|
Serpent Tree |
|
3:6 The method of temptation used by Satan established a pattern according to which he would deal with man: (1) Questioning God, i.e., distorting or casting doubt on the word of God, is the beginning of every temptation. Satan is powerless without man’s assent and consent (v. 1). (2) Contradicting God, i.e. denying His word outright, is the inevitable result of questioning it (v. 4). (3) Surpassing God is that satanic device in which some imaginary good is sought, above and beyond what God has offered (v. 5). (4) Disobeying God is the final result (v. 6). The areas of testing were threefold: (1) appetite, (2) beauty, and (3) ambition or pride (cf. 1 John 2:16). Every temptation by Satan falls into one of these three areas. Temptation is primarily an attempt to get one to act independently of God by implanting a desire for self-assertion or a determination to go one’s own way (cf. Prov. 14:12, note; Is. 53:6). 3:7 After the fall of Adam and Eve to the tempter, they did become “like God, knowing good and evil” (v. 5). But Satan’s half-truth did not tell them that this knowledge would be experiential for them, unlike God’s knowledge of evil in His infinitude and omniscience. They had fallen prey to Satan’s temptation to doubt God, perverting a “good” for their own selfish ends. Shame is the appropriate emotional attitude for those who have deliberately violated God’s commands and ignored His purposes. Mankind inevitably discovers that divine wrath and retribution come in the wake of such a response to God’s goodness. The immediate effects of the Fall are fourfold: (1) the discovery that something is wrong with oneself; (2) the effort to hide shame with a self-provided cover; (3) the fear of God which prompts one to hide (vv. 8, 9); and (4) the persistence in excusing instead of confessing (vv. 10–13). Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness at first (2:25). However, after their disobedience, they became ashamed. The explanation for this radical change in attitude is not to be charged to some sexual sin or to sexuality as such. Nakedness in the ancient Near East was considered exceedingly shameful and therefore is an appropriate expression for the shame they experienced. According to 1 Cor. 15:22, Adam’s sin had devastating effects on the entire race. In Adam, all of his posterity became subject to sin and death. Consequently, the primordial parents of the race became ashamed of those organs which would perpetuate the memory of their sin, even as they perpetuated the race itself. 3:14 God condemned the Serpent because this creature made itself available to the tempter, who orchestrated the Fall of the first two human beings. Accordingly, God placed a curse upon the Serpent more intense than the curse assigned to any other creature. 3:1. The serpent was a creature made by God but used by Satan (John 8:44; 1 John 3:8; Rev. 12:9; 20:2). More subtile (subtle): Subtlety is a positive virtue when rendered “prudent” (Prov. 12:16, 23; 14:8, 15, 18; 22:3). It is negative when rendered “crafty” (2:25; Job 5:12; 15:5). In the prologue of Proverbs (1:4), one of the goals of the book is to “give subtilty [subtlety] to the simple” (cf. Matt. 10:16). Yea, hath God said: More contemporarily: “Has God indeed said?” It emphasizes his amazement that God would restrict man’s freedom of choice in the garden. Satan centers on a restriction, casting doubt on God’s word, and not emphasizing the fact that God had said in 2:16 they might “freely eat” of all the trees. 3:2. Eve’s reply reveals her carelessness with the wording of 2:16, as she disparages the privileges of God by leaving out the word that conveys the sense of “freely eat” and leaves out the word all. 3:3. Neither shall ye touch it: By adding to His command Eve exaggerates the limitations God had set forth. Or it may just express the idea of consumption, with a parallel phrase used euphemistically of “touching a woman” in Genesis 20:6; 26:29; Ruth 2:9; and Proverbs 6:29. The lest ye die reveals Eve’s third error, toning down the penalty and certainty of death for eating. “Lest” expresses a fear of possibly dying when God had already expressed the certainty of it in 2:17!
Sin Is a Choice 3:6–7 What is it in human nature—a nature which God created—that makes us temptable, or vulnerable to sin? Adam and Eve were created apart from sin, and without the need to sin, yet some characteristic in their makeup allowed sin to enter their lives (Gen. 3:6–7). What was that characteristic? Scripture offers two answers to this question. For Eve, the choice to believe a lie was the doorway through which sin entered her life (3:13; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14). For Adam, it was the choice to ignore God’s voice of authority (Gen. 3:17). These two choices—self-deception and self-will—are actually two sides of the same coin. Both remain as complicating realities in our own lives today, allowing sin to continue to take root and bear its deadly fruit in us—until Christ enters our lives and breaks the bonds of sin, empowering us to resist it. Temptation is sin’s call to our basic needs and desires to be satisfied in self-serving or perverted ways. It is also a call to practice self-deception, finding ways to justify doing as we please, even though we know in our heart of hearts that it is wrong. For this reason, Scripture frequently speaks of blindness as a willful act in which we choose to practice rebellion and self-deception. But when Christ enters our life, He regenerates our heart and sets us free to choose what is true and righteous (1 Cor. 6:9–11; James 1:26–27; 1 John 3:7–9).
Even as the Bible warns us about the impact of sin, it also provides a message of hope—that forgiveness and healing are available when we acknowledge our wrongdoings to a God who loves to forgive. See “Confessions That Bring Healing” at 1 Sam. 15:24.
B. The Temptation and Fall. 3:1–24. 3:1. Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. The words Now the serpent are placed at the head of the chapter for emphasis. All the stress falls on them. This is a real snake (literally in the Hebrew). He is a creature of God and is described as more subtil. The Hebrew word for subtil (>aruµm) sounds like the word for naked in 2:25 (>aruµméµm). To describe a snake in these terms seems to be taking the first step in going behind the scene and letting us know that there is more here than meets the eye. There is to be some connection between nakedness and subtlety. A subtlety is at work such as does not belong to snakes. And he said unto the woman. The fact that the serpent speaks constitutes a denial that God has made him (cf. 1:25 being made after his kind). Only man possesses the ability to speak. He probably approached Eve as the New Testament says, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (I Tim 2:13–14). First Peter 3:7 says the woman is the weaker vessel, and II Corinthians 11:3 reports of the serpent beguiling Eve through his subtlety. Hence, this is a revelation of his “… subtilty …” With the first words of the serpent it becomes apparent that an enemy of God is speaking; for he says, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? The words form a question, which seems designed to cast doubt upon God’s goodness and yet, at the same time, seems to imply that if the serpent is misinformed, he is willing to be instructed in the matter (Do you really mean to say God has said you are not to eat from all of them?). He implants the idea that God is unduly strict in not permitting Adam and Eve to eat from all the trees. Another mark of his subtlety is that he has no desire to arrive at the truth. Certainly, the devil is using the snake (Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2). Also, the serpent left out the name Lord (Yahweh) in his question, possibly emphasizing the harsh sovereignty of God (<Eloµhéµm), rather than a loving Redeemer God. 2–3. Instead of turning away, the woman engages in dialogue with the serpent, thereby revealing that she did not really realize that the serpent was her enemy. In her reply she leaves out the word “all” from 2:16, and also the Hebrew phrase “eating thou mayest eat” relating the concept of freely and abundantly. She dismisses it with a mere We may eat. This is an incorrect impression of the truth. Eve’s representation of God’s command was not accurate, to say the least. She makes the command general, placing it in the plural. God had said, thou shalt not, and she said, Ye shall not. And she adds, neither shall ye touch it. This may not be an adding to God’s word as most take it, for in 20:6 and 26:11 the word expresses the taking of a person sexually to be one’s own. Thus, it may be translated, “Ye may not eat it, that is, consume it,” which would be a common Hebrew way of saying the same thing twice for clarification or emphasis. Lastly, the penalty that God had threatened is stated in general terms, and its forcefulness is weakened. Eve merely says, lest ye die, whereas God had said, thou shalt surely die (2:17). Eve’s answers reveal her feeling that God’s prohibition had been too stringent and her love for God, and confidence and trust in Him, had begun to waver. 4–5. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die. Having won the first round, Satan is now in the position of delivering the knockout blow, the direct denial of God’s Word. The negative comes first and receives all the emphasis, and Eve must now choose between God and the serpent. There is no halfway station, for Satan is condemning the concept of absolute authority. In verse 5 he impugns the motives of God, 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. The serpent implies that Eve is confined by her position of trusting God. The word gods is best rendered as God. Satan is not interested in telling the man and the woman that they will attain the plane of divine beings. His point is to oppose the God of goodness. He would make it appear to Adam and Eve that, in reality, God is not good, but jealous. The serpent indicates that the path to knowledge is to bypass God’s word. 6. This verse records the tragic story of the fall of mankind. There are four clearly defined steps that Eve took on the pathway to sin. First, when the woman saw that the tree was good for food. Sin begins with the sight of sin (cf. 9:22; Job 31:1). The sight of sin itself is not sin, but that is where the pathway that leads to sin embarks. Thus, as much as is possible, the very sight of sin ought to be avoided. When the woman looked at the tree, she saw that it was a tree to be desired. Her second step on the pathway to sin was desire. Sight alone is no crime; but to desire that which we have innocently seen, if it cannot be ours, is sin (Deut 5:21; Mt 5:28; Jas 1:13–14; I Jn 2:15–17). Eve’s third step on the pathway to sin occurred when she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat. She had already sinned by coveting that which was not to be coveted; but she deepened her sin by indulging, by taking that which was not rightfully hers according to the prohibition of God. Desiring the forbidden fruit was covert sin; taking and eating of the fruit was overt and active sin. Eve had now fallen into sin. She had followed the three inevitable steps that lead to sin: (1) sight; (2) desire; and (3) gratification. It still would have been a great tragedy if these were the only three steps on the pathway to sin, but there is one more. After Eve saw the forbidden fruit, desired it, and took of it, she gave also unto her husband with her: and he did eat. Unfortunately, the final step on the path to sin is the involvement of others in our sin. There is no such thing as private sin; every sin affects someone else. Eve’s sin affected Adam; and consequently, Adam’s sin affected the entire race. The whole human race sinned in Adam, for “… death passed unto all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom 5:12). Our sin always involves others and thus becomes compounded. Other striking examples of these same steps on the pathway to sin can be found in the lives of Achan (Josh 7:21) and David (II Sam 11:1–5, 15, 24). In order not to fall prey to the path of sin, we must stop ourselves short when we discover any of the steps that Eve took, ask the Lord to forgive us for our sins, and reverse our pathway.
Verses 1-5 We have here an account of the temptation with which Satan assaulted our first parents, to draw them into sin, and which proved fatal to them. Here observe, I. The tempter, and that was the devil, in the shape and likeness of a serpent. 1. It is certain it was the devil that beguiled Eve. The devil and Satan is the old serpent (Rev. 12:9), a malignant spirit, by creation an angel of light and an immediate attendant upon God’s throne, but by sin become an apostate from his first state and a rebel against God’s crown and dignity. Multitudes of the angels fell; but this that attacked our first parents was surely the prince of the devils, the ring-leader in the rebellion: no sooner was he a sinner than he was a Satan, no sooner a traitor than a tempter, as one enraged against God and his glory and envious of man and his happiness. He knew he could not destroy man but by debauching him. Balaam could not curse Israel, but he could tempt Israel, Rev. 2:14. The game therefore which Satan had to play was to draw our first parents to sin, and so to separate between them and their God. Thus the devil was, from the beginning, a murderer, and the great mischief-maker. The whole race of mankind had here, as it were, but one neck, and at that Satan struck. The adversary and enemy is that wicked one. 2. It was the devil in the likeness of a serpent. Whether it was only the visible shape and appearance of a serpent (as some think those were of which we read, Ex. 7:12), or whether it was a real living serpent, actuated and possessed by the devil, is not certain: by God’s permission it might be either. The devil chose to act his part in a serpent, (1.) Because it is a specious creature, has a spotted dappled skin, and then went erect. Perhaps it was a flying serpent, which seemed to come from on high as a messenger from the upper world, one of the seraphim; for the fiery serpents were flying, Isa. 14:29. Many a dangerous temptation comes to us in gay fine colours that are but skin-deep, and seems to come from above; for Satan can seem an angel of light. And, (2.) Because it is a subtle creature; this is here taken notice of. Many instances are given of the subtlety of the serpent, both to do mischief and to secure himself in it when it is done. We are directed to be wise as serpents. But this serpent, as actuated by the devil, was no doubt more subtle than any other; for the devil, though he has lost the sanctity, retains the sagacity of an angel, and is wise to do evil. He knew of more advantage by making use of the serpent than we are aware of. Observe, There is not any thing by which the devil serves himself and his own interest more than by unsanctified subtlety. What Eve thought of this serpent speaking to her we are not likely to tell, when I believe she herself did not know what to think of it. At first, perhaps, she supposed it might be a good angel, and yet, afterwards, she might suspect something amiss. It is remarkable that the Gentile idolaters did many of them worship the devil in the shape and form of a serpent, thereby avowing their adherence to that apostate spirit, and wearing his colours. II. The person tempted was the woman, now alone, and at a distance from her husband, but near the forbidden tree. It was the devil’s subtlety, 1. To assault the weaker vessel with his temptations. Though perfect in her kind, yet we may suppose her inferior to Adam in knowledge, and strength, and presence of mind. Some think Eve received the command, not immediately from God, but at second hand by her husband, and therefore might the more easily be persuaded to discredit it. 2. It was his policy to enter into discourse with her when she was alone. Had she kept close to the side out of which she was lately taken, she would not have been so much exposed. There are many temptations, to which solitude gives great advantage; but the communion of saints contributes much tot heir strength and safety. 3. He took advantage by finding her near the forbidden tree, and probably gazing upon the fruit of it, only to satisfy her curiosity. Those that would not eat the forbidden fruit must not come near the forbidden tree. Avoid it, pass not by it, Prov. 4:15. 4. Satan tempted Eve, that by her he might tempt Adam; so he tempted Job by his wife, and Christ by Peter. It is his policy to send temptations by unsuspected hands, and theirs that have most interest in us and influence upon us. III. The temptation itself, and the artificial management of it. We are often, in scripture, told of our danger by the temptations of Satan, his devices (2 Co. 2:11), his depths (Rev. 2:24), his wiles, Eph. 6:11. The greatest instances we have of them are in his tempting of the two Adams, here, and Mt. 4. In this he prevailed, but in that he was baffled. What he spoke to them, of whom he had no hold by any corruption in them, he speaks in us by our own deceitful hearts and their carnal reasonings; this makes his assaults on us less discernible, but not less dangerous. That which the devil aimed at was to persuade Eve to cut forbidden fruit; and, to do this, he took the same method that he does still. He questioned whether it was a sin or no, v. 1. He denied that there was any danger in it, v. 4. He suggested much advantage by it, v. 5. And these are his common topics. 1. He questioned whether it was a sin or no to eat of this tree, and whether really the fruit of it was forbidden. Observe, (1.) He said to the woman, Yea, hath God said, You shall not eat? The first word intimated something said before, introducing this, and with which it is connected, perhaps some discourse Eve had with herself, which Satan took hold of, and grafted this question upon. In the chain of thoughts one thing strangely brings in another, and perhaps something bad at last. Observe here, [1.] He does not discover his design at first, but puts a question which seemed innocent: "I hear a piece of news, pray is it true? has God forbidden you to eat of this tree?’’ Thus he would begin a discourse, and draw her into a parley. Those that would be safe have need to be suspicious, and shy of talking with the tempter. [2.] He quotes the command fallaciously, as if it were a prohibition, not only of that tree, but of all. God had said, Of every tree you may eat, except one. He, by aggravating the exception, endeavours to invalidate the concession: Hath God said, You shall not eat of every tree? The divine law cannot be reproached unless it be first misrepresented. [3.] He seems to speak it tauntingly, upbraiding the woman with her shyness of meddling with that tree; as if he had said, "You are so nice and cautious, and so very precise, because God has said, ’You shall not eat.’’ The devil, as he is a liar, so he is a scoffer, from the beginning: and the scoffers of the last days are his children. [4.] That which he aimed at in the first onset was to take off her sense of the obligation of the command. "Surely you are mistaken, it cannot be that God should tie you out from this tree; he would not do so unreasonable a thing.’’ See here, That it is the subtlety of Satan to blemish the reputation of the divine law as uncertain or unreasonable, and so to draw people to sin; and that it is therefore our wisdom to keep up a a firm belief of, and a high respect for, the command of God. Has God said, "You shall not lie, nor take his name in vain, nor be drunk,’’ etc.? "Yes, I am sure he has, and it is well said, and by his grace I will abide by it, whatever the tempter suggests to the contrary.’’ (2.) In answer to this question the woman gives him a plain and full account of the law they were under, v. 2, 3. Here observe, [1.] It was her weakness to enter into discourse with the serpent. She might have perceived by his question that he had no good design, and should therefore have started back with a Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence to me. But her curiosity, and perhaps her surprise, to hear a serpent speak, led her into further talk with him. Note, It is a dangerous thing to treat with a temptation, which ought at first to be rejected with disdain and abhorrence. The garrison that sounds a parley is not far from being surrendered. Those that would be kept from harm must keep out of harm’s way. See Prov. 14:7; 19:27. [2.] It was her wisdom to take notice of the liberty God had granted them, in answer to his sly insinuation, as if God has put them into paradise only to tantalize them with the sight of fair but forbidden fruits. "Yea,’’ says she, "we may eat of the fruit of the trees, thanks to our Maker, we have plenty and variety enough allowed us.’’ Note, To prevent our being uneasy at the restraints of religion, it is good often to take a view of the liberties and comforts of it. [3.] It was an instance of her resolution that she adhered to the command, and faithfully repeated it, as of unquestionable certainty: "God hath said, I am confident he hath said it, You shall not eat of the fruit of this tree;’’ and that which she adds, Neither shall you touch it, seems to have been with a good intention, not (as some think) tacitly to reflect upon the command as too strict (Touch not, taste not and handle not), but to make a fence about it: "We must not eat, therefore we will not touch. It is forbidden in the highest degree, and the authority of the prohibition is sacred to us.’’ [4.] She seems a little to waver about the threatening, and is not so particular and faithful in the repetition of that as of the precept. God has said, In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; all she makes of that is, Lest you die. Note, Wavering faith and wavering resolutions give great advantage to the tempter. 2. He denies that there was any danger in it, insisting that, though it might be the transgressing of a precept, yet it would not be the incurring of a penalty: You shall not surely die, v. 4. "You shall not dying die,’’ so the word is, in direct contradiction to what God had said. Either, (1.) "It is not certain that you shall die,’’ so some. "It is not so sure as you are made to believe it is.’’ Thus Satan endeavours to shake that which he cannot overthrow, and invalidates the force of divine threatenings by questioning the certainty of them; and, when once it is supposed possible that there may be falsehood or fallacy in any word of God, a door is then opened to downright infidelity. Satan teaches men first to doubt and then to deny; he makes them sceptics first, and so by degrees makes them atheists. Or, (2.) "It is certain you shall not die,’’ so others. He avers his contradiction with the same phrase of assurance that God had used in ratifying the threatening. He began to call the precept in question (v. 1), but, finding that the woman adhered to that, he quitted that battery, and made his second onset upon the threatening, where he perceived her to waver; for he is quick to spy all advantages, and to attack the wall where it is weakest: You shall not surely die. This was a lie, a downright lie; for, [1.] It was contrary to the word of God, which we are sure is true. See 1 Jn. 2:21, 27. It was such a lie as gave the lie to God himself. [2.] It was contrary to his own knowledge. When he told them there was no danger in disobedience and rebellion he said that which he knew, by woeful experience, to be false. He had broken the law of his creation, and had found, to his cost, that he could not prosper in it; and yet he tells our first parents they shall not die. He concealed his own misery, that he might draw them into the like: thus he still deceives sinners into their own ruin. He tells them that, though they sin, they shall not die; and gains credit rather than God, who tells them, The wages of sin is death. Note, Hope of impunity is a great support to all iniquity, and impenitency in it. I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of my heart, Deu. 29:19. 3. He promises them advantage by it, v. 5. Here he follows his blow, and it was a blow at the root, a fatal blow to the tree we are branches of. He not only would undertake that they should be no losers by it, thus binding himself to save them from harm; but (if they would be such fools as to venture upon the security of one that had himself become a bankrupt) he undertakes they shall be gainers by it, unspeakable gainers. He could not have persuaded them to run the hazard of ruining themselves if he had not suggested to them a great probability of bettering themselves. (1.) He insinuates to them the great improvements they would make by eating of this fruit. And he suits the temptation to the pure state they were now in, proposing to them, not any carnal pleasures or gratifications, but intellectual delights and satisfactions. These were the baits with which he covered his hook. [1.] "Your eyes shall be opened; you shall have much more of the power and pleasure of contemplation than now you have; you shall fetch a larger compass in your intellectual views, and see further into things than now you do.’’ He speaks as if now they were but dim-sighted, and short-sighted, in comparison of what they would be then. [2.] "You shall be as gods, as Elohim, mighty gods; not only omniscient, but omnipotent too;’’ or, "You shall be as God himself, equal to him, rivals with him; you shall be sovereigns and no longer subjects, self-sufficient and no longer dependent.’’ A most absurd suggestion! As if it were possible for creatures of yesterday to be like their Creator that was from eternity. [3.] "You shall know good and evil, that is, every thing that is desirable to be known.’’ To support this part of the temptation, he abuses the name given to this tree: it was intended to teach the practical knowledge of good and evil, that is, of duty and disobedience; and it would prove the experimental knowledge of good and evil, that is, of happiness and misery. In these senses, the name of the tree was a warning to them not to eat of it; but he perverts the sense of it, and wrests it to their destruction, as if this tree would give them a speculative notional knowledge of the natures, kinds, and originals, of good and evil. And, [4.] All this presently: "In the day you eat thereof you will find a sudden and immediate change for the better.’’ Now in all these insinuations he aims to beget in them, First, Discontent with their present state, as if it were not so good as it might be, and should be. Note, No condition will of itself bring contentment, unless the mind be brought to it. Adam was not easy, no, not in paradise, nor the angels in their first state, Jude 6. Secondly, Ambition of preferment, as if they were fit to be gods. Satan had ruined himself by desiring to be like the Most High (Isa. 14:14), and therefore seeks to infect our first parents with the same desire, that he might ruin them too. (2.) He insinuates to them that God had no good design upon them, in forbidding them this fruit: "For God doth know how much it will advance you; and therefore, in envy and ill-will to you, he hath forbidden it:’’ as if he durst not let them eat of that tree because then they would know their own strength, and would not continue in an inferior state, but be able to cope with him; or as if he grudged them the honour and happiness to which their eating of that tree would prefer them. Now, [1.] This was a great affront to God, and the highest indignity that could be done him, a reproach to his power, as if he feared his creatures, and much more a reproach to his goodness, as if he hated the work of his own hands and would not have those whom he has made to be made happy. Shall the best of men think it strange to be misrepresented and evil spoken of, when God himself is so? Satan, as he is the accuser of the brethren before God, so he accuses God before the brethren; thus he sows discord, and is the father of those that do so. [2.] It was a most dangerous snare to our first parents, as it tended to alienate their affections from God, and so to withdraw them from their allegiance to him. Thus still the devil draws people into his interest by suggesting to them hard thoughts of God, and false hopes of benefit and advantage by sin. Let us therefore, in opposition to him, always think well of God as the best good, and think ill of sin as the worst of evils: thus let us resist the devil, and he will flee from
THE SERPENT CASTS A SHADOW OF DOUBT ON THE WORD OF GOD In this first section we have the setting for the temptation of man.
Now the serpent was more subtil 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? [Gen. 3:1]. The question arises: Why the temptation? If we go back to chapters 1 and 2, we find that man was created innocent, but man was not created righteous. What is righteousness? Righteousness is innocence that has been maintained in the presence of temptation. You see, temptation will either develop you or destroy you; it will do one of the two. The Garden of Eden was not a hothouse, and man was not a hothouse plant. Character must be developed, and it can only be developed in the presence of temptation. Man was created a responsible being, and he was responsible to glorify, to obey, to serve, and to be subject to divine government. Man did not create himself—I do not think anyone claims that—but God created him. And God was not arbitrary in the condition which He laid down. He said to man, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:17). That tree was not the only tree in the garden to eat of. It would have been very arbitrary if man would have starved to death if he had not been able to eat of the tree and if he had also been told he would die if he did eat of it. There was an abundance of trees in the garden which bore fruit; so that man did not need to eat of this tree at all. Therefore, we find that man appears on the scene a responsible creature. In this first verse we are introduced to the serpent. Immediately the question can reasonably be asked, “Where in the world did he come from? How did he get into the Garden of Eden?” As far as I can tell from the Word of God, the serpent was not there as a slithering creature. Actually, we are not told how he came there; we are just told he was there. The Word of God leaves a great deal out. The serpent was a creature that could be used of Satan, and Satan used him. Isn’t that exactly the method that Satan uses today? Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14). The Book of Revelation says more about Satan than anywhere else in Scripture. “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him” (Rev. 12:9). This creature was not a slithering snake as we think of it today. That is not the picture that the Word of God gives of him at all. “And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years” (Rev. 20:2). This is a creature with tremendous ability. There is no record of his origin here in Genesis at all. I believe that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 give us the origin of this creature and also how he became the creature that he was.
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 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 [Gen. 3:2–3]. Why in the world did the serpent approach the woman? Why didn’t he approach the man? When God created Adam, He had told him that he could eat of every tree of the garden, but of this one he was not to eat. Woman was created last, and she had gotten her information secondhand; she had gotten it from man. And so the serpent approached woman first. Frankly, I think that woman was created finer than man; that is, she had more compassion and sympathy in her makeup. She was probably more open to suggestion than the man. Actually, I think a woman has a nature that is more inquisitive than a man’s. She is the one today who goes into the cults and isms more than anyone else and leads men into them. In fact, many of the founders of cults and isms have been women. Satan knew what he was doing. Notice what he did. He had a very subtle method as he came. He asked her this question, which cast doubt on the Word of God, “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” He raises a doubt in her mind and excites her curiosity. She answers, “We can eat of all the trees, but this tree God has told us, ‘Ye shall not eat of it [that’s all God had said, but she added something], neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.’” I do not find where He ever said, “You are not to touch it.” THE SERPENT DENIES THE WORD OF GOD And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 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 [Gen. 3:4–5]. Instead of saying, “Ye shall not surely die,” what he said in effect was, “Ye certainly shall not die. Why, that is just absolutely impossible!” He questions the love of God and the goodness of God: “If God is good, why did He put this restriction down?” The serpent implies that God is not righteous when he says, “You will not die.” And he questions the holiness of God by saying, “You’re going to be gods yourselves, 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.” The thing that Eve did was to add to the Word of God. The liberal and the atheist take from the Word of God, and God has warned against that. The cults (and some fundamentalists, by the way) add to the Word of God, and God warns against that. There are those who say that today we are saved by law. They argue, “Yes, it is by faith, but it is faith plus something else”—and they are apt to come up with anything. The Word of God says: “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent” (John 6:29). How important this is! The serpent very subtly contradicts God, and he substitutes his word for God’s word. The Book of Romans teaches the fact of the obedience of faith. Faith leads to obedience, and unbelief leads to disobedience. Doubt leads to disobedience—always. THE MAN AND WOMAN DISOBEY THE WORD OF GOD 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]. Notice that the appeal the serpent made is quite an interesting one. It was an appeal to the flesh—“the tree was good for food”—but that is not all; that is not the thing that is really important. “It was pleasant to the eyes”—it was an appeal to the psychological part of man, to his mind. “And a tree to be desired to make one wise”—this is an appeal to the religious side of man. You will find that this is the exact temptation that Satan brought to the Lord Jesus in the wilderness (see Matt. 4, Mark 1, and Luke 4). First of all, he said to our Lord, “Make these stones into bread”—this was the appeal to the flesh, as the tree was good for food. Then Satan showed the Lord the kingdoms of the world and offered them to Him—that was an appeal to the mind, as the tree was pleasant to the eyes. Then finally he said, “Cast Yourself down from the temple”—this was an appeal to the religious side of man, as the tree was to be desired to make one wise. I do not think that the Devil has changed his tactics today. He uses the same tactics with you and me, and the reason that he still uses them is that they work. He hasn’t needed to change his tactics, for we all seem to fall for the same line. John wrote: “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world” (1 John 2:16). “The lust of the flesh”—that is, the tree was good to eat. “The lust of the eyes”—the tree was good to look at. “The pride of life”—the tree was to be desired to make one wise. These things are not of the Father, but of the world. Jesus said that these sins of the flesh come out of the heart of man, way down deep. This is where Satan is making his appeal. This is the method that he is using in order that he might reach in and lead mankind astray. And he succeeded. They were told that they would know good and evil—and what happened? We now have the results of the fall of man.
NOTES ON CHAP. 3 Verse 1. Now the serpent was more subtle] We have here one of the most difficult as well as the most important narratives in the whole book of God. The last chapter ended with a short but striking account of the perfection and felicity of the first human beings, and this opens with an account of their transgression, degradation, and ruin. That man is in a fallen state, the history of the world, with that of the life and miseries of every human being, establishes beyond successful contradiction. But how, and by what agency, was this brought about? Here is a great mystery, and I may appeal to all persons who have read the various comments that have been written on the Mosaic account, whether they have ever yet been satisfied on this part of the subject, though convinced of the fact itself. Who was the serpent? of what kind? In what way did he seduce the first happy pair? These are questions which remain yet to be answered. The whole account is either a simple narrative of facts, or it is an allegory. If it be a historical relation, its literal meaning should be sought out; if it be an allegory, no attempt should be made to explain it, as it would require a direct revelation to ascertain the sense in which it should be understood, for fanciful illustrations are endless. Believing it to be a simple relation of facts capable of a satisfactory explanation, I shall take it up on this ground; and, by a careful examination of the original text, endeavour to fix the meaning, and show the propriety and consistency of the Mosaic account of the fall of man. The chief difficulty in the account is found in the question, Who was the agent employed in the seduction of our first parents? The word in the text which we, following the Septuagint, translate serpent, is Ťxn nachash; and, according to Buxtorf and others, has three meanings in Scripture. 1. It signifies to view or observe attentively, to divine or use enchantments, because in them the augurs viewed attentively the flight of birds, the entrails of beasts, the course of the clouds, etc.; and under this head it signifies to acquire knowledge by experience. 2. It signifies brass, brazen, and is translated in our Bible, not only brass, but chains, fetters, fetters of brass, and in several places steel; See 2Sa 22:35 Job 20:24 Ps 18:34; and in one place, at least filthiness or fornication, Eze 16:36. 3. It signifies a serpent, but of what kind is not determined. In Job 26:13, it seems to mean the whale or hippopotamus: By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens, his hand hath formed the crooked serpent, Ĺrb Ťxn nachash bariach: as Ĺrb barach signifies to pass on or pass through, and Ĺyrb beriach is used for a bar of a gate or door that passed through rings, etc., the idea of straightness rather than crookedness should be attached to it here; and it is likely that the hippopotamus or sea-horse is intended by it. In Ec 10:11, the creature called nachash, of whatever sort, is compared to the babbler: Surely the serpent (Ťxn nachash) will bite without enchantment; and a babbler is no better. In Isa 27:1, the crocodile or alligator seems particularly meant by the original: In that day the Lord-shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, etc. And in Isa 65:25, the same creature is meant as in Ge 3:1, for in the words, And dust shall be the serpent’s meat, there is an evident allusion to the text of Moses. In Am 9:3, the crocodile is evidently intended: Though they be hid in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, (Ťxnh hannachash, ) and he shall bite them. No person can suppose that any of the snake or serpent kind can be intended here; and we see from the various acceptations of the word, and the different senses which it bears in various places in the sacred writings, that it appears to be a sort of general term confined to no one sense. Hence it will be necessary to examine the root accurately, to see if its ideal meaning will enable us to ascertain the animal intended in the text. We have already seen that Ťxn nachash signifies to view attentively, to acquire knowledge or experience by attentive observation; so ytŤxn nichashti, Ge 30:27: I have learned by experience; and this seems to be its most general meaning in the Bible. The original word is by the Septuagint translated ofi", a serpent, not because this was its fixed determinate meaning in the sacred writings, but because it was the best that occurred to the translators: and they do not seem to have given themselves much trouble to understand the meaning of the original, for they have rendered the word as variously as our translators have done, or rather our translators have followed them, as they give nearly the same significations found in the Septuagint: hence we find that ofi" is as frequently used by them as serpent, its supposed literal meaning, is used in our version. And the New Testament writers, who seldom quote the Old Testament but from the Septuagint translation, and often do not change even a word in their quotations, copy this version in the use of this word. From the Septuagint therefore we can expect no light, nor indeed from any other of the ancient versions, which are all subsequent to the Septuagint, and some of them actually made from it. In all this uncertainty it is natural for a serious inquirer after truth to look everywhere for information. And in such an inquiry the Arabic may be expected to afford some help, from its great similarity to the Hebrew. A root in this language, very nearly similar to that in the text, seems to cast considerable light on the subject. [Arabic] chanas or khanasa signifies he departed, drew off, lay hid, seduced, slunk away; from this root come [Arabic] akhnas, [Arabic] khanasa, and [Arabic] khanoos, which all signify an ape, or satyrus, or any creature of the simia or ape genus. It is very remarkable also that from the same root comes [Arabic] khanas, the devil, which appellative he bears from that meaning of [Arabic] khanasa, he drew off, seduced, etc., because he draws men off from righteousness, seduces them from their obedience to God, etc., etc. See Golius, sub voce. Is it not strange that the devil and the ape should have the same name, derived from the same root, and that root so very similar to the word in the text? But let us return and consider what is said of the creature in question. Now the nachash was more subtle, µwr[ arum, more wise, cunning, or prudent, than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. In this account we find, 1. That whatever this nachash was, he stood at the head of all inferior animals for wisdom and understanding. 2. That he walked erect, for this is necessarily implied in his punishment-on thy belly (i.e., on all fours) shalt thou go. 3. That he was endued with the gift of speech, for a conversation is here related between him and the woman. 4. That he was also endued with the gift of reason, for we find him reasoning and disputing with Eve. 5. That these things were common to this creature, the woman no doubt having often seen him walk erect, talk, and reason, and therefore she testifies no kind of surprise when he accosts her in the language related in the text; and indeed from the manner in which this is introduced it appears to be only a part of a conversation that had passed between them on the occasion: Yea, hath God said, etc. Had this creature never been known to speak before his addressing the woman at this time and on this subject, it could not have failed to excite her surprise, and to have filled her with caution, though from the purity and innocence of her nature she might have been incapable of being affected with fear. Now I apprehend that none of these things can be spoken of a serpent of any species. 1. None of them ever did or ever can walk erect. The tales we have had of two-footed and four-footed serpents are justly exploded by every judicious naturalist, and are utterly unworthy of credit. The very name serpent comes from serpo, to creep, and therefore to such it could be neither curse nor punishment to go on their bellies, i.e., to creep on, as they had done from their creation, and must do while their race endures. 2. They have no organs for speech, or any kind of articulate sound; they can only hiss. It is true that an ass by miraculous influence may speak; but it is not to be supposed that there was any miraculous interference here. God did not qualify this creature with speech for the occasion, and it is not intimated that there was any other agent that did it; on the contrary, the text intimates that speech and reason were natural to the nachash: and is it not in reference to this the inspired penman says, The nachash was more subtle or intelligent than all the beasts of the field that the Lord God had made? Nor can I find that the serpentine genus are remarkable for intelligence. It is true the wisdom of the serpent has passed into a proverb, but I cannot see on what it is founded, except in reference to the passage in question, where the nachash, which we translate serpent, following the Septuagint, shows so much intelligence and cunning: and it is very probable that our Lord alludes to this very place when he exhorts his disciples to be wise-prudent or intelligent, as serpents, fronimoi w" oi opei" and it is worthy of remark that he uses the same term employed by the Septuagint in the text in question: ofi" hn fponimwtato", the serpent was more prudent or intelligent than all the beasts, etc. All these things considered, we are obliged to seek for some other word to designate the nachash in the text, than the word serpent, which on every view of the subject appears to me inefficient and inapplicable. We have seen above that khanas, akhnas, and khanoos, signify a creature of the ape or satyrus kind. We have seen that the meaning of the root is, he lay hid, seduced, slunk away, etc.; and that khanas means the devil, as the inspirer of evil, and seducer from God and truth. See Golius and Wilmet. It therefore appears to me that a creature of the ape or ouran outang kind is here intended; and that Satan made use of this creature as the most proper instrument for the accomplishment of his murderous purposes against the life and soul of man. Under this creature he lay hid, and by this creature he seduced our first parents, and drew off or slunk away from every eye but the eye of God. Such a creature answers to every part of the description in the text: it is evident from the structure of its limbs and their muscles that it might have been originally designed to walk erect, and that nothing less than a sovereign controlling power could induce them to put down hands in every respect formed like those of man, and walk like those creatures whose claw-armed paws prove them to have been designed to walk on all fours. Dr. Tyson has observed in his anatomy of an ouran outang, that the seminal vessels passed between the two coats of the peritoneum to the scrotum, as in man; hence he argues that this creature was designed to walk erect, as it is otherwise in all quadrupeds. Philos. Trans., vol. 21., p. 340. The subtlety, cunning, endlessly varied pranks and tricks of these creatures, show them, even now, to be more subtle and more intelligent than any other creature, man alone excepted. Being obliged now to walk on all fours, and gather their food from the ground, they are literally obliged to eat the dust; and though exceedingly cunning, and careful in a variety of instances to separate that part which is wholesome and proper for food from that which is not so, in the article of cleanliness they are lost to all sense of propriety; and though they have every means in their power of cleansing the aliments they gather off the ground, and from among the dust, yet they never in their savage state make use of any, except a slight rub against their side, or with one of their hands, more to see what the article is than to cleanse it. Add to this, their utter aversion to walk upright; it requires the utmost discipline to bring them to it, and scarcely anything irritates them more than to be obliged to do it. Long observation on some of these animals enables me to state these facts. Should any person who may read this note object against my conclusions, because apparently derived from an Arabic word which is not exactly similar to the Hebrew, though to those who understand both languages the similarity will be striking; yet, as I do not insist on the identity of the terms, though important consequences have been derived from less likely etymologies, he is welcome to throw the whole of this out of the account. He may then take up the Hebrew root only, which signifies to gaze, to view attentively, pry into, inquire narrowly, etc., and consider the passage that appears to compare the nachash to the babbler. Ec 10:11, and he will soon find, if he have any acquaintance with creatures of this genus, that for earnest, attentive watching, looking, etc., and for chattering or babbling, they have no fellows in the animal world. Indeed, the ability and propensity to chatter is all they have left, according to the above hypothesis, of their original gift of speech, of which I suppose them to have been deprived at the fall as a part of their punishment. I have spent the longer time on this subject, 1. Because it is exceedingly obscure; 2. Because no interpretation hitherto given of it has afforded me the smallest satisfaction; 3. Because I think the above mode of accounting for every part of the whole transaction is consistent and satisfactory, and in my opinion removes many embarrassments, and solves the chief difficulties. I think it can be no solid objection to the above mode of solution that Satan, in different parts of the New Testament, is called the serpent, the serpent that deceived Eve by his subtlety, the old serpent, etc., for we have already seen that the New Testament writers have borrowed the word from the Septuagint, and the Septuagint themselves use it in a vast variety and latitude of meaning; and surely the ouran outang is as likely to be the animal in question as Ťxn nachash and ofi" ophis are likely to mean at once a snake, a crocodile, a hippopotamus, fornication, a chain, a pair of fetters, a piece of brass, a piece of steel, and a conjurer; for we have seen above that all these are acceptations of the original word. Besides, the New Testament writers seem to lose sight of the animal or instrument used on the occasion, and speak only of Satan himself as the cause of the transgression, and the instrument of all evil. If, however, any person should choose to differ from the opinion stated above, he is at perfect liberty so to do; I make it no article of faith, nor of Christian communion; I crave the same liberty to judge for myself that I give to others, to which every man has an indisputable right; and I hope no man will call me a heretic for departing in this respect from the common opinion, which appears to me to be so embarrassed as to be altogether unintelligible. See farther on Ge 3:7–14, etc. Yea, hath God said] This seems to be the continuation of a discourse of which the preceding part is not given, and a proof that the creature in question was endued with the gift of reason and speech, for no surprise is testified on the part of Eve. Verse 3. Neither shall ye touch it] Did not the woman add this to what God had before spoken? Some of the Jewish writers, who are only serious on comparative trifles, state that as soon as the woman had asserted this, the serpent pushed her against the tree and said, "See, thou hast touched it, and art still alive; thou mayest therefore safely eat of the fruit, for surely thou shalt not die." Verse 4. Ye shall not surely die] Here the father of lies at once appears; and appears too in flatly contradicting the assertion of God. The tempter, through the nachash, insinuates the impossibility of her dying, as if he had said, God has created thee immortal, thy death therefore is impossible; and God knows this, for as thou livest by the tree of life, so shalt thou get increase of wisdom by the tree of knowledge. Verse 5. Your eyes shall be opened] Your understanding shall be greatly enlightened and improved; and ye shall be as gods, µyhlak kelohim, like God, so the word should be translated; for what idea could our first parents have of gods before idolatry could have had any being, because sin had not yet entered into the world? The Syriac has the word in the singular number, and is the only one of all the versions which has hit on the true meaning. As the original word is the same which is used to point out the Supreme Being, Ge 1:1, so it has here the same signification, and the object of the tempter appears to have been this: to persuade our first parents that they should, by eating of this fruit, become wise and powerful as God, (for knowledge is power, ) and be able to exist for ever, independently of him. Verse 6. The tree was good for food] 1. The fruit appeared to be wholesome and nutritive. And that it was pleasant to the eyes. 2. The beauty of the fruit tended to whet and increase appetite. And a tree to be desired to make one wise, which was, 3. An additional motive to please the palate. From these three sources all natural and moral evil sprang: they are exactly what the apostle calls the desire of the flesh; the tree was good for food: the desire of the eye; it was pleasant to the sight: and the pride of life; it was a tree to be desired to make one wise. God had undoubtedly created our first parents not only very wise and intelligent, but also with a great capacity and suitable propensity to increase in knowledge. Those who think that Adam was created so perfect as to preclude the possibility of his increase in knowledge, have taken a very false view of the subject. We shall certainly be convinced that our first parents were in a state of sufficient perfection when we consider, 1. That they were endued with a vast capacity to obtain knowledge. 2. That all the means of information were within their reach. 3. That there was no hinderance to the most direct conception of occurring truth. 4. That all the objects of knowledge, whether natural or moral, were ever at hand. 5. That they had the strongest propensity to know; and, 6. The greatest pleasure in knowing. To have God and nature continually open to the view of the soul; and to have a soul capable of viewing both, and fathoming endlessly their unbounded glories and excellences, without hinderance or difficulty; what a state of perfection! what a consummation of bliss! This was undoubtedly the state and condition of our first parents; even the present ruins of the state are incontestable evidences of its primitive excellence. We see at once how transgression came; it was natural for them to desire to be increasingly wise. God had implanted this desire in their minds; but he showed them that this desire should be gratified in a certain way; that prudence and judgment should always regulate it; that they should carefully examine what God had opened to their view; and should not pry into what he chose to conceal. He alone who knows all things knows how much knowledge the soul needs to its perfection and increasing happiness, in what subjects this may be legitimately sought, and where the mind may make excursions and discoveries to its prejudice and ruin. There are doubtless many subjects which angels are capable of knowing, and which God chooses to conceal even from them, because that knowledge would tend neither to their perfection nor happiness. Of every attainment and object of pursuit it may be said, in the words of an ancient poet, who conceived correctly on the subject, and expressed his thoughts with perspicuity and energy:— Est modus in rebus: sunt certi denique
fines, "There is a rule for all things; there are in fine fixed and stated limits, on either side of which righteousness cannot be found." On the line of duty alone we must walk. Such limits God certainly assigned from the beginning: Thou shalt come up to this; thou shalt not pass it. And as he assigned the limits, so he assigned the means. It is lawful for thee to acquire knowledge in this way; it is unlawful to seek it in that. And had he not a right to do so? And would his creation have been perfect without it? CHAPTER 3 The general contents of this chapter we have Rom 5:12. By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. More particularly, we have here, i. The innocent tempted, ver. 1-5. ii. The tempted transgressing, ver. 6, 7, 8. iii. The transgressors arraigned, ver. 9, 10. iv. Upon their arraignment convicted, ver. 11-13. v. Upon their conviction sentenced, ver. 14-19. vi. After sentence, reprieved, ver. 20, 21. vii. Notwithstanding their reprieve, execution in part done, ver. 22-24, and were it not for the gracious intimations of redemption, they and all their race had been left to despair. Verse 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. We have here an account of the temptation wherewith Satan assaulted our first parents, and which proved fatal to them. And here observe, (1.) The tempter, the devil in the shape of a serpent. Multitudes of them fell; but this that attacked our first parents, was surely the prince of the devils. Whether it was only the appearance of a serpent, or a real serpent, acted and possessed by the devil, is not certain. The devil chose to act his part in a serpent, because it is a subtle creature. It is not improbable, that reason and speech were then the known properties of the serpent. And therefore Eve was not surprised at his reasoning and speaking, which otherwise she must have been. (2.) That which the devil aimed at, was to persuade Eve to eat forbidden fruit; and to do this, he took the same method that he doth still. 1. He questions whether it were a sin or no, Ge 3:1, 2. He denies that there was any danger in it, Ge 3:4. 3. He suggests much advantage by it, Ge 3:5. And these are his common topics. As to the advantage, he suits the temptation to the pure state they were now in, proposing to them not any carnal pleasure, but intellectual delights. 1. Your eyes shall be opened-You shall have much more of the power and pleasure of contemplation than now you have; you shall fetch a larger compass in your intellectual views, and see farther into things than now you do. 2. You shall be as gods-As Elohim, mighty gods, not only omniscient but omnipotent too: 3. You shall know good and evil-That is, everything that is desirable to be known. To support this part of the temptation, he abuseth the name given to this tree. ’Twas intended to teach the practical knowledge of good and evil, that is, of duty and disobedience, and it would prove the experimental knowledge of good and evil, that is, of happiness and misery. But he perverts the sense of it, and wrests it to their destruction, as if this tree would give them a speculative notional knowledge of the natures, kinds, and originals of good and evil. And, 4. All this presently, In the day you eat thereof-You will find a sudden and immediate change for the better. Verse 6, 7, 8. Here we see what Eve’s parley with the tempter ended in: Satan at length gains his point. God tried the obedience of our first parents by forbidding them the tree of knowledge, and Satan doth as it were join issue with God, and in that very thing undertakes to seduce them into a transgression; and here we find how he prevailed, God permitting it for wise and holy ends. (1.) We have here the inducements that moved them to transgress. The woman being deceived, was ring-leader in the transgression, 1 Timothy 2:14 1. She saw that the tree was-It was said of all the rest of the fruit trees wherewith the garden of Eden was planted, that they were pleasant to the sight, and good for food. 2. She imagined a greater benefit by this tree than by any of the rest, that it was a tree not only not to be dreaded, but to be desired to make one wise, and therein excelling all the rest of the trees. This she saw, that is, she perceived and understood it by what the devil had said to her. She gave also to her husband with her-’Tis likely he was not with her when she was tempted; surely if he had, he would have interposed to prevent the sin; but he came to her when she had eaten, and was prevailed with by her to eat likewise. She gave it to him; persuading him with the same arguements that the serpent had used with her; adding this to the rest, that she herself had eaten of it, and found it so far from being deadly that it was extremely pleasant and grateful. And he did eat-This implied the unbelief of God’s word, and confidence in the devil’s; discontent with his present state, and an ambition of the honour which comes not from God. He would be both his own carver, and his own master, would have what he pleased, and do what he pleased; his sin was in one word disobedience, Rom 5:19, disobedience to a plain, easy and express command, which he knew to be a command of trial. He sins against light and love, the clearest light and the dearest love that ever sinner sinned against. But the greatest aggravation of his sin was, that he involved all his posterity in sin and ruin by it. He could not but know that he stood as a public person, and that his disobedience would be fatal to all his seed; and if so, it was certainly both the greatest treachery and the greatest cruelty that ever was. Shame and fear seized the criminals, these came into the world along with sin, and still attend it. |