now (literally, and) the serpent. Nachash, from nachash—
(1) in Kal, to hiss (unused), with allusion to the hissing sound emitted by the reptile (Gesenius, Furst), though it has been objected that prior to the fall the serpent could hardly have been called by a name derived from its present constitution (Delitzsch);
(2) in Piel, to whisper, use sorcery, find out by divination (Genesis 30:27), suggestive of the creature's wisdom (Bush), Which, however, is regarded as doubtful (Furst);
(3) to shine (unused, though supplying the noun nechsheth, brass, Genesis 4:22), referring to its glossy shining appearance, and in par-titular its bright glistening eye: cf. δραìκων from δεìρκομαι, and ὁìφις from ὀìπτομαι (T. Lewis);
(4) from an Arabic root signifying to pierce, to move, to creep, so that nachash would be Latin serpens (Furst). The presence of the article before nachash has been thought to mean a certain serpent, but "by eminent authorities this is pronounced to be unwarranted" (Macdonald). Was more subtle. 'Arum—
(1) Crafty (cf. Job 5:12; Job 15:5);
(2) prudent, in a good sense (cf. Proverbs 12:16), from 'aram—
(a) To make naked; whence atom, plural arumim, naked (Genesis 2:25).
(b) To crafty (1 Samuel 23:22). If applied to the serpent in the sense of πανοῦργος (Aquila, Keil, Lange, Macdonald),
it can only be either
(1) metaphorically for the devil, whose instrument it was; or
(2) proleptically, with reference to the results of the temptation; for in itself, as one of God's creatures, it must have been originally good. It seems more correct to regard the epithet as equivalent to φροìνιμος (LXX.), and to hold that Moses, in referring to the subtlety of this creature, "does not so much point out a fault as attribute praise to nature" (Calvin), and describes qualities which in themselves were good, such as quickness of sight, swiftness of motion, activity of the self-preserving instinct, seemingly intelligent adaptation -of means to end, with perhaps a glance, in the use of 'arum, at the sleekness of its glossy skin; but which were capable of being perverted to an unnatural use by the power and craft of a superior intelligence (cf. Matthew 10:16 : γιìνεσθε ου}n fro&nimoi w). Than any (literally, was subtil more than any) beast of the field which the Lord God had made. The comparison here instituted is commonly regarded as a proof that the tempter was a literal serpent, though Macdonald finds in the contrast between it and all other creatures, as well as in the ascription to it of pre-eminent subtlety, which is not now a characteristic of serpents, an intimation that the reptile was no creature of earth, or one that received its form from God," an opinion scarcely different from that of Cyril, that it was only the simulacrum of a serpent. But
(1) the curse pronounced upon the serpent (Genesis 3:14) would seem to be deprived of all force if the subject of it had been only an apparition or an unreal creature; and
(2) the language of the New Testament in referring to man's temptation implies its literality (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:3). "We are perfectly justified in concluding, from this mention of the fall, that Paul spoke of it as an actual occurrence" (Olshausen). Adam Clarke contends with much enthusiasm that the tempter was not a serpent, but an ape or orangutan. And he said. Not as originally endowed with speech (Josephus, Clarke), or gifted at this particular time with the power of articulation ('Ephrem; lib. de paradiso,' c. 27, quoted by Willet), but simply as used by the devil, who from this circumstance is commonly styled in Scripture 'The serpent," "the old serpent," "that old serpent" (cf. Revelation 12:9; Revelation 20:2). Nor is it more difficult to understand the speaking of the serpent when possessed by Satan, than the talking of Balaam's ass when the Lord opened its mouth (Numbers 22:28-4). Equally with the idea that the devil was the only agent in man's temptation, and that the serpent is purely the allegorical dress in which the historian clothes him (Eusebius, Cajetan, Quarry, Alford), must the notion be rejected that there was nothing but a serpent (Aben Ezra, Kalisch, Knobel). Why, if there was an evil spirit manipulating the reptile, the historian did not say so has been explained
(1) on the ground that the belief in the devil was then foreign to the Hebrews (Knobel);
(2) that up to this point in the narrative there is no mention of the devil (White of Dorchester);
(3) that Moses simply wished to be rei gestae scriptor non interpres (Pererins);
(4) that it was unnecessary, those for whom he wrote being sufficiently capable of discerning that the serpent was not the prime mover in the transaction (Candlish);
(5) that "by a homely and uncultivated style he accommodates what he delivers to the capacity of the people" (Calvin);
(6) that his object being merely to show that God had no hand in man's temptation, but that Adam sinned of himself, it was not needful to do more than recite the incident as it appeared to the senses (White);
(7) that he wished "to avoid encouraging the disposition to transfer the blame to the evil spirit which tempted man, and thus reduce sin to a mere act of weakness" (Keil).
Unto the woman. As the weaker of the two, and more likely to be easily persuaded (1 Timothy 2:14; 1 Peter 3:7). Cf. Satan's assault on Job through his wife (Job 2:9). Milton's idea that Eve desired to be independent, and had withdrawn herself out of Adam's sight, it has been well remarked, "sets up a beginning of the fall before the fall itself" (Lunge). Yea. אַף כּי. Is it even so that? (Gesenius). Is it really so that! (Ewald, Furst, Keil). Etiamne, vel Itane (Calvin). A question either
(1) spoken in irony, as if the meaning were, "Very like it is that. God careth what you eat!" or
(2) inquiring the reason of the prohibition (LXX.,—τιì ὁìτι ει}peno( qeo_j; Vulgate, cur praecepit vobis Deus); or
(3) simply soliciting information (Chaldee Paraphrase); but
(4) most likely expressing surprise and astonishment, with the view of suggesting distrust of the Divine goodness and disbelief in the Divine veracity (Ewald, Rosenmüller, Kalisch, Keil, Macdonald, Lunge). The conversation may have been commenced by the tempter, and the question "thrown out as a feeler for some weak point where the fidelity of the woman might be shaken" (Murphy); but it is more likely that the devil spoke in continuation of a colloquy which is not reported (Kalisch, Macdonald), which has led some, on the supposition that already many arguments had been adduced to substantiate the Divine severity, to render "yea" by "quanto margis," as if the meaning were, "How much more is this a proof of God's unkindness!" (Aben Ezra, Kimchi). Hath God said. "The tempter felt it necessary to change the living personal God into a merely general numen divinum" (Keil); but the Elohim of Genesis 1:1. He was not a mere numen divinum As much astray is the observation that Satan wished to avoid profaning the name of Jehovah (Knobel). Better is the remark that the serpent could not utter the name Jehovah as his assault was directed against the paradisiacal covenant of God with man (Lange). By using the name Elohim instead of Jehovah the covenant relationship of God towards man was obscured, and man's position in the garden represented as that of a subject rather than a son. As it were, Eve was first placed at the furthest distance possible from the supreme, and then assailed. Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden. I.e. either accepting the present rendering as correct, which the Hebrew will bear,—"Are there any trees in the garden of which you may not eat?" "Is it really so that God hath prohibited you from some?" (Calvin),—or, translating lo-kol as not any—Latin, nullus—"Hath God said ye shall not eat of any?" (Macdonald, Keil). According to the first the devil simply seeks to impeach the Divine goodness; according to the second he also aims at intensifying the Divine prohibition. The second rendering appears to be supported by the fitness of Eve's reply.
And the woman said unto the serpent. Neither afraid of the reptile, there being not yet any enmity among the creatures; nor astonished at his speaking, perhaps as being not yet fully acquainted with the capabilities of the lower animals; nor suspicions of his designs, her innocence and inexperience not predisposing her to apprehend danger. Yet the tenor of the reptile's interrogation was fitted to excite alarm; and if, as some conjecture, she understood that Satan was the speaker, she should at once have taken flight; while, if she knew nothing of him or his disposition, she should not have opened herself so freely to a person unknown. "The woman certainly discovers some uuadvisedness in entertaining conference with the serpent, in matters of so great importance, in so familiar a manner" (White). We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.
(1) Omitting the Divine name when recording his liberality, though she remembers it when reciting his restraint;
(2) failing to do justice to the largeness and freeness of the Divine grant (cf. with Genesis 2:16);—which, however, charity would do well not to press against the woman as symptoms of incipient rebellion. 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. An addition to the prohibitory enactment, which may have been simply an inaccuracy in her understanding of Adam's report of its exact terms (Kalisch); or the result of a rising feeling of dissatisfaction with the too great strictness of the prohibition (Delitzsch), and so an indication "that her love and confidence towards God were already beginning to waver" (Keil); or a proof of her anxiety to observe the Divine precept (Calvin); or a statement of her understanding "that they were not to meddle with it as a forbidden thing" (Murphy). Lest ye die. Even Calvin here admits that Eve beans to give way, leading פֶן־ as forte, with which Macdonald appears to agree, discovering "doubt and hesitancy" in her language; but—
(1) the conjunction may point to a consequence which is certain—indeed this is its usual meaning (of. Genesis 11:4; Genesis 19:5; Psalms 2:12);
(2) "Where there are so many real grounds for condemning Eve's conduct, it is our duty to be cautious in giving those which are problematical" (Bush); and,
(3) "she would have represented the penalty in a worse rather than a softened form had she begun to think it unjust" (Inglis).
And the serpent said unto the woman. "As God had preached to Adam, so Satan now also preaches to Eve … The object of Satan was to draw away Eve by his word or saying from that which God had said" (Luther). Ye shall not surely die. Lo-moth temuthun. Thus the second step in his assault is to challenge the Divine veracity, in allusion to which it has been thought our Savior calls Satan a liar (cf. John 8:44 : ὁìταν λαλῇ τοÌ ψεῦδος ἐκ τῶν ἰδιìων λαλεῖ ὁτι ψευìστης ἐστιν καιÌ ὁ πατηÌρ αὐτοῦ). "Here, as far as we know, is his first begottten lie" (Bush).
For (כִּי—nam, γαρ, for because; assigning the reason
(1) for the devil's, statement, and so,
(2) by implication, for the Divine prohibition)
God doth know. Thus the serpent practically charges the Deity with
(1) envy of his creatures' happiness, as if he meant to say, Depend upon it, it is not through any fear of your dying from its fruit that the tree has been interdicted, but through fear of your becoming rivals to your Master himself; and
(2) with falsehood—
(a) in affirming that to be true which he knew to be false;
(b) in doing this while delivering his law;
(c) in pretending to be careful of man's safety while in reality he was only jealous of his own honor.
That in the day ye eat thereof. Cf. the Divine prohibition (Genesis 2:17), the exact terms of which are again used—a mark of growing aggressiveness towards the woman, and of special audacity towards God. The prohibition employs the singular number, being addressed to Adam only; the devil employs the plural, as his words were meant not for Eve alone, but for her husband with her. Your eyes shall be opened. "To open the eyes," the usual Biblical phrase for restoring sight to the blind (2 Kings 6:17, 2 Kings 6:20; Psalms 146:8; Isaiah 42:7), is also used to denote the impartation of power to perceive (physically, mentally, spiritually) objects not otherwise discernible (cf. Genesis 21:19; Isaiah 35:5). Here it was designed to be ambiguous; like all Satan's oracles, suggesting to the hearer the attainment of higher wisdom, but meaning in the intention of the speaker only a discovery of their nakedness. The same ambiguity attaches to the devil's exposition of his own text. And ye shall be as gods. Literally, as Elohim; not &c θεοιÌ (LXX.), sicut dii (Vulgate), as gods (A.V.), as the angels (R. Jonathan), as the devils (Ainsworth), daemonibusque, diisve similes (Rosenmüller), as princes (White); but as the supreme Deity (Calvin, Keil, Kalisch, et alia)—ostensibly a promise of divinity. Knowing good and evil. As they knew this already from the prohibition, the language must imply a fullness and accuracy of understanding such as was competent only to Elohim (vide on Genesis 3:22)
And (when) the woman saw. "An impure look, infected with the poison of concupiscence" (Calvin); cf. Joshua 7:21. That the tree was good for food. "The fruit of this tree may have been neither poisonous nor beautiful, or it may have been both; but sin has the strange power of investing the object of desire for the time being, whatever its true character, with a wonderful attraction" (Inglis). And that it (was) pleasant Literally, a desire (Psalms 10:17), a lust (Numbers 11:4). To the eyes. ἈριστοÌν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς (LXX.); pulchrum oculis (Vulgate); lust ye unto the eyes (Coverdale); i.e. stimulating desire through the eyes (cf. 1 John 2:16). And a tree to be desired to make (one) wise. לְהַשְׂכִּיל (from שָׂכַל—
(1) to look at, to behold; hence
(2) to be prudent, 1 Samuel 18:30.
Hiph.,
(1) to look at;
(2) to turn the mind to;
(3) to be or become understanding, Psalms 2:10)
being susceptible of two renderings, the clause has been taken to mean "a tree desirable to look at" (Syriac, Onkelos, Vulgate, Gesenius, Kalisch, Wordsworth), or, more correctly, as it stands in the English Version, the external loveliness of the tree having been already stated in the preceding clause (LXX , Aben Ezra, Calvin, Hengstenberg, Macdonald). This is the third time the charms of the tree are discerned and expressed by the woman—a significant intimation of how far the Divine interdict had receded from her consciousness. She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat. Thus consummating the sin (James 1:15). And gave also to her husband. Being desirous, doubtless, of making him a sharer in her supposed felicity. The first time Adam is styled Eve's husband, or man; perhaps designed to indicate the complete perversion by Eve of the Divine purpose of her marriage with Adam, which was to be a helpmeet for him, and not his destroyer. With her. An indication that Adam was present throughout the whole preceding scene (Delitzsch, Wordsworth), which is not likely, else why did he not restrain Eve? or that he arrived just as the temptation closed (Calvin), which is only a conjecture; better regarded as a reference to their conjugal oneness (Macdonald). And he did eat. And so involved himself in the criminality of his already guilty partner; not simply as being "captivated with her allurements" ("fondly overcome with female charms"—Milton, Par. Lost,' Book 10.), which 1 Timothy 2:14 is supposed to justify'; but likewise as being "persuaded by Satan's impostures," which doubtless Eve had related to him. This much is distinctly implied in those Scriptures which speak of Adam as the chief transgressor (vide Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 1 Corinthians 15:22).
And the eyes of them both were opened. The fatal deed committed, the promised results ensued, but not the anticipated blessings.
(1) The eyes of their minds were opened to perceive that they were no longer innocent, and
(2) the eyes of their bodies to behold that they were not precisely as they had been. And they knew that they were naked.
(1) Spiritually (cf. Exodus 32:25; Ezekiel 16:22; Revelation 3:17), and
(2) corporeally, having lost that enswathing light of purity which previously engirt their bodies (vide Genesis 2:25). And they sewed. Literally, fastened or tied by twisting. Fig leaves. Not the pisang tree (Muss Paradisiaca), whose leaves attain the length of twelve feet and the breadth of two (Knobel Bohlen); but the common fig tree (Ficus Carica), which is aboriginal in Western Asia, especially in Persia, Syria, and Asia Minor (Kalisch, Keil, Macdonald). Together, and made themselves aprons. Literally, girdles, περιζωìματα (LXX.), i.e. to wrap about their loins. This sense of shame which caused them to seek a covering for their nudity was not due to any physical corruption of the body (Baumgarten), but to the consciousness of guilt with which their souls were laden, and which impelled them to flee from the presence of their offended Sovereign.
Traditions of the Fall.
I. ORIENTAL.
1. Babylonian. "There is nothing in the Chaldean fragments indicating a belief in the garden of Eden or the tree of knowledge; there is only an obscure allusion to a thirst for knowledge having been a cause of man's fall" … The details of the temptation are lost in the cuneiform text, which "opens where the gods are cursing the dragon and the Adam or man for his transgression." … "The dragon, which, in the Chaldean account, leads man to sin, is the creature of Tiamat, the living principle of the sea and of chaos, and he is an embodiment of the spirit of chaos or disorder which was opposed to the deities at the creation of the world." The dragon is in-eluded in the curse for the fall; and the gods invoke on the human race all the evils which afflict humanity—family quarrels, tyranny, the anger of the gods, disappointment, famine, useless prayers, trouble of mind and body, a tendency to sin.
2. Persian. For a time the first pair, Meschia and Mesehiane, were holy and happy, pure in word and deed, dwelling in a garden wherein was a tree whose fruit conferred life and immortality; but eventually Ahriman deceived them, and drew them away from Ormuzd. Emboldened by his success, the enemy again appeared, anti gave them a fruit, of which they ate, with the result that, of the hundred blessings which they enjoyed, all disappeared save one. Falling beneath the power of the evil one, they practiced the mechanical arts, and subsequently built themselves houses and clothed themselves with skins. Another form of the legend represents Ahriman as a serpent. So close is the resemblance of this legend to the Scriptural account, that Rawlinson regards it not as a primitive tradition, but rather as "an infiltration into the Persian system of religious ideas belonging properly to the Hebrews".
3. Indian. In the Hindoo mythology the king of the evil demons, "the king of the serpents," is named Naga, the prince of the Nagis or Nacigs, "in which Sanserit appellation we plainly trace the Hebrew Nachash." In the Vishnu Purana the first beings created by Brama are represented as endowed with righteousness and perfect faith, as free from guilt and filled with perfect wisdom, wherewith they contemplated the glory of Visham, till after a time they are seduced. In the legends of India the triumph of Krishna over the great serpent Kali Naga, who had poisoned the waters of the river, but who himself was ultimately destroyed by Krishna trampling on his head, bears a striking analogy to the Mosaic story (Kitto's 'Daily Bible Illustrations').
II. OCCIDENTAL.
1. The story of Pandora. According to Hesiod the first men lived wifeless and ignorant, but innocent and happy. Prometheus ("Forethought") having stolen fire from heaven, taught its use to mankind. To punish the aspiring mortals, Zeus sent among them Pandora, a beautiful woman, whom he had instructed Hephaestus to make, and Aphrodite, Athena, and Hermes had endowed with all seductive charms. Epimetheus ("Afterthought"), the brother of Prometheus, to whom she was presented, accepted her, and made her his wife. Brought into his house, curiosity prevailed on her to lift the lid of a closed jar in which the elder brother had with prudent foresight shut up all kinds of ills and diseases. Forthwith they escaped to torment mankind, which they have done ever since.
2. The apples of the Hesperides. These golden apples, which were under the guardianship of the nymphs of the West, were closely watched by a terrible dragon named Laden, on account of an ancient oracle that a son of the deity would at a certain time arrive, open a way of access thither, and carry them off. Hercules, having inquired his way to the garden in which they grew, destroyed the monster and fulfilled the oracle.
3. Apollo and the Pythen. "This Python, ancient legends affirm, was a serpent bred out of the slime that remained after Deucalion's deluge, and was worshipped as a god at Delphi. Eminent authorities derive the name of the monster kern a Hebrew root signifying to deceive." As the bright god of heaven, to whom everything impure and unholy is hateful, Apollo, four days after his birth, slew this monster with his arrows.
"What shall we say then to these things? This—that the nations embodied in these traditions their remembrances of paradise, of the fall, and of the promised salvation".
HOMILETICS
The first sin.
I. THE TEMPTATION.
1. The fact. That sin is possible even in pure beings without the intervention of solicitation, at least ab extra, must be held to be the doctrine of Scripture (vide James 1:14 and Jud James 1:6). Hence man might have fallen, even had he not been tempted. The fact, however, that he was tempted is explicitly revealed; a circumstance which notes an important distinction between his sin and that of the angels. Does this explain Hebrews 2:16 and 2 Peter 2:4?
2. The author. Though ostensibly a serpent, in reality the devil. Besides being expressly stated in the inspired word, it is involved in the very terms of the Mosaic narrative. If the reptile possessed the malice to conceive and the skill to manage such an assault upon the first pair as this book describes, then clearly it was not a serpent, but a devil. It is doubtful if all man's temptations come from the devil, but many, perhaps most, do. He is pre-eminently styled "the tempter" (Matthew 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:5). From the days of Adam downward he has been engaged in attempting to seduce the saints; e.g. David (1 Chronicles 21:1); Job (Genesis 2:7); Christ (Luke 4:13); Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:3). At the present moment he is laboring to deceive the whole world (Revelation 12:9).
3. The instrument. The serpent, which was a proof of Satan's skill, that particular reptile being specially adapted for his purpose (N.B.—The devil can always find a tool adapted to the work he has in hand); and is an indication of our danger, it being only a reptile, and therefore little likely to be suspected as a source of peril; whence we may gather that there is no quarter so unexpected, and no instrument so feeble, that out of the one and through the other temptation may not leap upon us.
4. The nature. This was threefold. A temptation
(1) to suspect the Divine goodness (verse 1);
(2) to disbelieve the Divine word (verse 4);
(3) to emulate the Divine greatness (verse 5).
(Cf. the three assaults upon the Second Adam (Matthew 4:1; Luke 4:1), which were essentially the same.) The first aimed a death-blow at their filial confidence in God; the second removed the fear of punishment from their path; the third fired their souls with the lust of ambition. Separation from God, disobedience of God, opposition to or rivalry with God—the devil's scala coeli.
5. The subtlety. That great art should have been displayed in the conduct of this campaign against the citadel of human holiness is what might have been expected from such a general. In these respects it was evinced.
(1) The assault was commenced before use and practice had confirmed the first pair in obedience.
(2) He began with the woman, who was the weaker of the two.
(3) He attacked her when alone—the best time for temptation. Beware of solitude.
(4) He selected the best ground for delivering his first blow—when the woman was in full sight of the tree.
(5) He was extremely cautious so to moderate his onset as not to excite alarm—beginning with a casual inquiry.
(6) He advanced by degrees as he obtained a footing in the woman's heart.
(7) He never revealed the proper scope and drift of his observations, but always couched them in obscure and ambiguous language.
(8) He never seemed to lead, but always to be following the woman's thought.
(9) In all he said and did he pretended to be seeking his victim's good.
(10) He chose the best of all possible baits to captivate the woman's fancy and excite her cupidity—the hope of gaining knowledge.
II. THE TRANSGRESSION.
1. Its guilty perpetrators. Not the serpent or the devil, but the first pair. The devil may tempt man to sin, but he cannot sin for man. A creature may be the unconscious instrument of leading man aside from the path of virtue, but it cannot possibly compel man to go astray. Men are prone to blame other things and persons for their sins, when the true criminals are themselves.
2. Its impelling motive. No temptation, however skillfully planned or powerfully applied, can succeed until it finds a footing in the nature that is tempted. Unless the devil's logic and chicanery had produced the effect described in verse 6, it is more than probable that Eve would have stood. But first it wrought a change upon herself, and then it transformed the tree. First it created the need for sinful motives, and then it supplied them. So works temptation still. As with Eve, so with us. Sinful motives are
(1) demanded by the heart;
(2) supplied by the evil which the heart contemplates; and
(3) are generally as weak and insufficient as Eve's.
3. Its essential wickedness, as consisting of
(1) unbelief, revealing itself in disobedience;
(2) selfishness, making self the center of all things;
(3) desire, love of the world, gratification of the senses,
the fundamental elements in all sin, corresponding to the three fundamental elements of man's being and consciousness—spirit, soul, body (cf. Auberlen's ' Divine Revelation,' Part I; § 3, Genesis 9:1.).
4. Its sad results.
(1) A discovery of sin. "Their eyes were opened," as the devil said, and as he meant. They felt that they had fallen, and that they had lost their purity. It is impossible to sin and not to have this knowledge and feel this loss.
(2) A consciousness of guilt. "They knew that they were naked." Sin reports itself quickly to the conscience, and conscience quickly discovers to the guilty soul its true position as an unprotected culprit before the bar of God.
(3) A sense of shame, which impelled them to seek a covering for their persons. "They sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves girdles." A picture of men's fruitless efforts to find a covering for their guilty souls.
Lessons:—
1. The responsibility of man.
2. The duty of guarding against temptation.
3. The contagious character of moral evil.
4. The havoc wrought by a single sin.
HOMILIES BY W. ROBERTS
The tempter.
I. WHO TEMPTS?
1. Not the mere serpent.
2. A higher power of evil.
3. This higher power a person.
4. The leader of the fallen angels.
II. WHY PERMITTED? Easy to see why moved; why permitted, a mystery. But we may note—
1. That the intercourse of mind with mind is a general law of nature. To exclude the devil, therefore, from gaining access to man might have involved as great a miracle as preventing one mind from influencing another.
2. That the good as well as the evil angels have access to us. Can we estimate their influence, or be sure that Adam's position or the world's would have been better if both had been excluded?
3. That possibly by this sin under temptation we were saved from a worse sin apart from temptation.
4. That God magnifies his grace and vindicates his power against the devil's in raising fallen man above his first place of creature-ship into that of sonship.
III. WHY EMPLOY THE SERPENT?
1. Because not permitted to assume a higher form—his masterpiece of craft, "an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14), or his masterpiece of power, a mighty prince (Matthew 4:1).
2. Because of all animals the serpent seemed the fittest for his purpose.—W.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
The moral chaos before the moral restoration.
Hitherto the moral nature of man may be said to be absorbed in his religious nature. He has held intercourse with his Creator. He has ruled earth as "the paragon of animals." The introduction of a helpmeet was the commencement of society, therefore of distinctly moral relations. It is in the moral sphere that sin takes its origin, through the helpmeet, and as a violation at the same time of a direct Divine commandment, and of that social compact of obedience to God and dependence upon one another which is the root of all true moral life. The woman was away from the man when she sinned. Her sin was more than a sin against God; it was an offence against the law of her being as one with her husband. There are many suggestive points in the verses (1-7) which we may call the return of man's moral state into chaos, that out of it may come forth, by Divine grace, the new creation of a redeemed humanity.
I. As it is only IN THE MORAL SPHERE THAT SIN IS POSSIBLE, SO IT IS BY THE CONTACT OF A FORMER CORRUPTION WITH MAN that the evil principle is introduced into the world. The serpent's subtlety represents that evil principle already in operation.
II. While the whole transaction is on the line of moral and religious responsibility IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCONNECT THE ANIMAL NATURE FROM THE FIRST TEMPTATION. The serpent, the woman, the tree, the eating of fruit, the pleasantness to taste and sight, the effect upon the fleshly feelings, all point to the close relation of the animal and the moral. There is nothing implied as to the nature of matter, but it is plainly taught that the effect of a loss of moral and spiritual dignity is a sinking back into the lower grade of life; as man is less a child of God he is more akin to the beasts that perish.
III. THE TEMPTATION IS BASED ON A LIE; first soliciting the mind through a question, a perplexity, then passing to a direct contradiction of God's word, and blasphemous suggestion of his ill-will towards man, together with an excitement of pride and overweening desire in man's heart. The serpent did not directly open the door of disobedience. He led the woman up to it, and stirred in her the evil thought of passing through it. The first temptation is the type of all temptation. Notice the three points:—
(1) falsification of fact and confusion of mind;
(2) alienation from God as the Source of all good and the only wise Ruler of our life;
(3) desire selfishly exalting itself above the recognized and appointed limits. Another suggestion is—
IV. THE IMPOSSIBILITY THAT SIN SHOULD NOT FRUCTIFY IMMEDIATELY THAT IT BECOME A FACT OF THE LIFE. Temptation is not sin. Temptation resisted is moral strength. Temptation yielded to is an evil principle admitted into the sphere of its operation, and beginning its work at once. The woman violated her true position by her sin; it was the consequence of that position that she became a tempter herself to Adam, so that the helpmeet became to Adam what the serpent was to her. His eating with her was, as Milton so powerfully describes it, at once—
(1) a testimony to their oneness, and therefore to the power of that love which might have been only a blessing; and
(2) a condemnation of both alike. The woman was first in the condemnation, but the man was first in the knowledge of the commandment and in the privilege of his position; therefore the man was first in degree of condemnation, while the woman was first in the order of time.
V. THE WORK OF SIN UPON THE WHOLE NATURE IS IMMEDIATE. The knowledge of good and evil is the commencement of a conflict between the laws of nature and the laws of the human spirit in its connection with nature, which nothing but the grace of God can bring to an end in the "peace which passeth understanding." That springing up of shame in the knowledge of natural facts is a testimony to a violation of God's order which he alone can set right. "Who told thee," God said, "that thou wast naked?" God might have raised his creature to a position in which shame would have been impossible. He will do so by his grace. Meanwhile the fall was what the word represents a forfeiture of that superiority to the mere animal nature which was man's birthright. And the results of the fall are seen in the perpetual warfare between the natural world and the spiritual world in that being who was made at once a being of earth and a child of God. "They sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons." In the sense of humiliation and defeat man turns to the mere material protection of surrounding objects, forgetting that a spiritual evil can only be remedied by a spiritual good; but the shameful helplessness of the creature is the opportunity for the gracious interposition of God.—R.
HOMILIES BY J.F. MONTGOMERY
The tempter's chief weapon.
Narrative of the fall is of interest not only as the record of how mankind became sinful, but as showing the working of that "lie" (2 Thessalonians 2:11) by which the tempter continually seeks to draw men away (2 Corinthians 11:3). Eve's temptation is in substance our temptation; Eve's fall illustrates our danger, and gives us matter whereby to try ourselves and mark how far we "walk by faith."
The SUBSTANCE OF THE TEMPTATION was suggesting doubts—
(1) As to God's love.
(2) As to God's truth.
The former led to self-willed desire; the latter gave force to the temptation by removing the restraining power. We are tempted by the same suggestions. The will and unbelief act and react upon each other. Where the will turns away from God's will doubt more easily finds an entrance, and having entered, it strengthens self-will (Romans 1:28). Unbelief is often a refuge to escape from the voice of conscience. But mark—the suggestion was not, "God has not said," but, It will not be so; You have misunderstood him; There will be some way of avoiding the danger. Excuses are easy to find: human infirmity, peculiar circumstances, strength of temptation, promises not to do so again. And a man may live, knowing God's word, habitually breaking it, yet persuading himself that all is well. Note two chief lines in which this temptation assails:—
1. As to the necessity for Christian earnestness. We are warned (1 John 2:15; 1 John 5:12; Romans 8:6-45). What is the life thus spoken of? Nothing strange. A life of seeking the world's prizes, gains, pleasures. A life whose guide is what others do; in which the example of Christ and guidance of the Holy Spirit are not regarded; in which religion is kept apart, and confined to certain times and services. Of this God says it is living death (cf. 1 Timothy 5:6); life's work neglected; Christ's banner deserted. Yet the tempter persuades—times have changed, the Bible must not be taken literally, ye shall not die.
2. As to acceptance of the gift of salvation. God's word is (Mark 16:15; Luke 14:21; John 4:10) the record to be believed (Isaiah 53:5, Isaiah 53:6; 1 John 5:11). Yet speak to men of the free gift, tell them of present salvation; the tempter persuades—true; but you must do something, or feel something, before it can be safe to believe;—God has said; but it will not be so. In conclusion, mark how the way of salvation just reverses the process of the fall. Man fell away from God, from peace, from holiness through doubting God's love and truth. We are restored to peace through believing these (John 3:16; 1 John 1:9), and it is this belief which binds us to God in loving service (2 Corinthians 5:14).—M.