Genesis
3
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. Psalm
49:12 has been thought, though without sufficient reason,
to hint that man’s
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.
1 “Now the serpent was more subtile
than any beast of the field which
the LORD God had
made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath
God said, Ye
shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”
Now (literally, and)
the serpent. Nachash, from nachash:
(1) in Kal, to hiss (unused), with
allusion to the hissing sound emitted by
the
reptile;
(2) in Piel, to whisper, use sorcery,
find out by divination (ch.30:27);
(3) to shine
(unused, though supplying the noun nechsheth,
brass,
ch. 4:22), referring to its glossy shining appearance, and
in partitular
its bright glistening eye: compare δράκων – drakon – dragon - from
δέρκομαι – derkomai – to look or see; and ὅφις – ophis - snake – from
ὄπτομαι – optomai –
look; perceive; see.
(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 (compare Job 5:12; 15:5);
(2) prudent, in a good sense (compare Proverbs 12:16), from ‘
(a) To make naked; whence atom, plural arumim,
naked
(ch. 2:25).
(b) To be crafty (I Samuel 23:22). If applied to the serpent in
the
sense of πανοῦργος - panourgos – trickery; sophistry;
craftiness; subtlety -
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 φρόνιμος – phonimos –
wise; subtle - (Septuagint),
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 (compare Matthew 10:16: γίνεσθε οϋν φρόνιμοι ὡς –
ginesthe oun phronimoi hos
– be ye becoming then prudent
as. 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 (100. Julian., lib. 3), that
it was only the
simulacrum of a
serpent. But
(1) the curse pronounced upon the serpent (ch.
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 (compare II
Corinthians 11:3). We are perfectly
justified in concluding, from this mention
of the fall, that Paul spoke
of it as an actual occurrence.
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
(Augustine, Calvin, Rosenmüller, et
alii), who from this circumstance is
commonly styled in Scripture ‘The serpent,” “the old
serpent,” “that old
serpent” (compare Revelation 12:9; 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 22:28-30).
Unto the woman. As the weaker of the two, and more likely to be easily
persuaded (I Timothy 2:14; I Peter 3:7). Compare Satan’s
assault on Job
through his wife (Job 2:9).
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. אַפ כּי . Is it even
so that? Is it really so that! 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 (Septuagint — τί ὅτι
εϊπεν ὁ θεὸς –
ti hoti eipen ho Theos
– has God really said - 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?
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; but it is more likely that the devil spoke in
continuation of a colloquy
which is not reported, which has led some, on the
supposition that already many
arguments had been adduced to substantiate the Divine
severity, to render
“yea” by “quanto mary’s,” as if the meaning were, “How much more is this
a proof of God’s unkindness!” Hath
God said. “The
tempter felt it necessary to change the living personal God
into a merely
general numen divinum” but the Elohim of ch.1. Satan’s assault was directed
against the paradisiacal covenant of God with man. 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?” — or,
translating lo-kol as not any — Latin, nullus
(Gesenius, § 152, 1) — “Hath God
said ye shall not eat of any?” 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. (Compare Romans 7:7 – CY –
2015) The second
rendering appears to be supported by the fitness of Eve’s reply.
2 “And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the
fruit of the trees
of the
garden:” 3
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.”
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. 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
(compare ch.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; or the
result
of a rising feeling of dissatisfaction with the too great
strictness of the
prohibition, and so an indication that her love and
confidence
towards God were already beginning to waver; or a proof of
her
anxiety to observe the Divine precept; or a statement of
her
understanding that they were not to meddle with it as a
forbidden thing.
Lest ye die. Even Calvin here admits that Eve begins to give way,
leading
פֶן־, as forte,
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 (compare
ch.11:4; 19:5; Psalm 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”
and,
(3) she would have represented the penalty in a worse rather
than a
softened form had she begun to think it
unjust.
4 “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely
die:”
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.
Ye shall not
surely die. Lo-moth temuthun (the negative lo preceding the
infinitive absolute, as in Psalm 49:8 and Amos 9:8; its
position here being
determined by the form of the penalty, ch.
2:17, to which the devil’s language
gives the direct negative.
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 (compare John 8:44: ὅταν λαλῇ τὸ ψεῦδος
ἐκ τῶν
ἰδίων λαλεῖ
ὁτι ψεύστης
ἐστιν καὶ
ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ - hotan lalae to pseudos ek ton idion lalei
hoti pseustaes estin kai ho pataer autou
– when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh
of his own:
for he is a liar, and the father of it - Here, as far
as we
know, is his first begottten lie.
The
Tempter’s Chief Weapon (v. 4)
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” (II Thessalonians 2:11)
by which the tempter continually seeks to draw men away (II
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:
Ø
As to the necessity for Christian earnestness. We are warned
(I
John 2:15; 5:12; Romans 8:6-13). 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.
(This
is the idea that SECULARISM PROMOTES in our society! CY –
2015) Of this God says it
is living death (compare I Timothy 5:6);
life’s work neglected; Christ’s banner deserted. Yet the tempter
persuades:
o
times have
changed,
o
the Bible must
not be taken literally,
o
ye shall not
die.
Ø
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
53:5-6;
I 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; I John 1:9), and it is
this belief which binds us to
God
in loving service (II Corinthians 5:14).
5 “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then
your eyes
shall be opened, and
ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
For (מא – nam - γαρ – gar – 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. Compare the Divine
prohibition (ch.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
(II Kings 6:17, 20; Psalm 146:8; Isaiah 42:7), is also used
to denote
the impartation of power to perceive (physically, mentally,
spiritually)
objects not otherwise discernible (compare ch.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 θεοὶ
- theoi – gods - (Septuagint),
sicut dii (Vulgate),
as gods (Authorized Version), ostensibly a promise of divinity (which Satan
did
not have authority). 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 v. 22)
6 “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.” And (when) the woman
saw. “An impure
look, infected with the
poison of concupiscence” (Calvin); compare 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 (Psalm 10:17), a lust (Numbers 11:4). To the eyes.
ἀρεστὸν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς
– Apeston tois ophthalmois - a delight to the
eyes - (Septuagint);
pulchrum oculis (Vulgate);
lust ye unto the eyes (Coverdale);
i.e. stimulating
desire through the eyes (compare I 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, I Samuel 18:30.
Hiph.,
(1) to look at;
(2) to turn the mind to;
(3) to be or become understanding, Psalm 2:10)
being susceptible of two renderings, the clause has been
taken to mean “a
tree desirable to look at” or, more correctly, as it stands
in the English Version,
the external
loveliness of the tree having been already stated in the preceding
clause. 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? - 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. 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”
—
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; I Corinthians 15:21-22).
The First Sin (v. 6)
·
THE
TEMPTATION.
Ø
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 Jude 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 II Peter 2:4?
Ø 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 (I Chronicles 21:1); Job (Job 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).
Ø The instrument. The serpent, which was a proof of Satan's skill, that
particular reptile being specially adapted for his purpose (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.
Ø The nature. This was threefold. A temptation (compare the three assaults
upon the Second Adam (Matthew 4:1; Luke 4:1), which were essentially
the same.)
o The first aimed a death-blow at their filial confidence in God;
o the second removed the fear of punishment from their path;
o 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.
Ø 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.
Ø 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.
Ø Its impelling motive. No temptation, however skillfully planned or
powerfully applied, can succeed until it finds a footing in the nature
that is tempted. (I Corinthians 10:13) Unless the devil's logic and
chicanery had produced the effect described in v. 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:
o demanded by the heart;
o supplied by the evil which the heart contemplates; and
o are generally as weak and insufficient as Eve’s.
Ø Its essential wickedness, as consisting of:
o unbelief, revealing itself in disobedienc;
o selfishness, making self the center of all things;
o 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:
o spirit,
o soul, and
o body.
Ø
Its sad results.
o
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.
o
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.
o
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.
Ø
The responsibility of
man.
Ø
The duty of guarding
against temptation.
Ø
The contagious character
of moral evil.
Ø
The havoc wrought by
a single sin.
7 And the
eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they
were naked; and
they sewed fig leaves together, and made
themselves
aprons.” 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.
a.
Spiritually (compare Exodus 32:25; Ezekiel 16:22; Revelation 3:17),
and
b.
corporeally, having
lost that enswathing light of purity which
previously engirt their
bodies (vide ch. 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; but the common fig tree (Ficus Carica),
which is aboriginal in Western
Asia, especially in
περιζώματα
– perizomata – aprons - (Septuagint), 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,
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.
The
Moral Chaos before the Moral Restoration (vs. 1-7)
Hitherto the moral nature of man may be said to be absorbed
in his
religious nature. He has held interaction 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 vs. 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.
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.
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.
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:
Ø
falsification of fact and confusion of mind;
Ø
alienation from God
as the Source of all good and the only wise
Ruler of our life;
Ø
desire selfishly
exalting itself above the recognized and appointed
limits.
Another suggestion is:
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
once:
Ø
a testimony to their
oneness, and therefore to the power of that love
which
might have been only a blessing; and
Ø
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.
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.
TRADITIONS OF THE FALL.
Ø
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
included 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
(‘Chaldean Genesis,’ pp. 87-91).
Ø
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, and 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” (‘Hist. Illus. of the Old Testament,
’ p.13).
Ø
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 Sanscrit
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
triumph of
the waters of the river, but who
himself was ultimately destroyed by
story (Kitto’s
‘Daily Bible Illustrations’).
Ø
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 (Secmann’s ‘Mythology,’ p.163).
Ø
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
(ibid., p. 204).
Ø
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
name of the monster from 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” (Kitto, ‘Daily Bible Illustrations’ p. 67).
8 “And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the
garden
in the cool of
the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from
the presence of
the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden."
And they heard the
voice of the Lord God. Either:
(1) the noise of his footsteps (compare Leviticus 26:23-24;
Numbers 16:34;
II Samuel 5:24; or
(2) the thunder that accompanied his approach (compare Exodus
9:23;
Job
37:4-5; Psalm 29:3, 9; or
(3) the sound of his voice; or
(4) probably all four.
The Working of the Sin-Stricken Conscience
(v.8)
God represents to men the
knowledge of themselves, which, like light,
would be
intolerable to the shamefaced.
MEET HIM. While the darkness of the thick foliage was regarded as a
covering,
hiding nakedness, it is yet from the presence
of the Lord God
that the
guilty seek refuge.
is a
testimony to the moral nature and position of man. So it may be said:
righteousness
and the sense of transgression in
the same being. (Perhaps
there is a
reference to the working of the conscience in the description of
the voice
of God as mingling in the facts of the natural world; “the cool of
the day” being literally the
“evening breeze,” whose whispering sound
became
articulate to the ears of those who feared the personal presence of
their
Judge.)
Walking in the
garden. If the voice, then
increasing in intensity (compare Exodus
19:19; if Jehovah, which is better - In the cool (literally, the wind) of
the day.
The morning breeze; the evening breeze); τὸ δειλινόν
– to deilinon - (Septuagint);
auram post meridiem (Vulgate); cf. hom ha’
yom, “the heat of the
day” (ch18:1). And
Adam and his wife hid themselves.
Not in
humility, as unworthy to come into God’s presence; or in
amazement, as not knowing which way to turn; or through
modesty, but from a sense of
guilt. From the presence
of the Lord. From which it is
apparent they expected a Visible
manifestation.
9 “And the LORD God
called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where
art thou?” 10 “And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was
afraid,
because I was
naked; and I hid myself.” And the Lord God called unto Adam.
Adam’s absence was
a clear proof that something was wrong. Hitherto he had
always welcomed
the Divine approach. And said unto
him, Where art thou?
Not as if ignorant of Adam’s hiding-place, but to bring him
to confession
(compare ch. 4:9). And I was afraid, because I was naked. Attributing
his fear to the wrong cause — the voice of God or his insufficient clothing;
a sign of special obduracy, which, however, admits of a
psychological explanation,
viz., that his consciousness of the effects of sin was
keener than his sense of the sin
itself” (Keil), “although
all that he says is purely involuntary self-accusation, and
“the first instance of that mingling and confusion of sin and
punishment which
is the peculiar
characteristic of our redemption-needing humanity” (Lange).
And I hid myself.
The
Searching Question (v. 9)
We can picture the dread of this question. Have you
considered its love —
that it is really the first word of the gospel? Already the Shepherd goes
forth to seek the lost sheep. The Bible shows us:
1. The original state
of man; what God intended his lot to be.
2. The entry of sin, and
fall from happiness.
3. The announcement
and carrying out God’s plan of restoration.
THE GOSPEL
BEGINS not with the promise of a Savior,
but WITH
SHOWING MAN HIS
NEED. Thus (John 4:15-18) our Savior’s
answer to “Give me this water” was to convince
of sin: “Go, call thy
husband.” That
first loving call has never ceased. Men are still straying, still
must come to themselves (Luke 15:17-18). We hear it in the
Baptist’s
teaching; in the preaching of Peter at Pentecost; and daily
in his life-giving
work the Holy Spirit’s first step is to convince of sin.
And not
merely in conversion, but at every stage He repeats, “Where
art thou?” To
welcome God’s gift we must feel our own need; and the
inexhaustible
treasures in Christ are discerned as we mark daily the defects
of our
service, and how far we are from the goal of our striving
(Philippians
3:13-14). Hence, even in a Christian congregation, it is
needful to press
“Where art thou?” to lead men nearer to Christ. We want to stir up easygoing
disciples, to make Christians consider their calling, to
rouse to higher
life and work. Our Savior’s call is, “Follow me.” How
are you doing this?
You are pledged to be His soldiers; what reality is there
in your fighting?
How many are content merely to do as others do! What do ye
for Christ?
You have your Bible; is it studied, prayed over? What do ye
to spread its
truth? Ye think not how
much harm is done by apathy, how much silent
teaching of unbelief there is in the want of open confession of Christ. Many
are zealous for their own views. Where is the self-denying mind of Christ,
the spirit of love? Many count themselves spiritual, consider that they have
turned to the Lord, and are certainly in His fold. Where is
Paul’s spirit
of watchfulness? (I Corinthians 9:26-27). “Where
art thou?” May the
answer of each be, Not shut up in myself, not following the
multitude, but
“looking unto Jesus.” (Hebrews 12:2)
11 “And He said, Who told thee that thou wast
naked? Hast thou eaten
of the tree, whereof
I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?”
12 “And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest
to be with me,
she gave me of
the tree, and I did eat.” And
he said., Who told thee that
thou wast naked? Delitzsch finds in מִי an indication that a personal
power was the prime cause of man’s disobedience; but, as
Lange rightly
observes, it is the occasion not of sin, but of the
consciousness of
nakedness that is here inquired after. Hast thou eaten of the tree (at once
pointing Adam to the true cause of his nakedness, and
intimating the
Divine cognizance of his transgression) whereof I commanded thee that
thou shouldest not eat? “Added to remove the pretext of ignorance”
(Calvin), and also to aggravate the guilt of his offence,
as having been done
in direct violation of the Divine prohibition. The question was fitted to
carry conviction to Adam’s conscience, and halt the
instantaneous effect of
eliciting a confession, though neither a frank one nor a
generous. And the
man said (beginning with apology and
ending with confession, thus
reversing the natural order, and practically rolling back the
blame on God),
The woman whom
thou gavest to be with me (accusing the gift
and the
Giver in one), she gave me of the tree. Compare
with the cold and unfeeling
terms in which Adam speaks of Eve the similar language in ch. 37:32; Luke 15:30;
John 9:12. “Without natural
affection” is one of the bitter fruits
of sin (compare
Romans 1:31). Equally with the
blasphemy, ingratitude, unkindness, and meanness
of this excuse, its frivolity is apparent; as if,
though Eve gave, that was any reason why
Adam should have eaten. And I did eat. Reluctantly elicited,
the confession of his sin
is very mildly stated.
“A cold expression, manifesting
neither any grief nor
shame at so foul an act, but rather a desire to cover his sin” (White).
13 “And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that
thou
hast done? And
the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I
did eat.” And the Lord said unto the woman —
without noticing the
excuses, but simply accepting the admission, and passing
on, “following up
the transgression, even to the root — not the psychological
merely, but the
historical: What
is this that thou hast done?
Or, “Why hast thou
done this?” (Septuagint, Vulgate, Luther, De Wette). “But the Hebrew phrase
has more vehemence; it is the language of one who wonders
as at
something collossal, and ought
rather to be rendered, ‘ How hast thou
done this?’” (Calvin). And the woman said (following the
example of her
guilty, husband, omitting any notice of her sin in tempting
Adam, and
transferring the blame of her own disobedience to the reptile), The serpent
beguiled me. Literally, caused me to forget, hence beguiled, from נָשָׁא;, to
forget a thing (to forget a thing Lamentations 3:17), or person (Jeremiah 23:39;
or, caused me to go astray, from כָשָׁה; (unused
in Kal), kindred to;, to נָשָׁא;
perhaps
to err, to go astray; ἠπατήσε aepataese – deceived
- (Septuagint), ἐξαπάτησεν –
exapataesen - deludes;
out-seduces - (II Corinthians 11:3). And I did eat. A forced
confession, but no appearance
of contrition. ‘It’s true I did eat,
but it was not
my fault’” (Hughes).
14 “And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast
done
this, thou art cursed
above all cattle, and above every beast of the
field; upon thy
belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the
days of thy
life:” Confession having thus been made by both delinquents, and
the arch-contriver of the whole mischief discovered, the Divine Judge
proceeds to deliver sentence. And the Lord God said unto the
serpent.
Which he does not interrogate as he did the man and woman,
because:
(1) in the animal itself there was no sense of sin, and
(2) to the devil he would hold out no hope of pardon” (Calvin);
“because
the trial
has now reached the fountain-head of sin, the purely evil purpose
(the
demoniacal) having no deeper ground, and requiring no further
investigation’’
(Lange).
Because thou hast
done this. I.e. beguiled
the woman. The incidence of this curse
has been explained as:
1. The serpent only
2. The devil only.
3. Partly on the serpent and partly on Satan.
4. Wholly upon both.
The fourth opinion seems most accordant with the language
of the malediction.
Thou art cursed. The cursing of the irrational creature should occasion no
more
difficulty than the cursing of the earth (v. 17), or of the
fig tree (Matthew 11:21).
Creatures can be cursed or blessed only in accordance with
their natures. The reptile,
therefore, being neither a moral nor responsible creature,
could not be cursed in the
sense of being made susceptible of misery. But it might be
cursed in the
sense of being deteriorated in its nature, and, as it were,
consigned to a
lower position
in the scale of being. And as the Creator
has a perfect right
to assign to His creature the specific place it shall
occupy, and function it
shall subserve, in creation, the
remanding of the reptile to an inferior
position could not justly be construed into a violation of
the principles of
right, while it might serve to God’s intelligent creatures
as a visible symbol
of his displeasure against sin (compare ch. 9:5; Exodus
21:28-36).
Above. Literally, from, i.e. separate and apart
from all cattle . All cattle, and above
(apart from) every
beast of the field. The words imply the materiality of the reptile
and the reality of
the curse, so far as it was concerned. Upon thy belly. Ἐπὶ τῷ
στήθει σου
καὶ τῇ κοιλίᾳ - Epi to staethei sou kai tae koilia
– On your belly you
shall go - (Septuagint);
meaning “with, great pain and, difficulty.”
As Adam s labor and Eve’s conception had pain and sorrow
added to them
(vs. 16-17), so the serpent’s gait” (Ainsworth). Shalt thou go. “As the
worm steals over the earth with its length of body,” “as a
mean and
despised crawler in the dust,” having previously gone erect
(Luther), and
been possessed of bone (Josephus), and capable of standing
upright and
twining itself round the trees (Lange), or at least having
undergone some
transformation as to external form (Delitzsch,
Keil); though the language
may import nothing more than that whereas the reptile had
exalted itself
against man, it was henceforth to
be THRUST BACK INTO THE
PROPER RANK,”
“recalled from its insolent motions to its accustomed
mode of going,” and “at the same time condemned to perpetual infamy”
(Calvin). As applied to
Satan this part of the curse proclaimed his further
degradation in the scale of being in consequence of having
tempted man.
“Than the serpent trailing along the ground, no emblem can more aptly
illustrate the character and
condition of the apostate spirit who once
occupied a place among
the angels of God, but has been cast
down to
the earth, preparatory to his
deeper plunge into the fiery lake
(Revelation 20:10).
(What
is the spirit that occupies us today? CY
– 2015) And dust shalt thou eat,
I.e. mingling dust
with all it should eat. The great scantiness of food on which
serpents can subsist gave rise to the belief entertained by many
Eastern nations,
and referred to in several Biblical allusions (Isaiah
65:25; Micah 7:17) — that
they eat dust. More probably it originated in a too literal
interpretation of the
Mosaic narrative. Applied to the devil, this part of the
curse was an
additional intimation of his degradation. To “lick the
dust” or “eat the
dust” is equivalent to being
reduced to a condition of meanness, shame,
and contempt;
and is indicative of disappointment in all the aims of
being; denotes the highest intensity of a moral condition,
of
which the feelings of the prodigal (Luke 15:16) may be
considered a
type’ (compare Psalm 72:9). All the days of thy life. The
degradation should be
PERPETUAL as well as COMPLETE!
15 “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and
between
thy seed and her
seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise
his heel.” And I will put enmity between thee and the
woman.
Referring:
1. To the fixed and inveterate antipathy between the serpent
and the human
race.
2. To the antagonism henceforth to be established between the
tempter and
mankind.
And between thy
seed and her seed. Here the curse manifestly outgrows the literal
serpent, and refers almost exclusively to the invisible
tempter. The hostility commenced
between the woman and her destroyer was to be continued by
their descendants —
the seed of the serpent being those of Eve’s posterity who should imbibe
the devil’s
spirit and obey the devil’s rule (compare Matthew 23:33; I John
3:10); and the
seed of the woman signifying those whose character and life
should be of
an opposite description, and in particular the Lord Jesus Christ, who is
styled by preeminence “the Seed” (Galatians 3:16,
19), and who came
“to destroy the works of the devil” (Hebrews 2:14; I John 3:8). This
we learn from the words which follow, and which, not
obscurely, point to a
seed which should be individual and personal. It — or He; αὐτος – autos –
(Septuagint); shall
bruise.
1. Shall crush,
trample down — rendering שׁוּפ by torero
or conterere.
2. Shall pierce,
wound, bite — taking the verb as — שָׁפַפ, to bite.
3. Shall watch, lie in
wait = שָׁאַפ; (Septuagint,
τηρήσει - taeraesei – bruise.
Wordsworth suggests
as the correct reading τερήσει – teraesei - from τερέω – tereo –
The word occurs only in two other places in Scripture — Job
9:17; Psalm 139:11 —
and in the latter of these the reading is doubtful. Hence
the difficulty of deciding
with absolute certainty between these rival
interpretations. Psalm 91:13
and Romans 16:20 appear to sanction the first; the second
is favored by
the application of the same word to the hostile action of
the serpent, which
is not treading, but biting; the feebleness of the third is
its chief objection.
Thy head. I.e. the superior part of thee (Calvin), meaning
that the serpent
would be completely destroyed, the head of the reptile
being that part of its
body in which a wound was most dangerous, and which the
creature itself
instinctively protects; or the import of the expression may
be, He shall
attack thee in a bold and manly way. And thou shalt bruise His
heel. I.e. the inferior part (Calvin), implying that in the conflict
he would
be wounded, but not destroyed; or the biting of the heel
may denote the
mean, insidious character of the devil’s warfare.
See the wondrous mercy of God in proclaiming from the
first day of sin,
and putting into the forefront, a purpose of salvation.
16 “Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow
and thy
conception; in
sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy
desire shall be
to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
Unto the woman He
said. Passing
judgment on her first who
had sinned first, but cursing neither her nor her husband,
as “being
candidates for restoration” (Tertullian). The sentence
pronounced on Eve
was twofold. I
will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. A
hendiadys for “the sorrow of thy conception,” though
this is not necessary. The womanly and wifely sorrow of Eve
was to be
intensified, and in particular the pains of parturition
were to be multiplied
(compare Jeremiah 31:8). The second idea is more fully
explained in the next
clause. In sorrow
shalt thou bring forth children. Literally, sons,
daughters being included. The
pains of childbirth are in Scripture
emblematic of the severest anguish both of body
and mind (compare Psalm 48:6;
Micah 4:9-10; I Thessalonians 5:3; John 16:21; Revelation
12:2). The gospel gives
a special promise to mothers (I Timothy 2:15). By “bringing
forth” is also meant
bringing up after the birth, as in ch.50:23” (Ainsworth). And thy desire shall be to
thy husband. תְּשׁוּקָה from שׁוּק to
run, to have a vehement longing for a thing,
may have the same meaning here as in Song of Solomon 7:10;
but is better taken
as expressive of deferential submissiveness, as in
ch.4:7. Following
the Septuagint (ἀποστροφή - apostrophae), Murphy explains it as meaning, “The
determination of thy will shall be yielded to thy husband.” According to the
analogy of the two previous clauses, the precise import of
this is expressed
in the next, though by many it is regarded as a distinct
item in the curse.
And he shall rule
over thee. Not merely a
prophecy of woman’s subjection,
but an investiture of man with supremacy over the woman; or
rather a confirmation
and perpetuation of that authority which had been assigned
to the man at the creation.
Woman had been given him as an helpmeet (ch.2:18), and her
relation to
the man from the first was constituted one of dependence.
It was the
reversal of this Divinely-established order that had LED TO
THE FALL!
(here, v.17). Henceforth, therefore, woman was to be
relegated to,
and fixed in, her proper sphere
of subordination. On account of her
subjection to man’s authority a wife is described as the
possessed or
subjected one of a lord (ch.20:3), and a husband as the
lord of a woman
(Exodus 21:3). Among the Hebrews the condition of the
female sex was
one of distinct subordination, though not of oppression,
and certainly
not of slavery, as
it too often has been in heathen and Mohammedan countries.
Christianity, while placing woman on the same platform with
man as regards
the blessings of the gospel (Galatians 3:28), explicitly
inculcates her subordination
to the man in the relationship of marriage (Ephesians 5:22;
Colossians 3:18;
I Peter 3:1) (One of
my favorite scriptures is I Peter 3:7 – CY – 2015)
17 “And unto Adam He said, Because thou hast hearkened unto
the
voice of thy
wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded
thee, saying,
Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy
sake; in sorrow
shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;”
And unto Adam He
said. The noun here used
for the first
time without the article is explained as a proper name,
though perhaps it
is rather designed to express the man s representative
character. Because
thou hast hearkened unto
the voice of thy wife. Preceding his sentence with a
declaration of his guilt, which culminated in this, that instead of acting as
his wife’s protector prior to her disobedience, or as her
mentor subsequent
to that act, in the hope of brining her to repentance, he
became her guilty
coadjutor through yielding himself to her persuasions. And hast eaten of
the tree of which I
commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it.
For which a twofold judgment is likewise pronounced upon
Adam. Cursed
is the ground. Ha adamah, out of which
man was taken (ch.2:7);
i.e. the soil outside
of the garden. The language does not necessarily imply
that now, for the first time, in consequence of the fall,
the physical globe
underwent a change, becoming from that point onward a realm
of
deformity and discord, as before it was not, and displaying
in all its
sceneries and combinations the tokens of a broken
constitution. It simply
announces the fact that, because of the transgression of
which he had been
guilty, he would find the land beyond the confines of
doom of sterility (compare Romans 8:20). For thy sake. בַּעֲבוּרֶך.
1. Because of thy sin
it required to be such a world.
2. For thy good it was
better that such a curse should lie upon the ground.
Reading ד
instead of ר the Septuagint. translate ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις - en tois ergois –
in toil - and
the Vulgate, In operetuo. In sorrow. Literally, painful labor (compare
v. 16; Proverbs
5:10). Shalt thou eat of it. I.e.
of its fruits (compare Isaiah 1:7;
36:16; 37:30). “Bread of sorrow” (Psalm 127:2) is
bread procured and
eaten amidst hard labor. All the days of thy life.
18 “Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and
thou shalt eat the
herb of the
field;” Thorns also and thistles. Terms
occurring only here and in
Hosea 10:8; there
are similar expressions in Isaiah 5:6; 7:23.
Shall it bring forth to thee.
I.e. these shall be
its spontaneous productions; if thou desirest
anything else thou must
labor for it. And
thou shalt eat the herb of the field.
Not the fruit of paradise, but
the lesser growths sown by his own toil, an intimation that henceforth man was
to be deprived of his former delicacies to such an extent as to be compelled to use,
in addition, the herbs which had been designed only for brute animals;” and
perhaps
also “a consolation,” as if promising that, notwithstanding the
thorns and thistles,
“it should still yield him sustenance” (Calvin).
19 “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou
return unto
the ground; for
out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and
unto
dust shalt thou
return.” In the sweat of thy face (so
called, as having there its
source and being
there visible) shalt thou eat bread. I.e. all food (vide Job 28:5;
Psalm 104:14; Matthew 14:15; Mark 6:36). “To eat bread” is to possess the means
of sustaining life (Ecclesiastes 5:18; Amos 7:12). Till thou return
unto the ground
(the mortality of man
is thus assumed as certain); for
out of it thou wast taken. Not
declaring the
reason of man’s dissolution, as if it were involved in his original
material constitution, but reminding him that in consequence of his
transgression he had forfeited the privilege of immunity from
death, and
must now return to the soil whence he sprung. Ἐξ η΅ς ἐλήφθης - Ex aes elaephthaes
–
out of it you were taken - (Septuagint); de qua sumptus es (Vulgate); “out of which
thou wast taken” (Macdonald, Gesenius).
The
First Judgment Scene (vs. 8-19)
Ø
It is the instinct of sinful men to flee from God. “Adam
and his wife hid
themselves
from the presence of the Lord God” (v.
8). So “Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the Lord” (Jonah 1:3).
o
Through a
consciousness of guilt.
A perception of their nakedness
caused our first parents to seek the
shelter of the garden trees
(v. 10).
Doubtless it was the burden lying on Jonah’s conscience
that sent him down into the ship’s hold
(Jonah 1:5). So awakened sinners ever feel themselves constrained
to get away from God.
o
From a
dread of punishment.
Not perhaps so long as they imagine God to be either unacquainted with or
indifferent to their offence,
but immediately they apprehend that their
wickedness is discovered
(Exodus 2:15). The sound of Jehovah’s
voice as He came towards
our first parents filled them with alarm.
How much more will the
full revelation of His glorious presence
in flaming fire affright the ungodly.
Ø
It is God’s habit to pursue transgressors. As He pursued Adam and Eve in the garden by His voice (v.
9), and Jonah on the deep by a
wind (Jonah 1:4), and David by
His prophet (II Samuel 12:1), so
does He still in His providence,
and through the ministry of His
word, and by His Spirit, follow
after fleeing sinners:
o
to apprehend them
(compare Philippians 3:12);
o
to forgive and save
them (Luke 19:10);
o
if they will not be
forgiven, to punish them (II Thessalonians 1:8).
Ø
It is the certain fate of all fugitives to be eventually
arrested. Witness
Adam
and Eve (v. 9), Cain (ch.4:9), David (II Samuel 12:1),
Ahab
(I Kings 21:20), Jonah (Jonah1:6). Distance will not
prevent
(Psalm 139:7). Darkness will not hinder (ibid.
v.11).
Secrecy
will not avail (Hebrews 4:13). Material defenses will not ward
off
the coming doom (Amos 9:2-3). The lapse of time will not make it
less
certain (Numbers 32:23).
Ø
God s questions are always painfully direct and searching. “Adam,
where
art thou?” (v. 9). “Who
told thee thou wast naked? Hast thou
eaten
of the tree?”(v. 11)., “What
hast thou done?” (v. 13).
o
Because He knows the
fact of the sinner s guilt. The nature and
aggravation,
the time, circumstances, manner, and reason of the sinner’s
transgression are perfectly understood.
o
Because He aims at the
sinner’s conviction; i.e. He desires to bring
sinners to a realization of the
sinfulness of their behavior corresponding to that which He
Himself possesses.
o
Because He wishes to
elicit a confession from the sinner’s mouth.
Without
this there can be no forgiveness or salvation (Proverbs 28:13; I John 1:9).
Ø
Man’s apologies are
always extremely weak and trifling.
o
As attempting to
excuse that which must for ever be inexcusable, viz., disobedience to God’s
commandment. Nothing can justify
sin. God’s authority over man being supreme, no one can relieve man
from his responsibility to yield implicit submission to the Divine precepts. Jehovah’s question rests
special emphasis on
the
fact that Adam’s sin was a transgression of his commandment (v. 11).
o
As seeking to transfer
the burden of guilt from himself to another.
Adam
blames his wife: Eve blames the serpent; and
ever since, sinners have been trying to blame
anything and everything except themselves — the companions God has given them; the circumstances
in which God has placed them; the peculiar temperaments
and dispositions with which God has endowed
them.
o
As failing to
obliterate the fact of transgression. Even Adam and Eve both discern as much as
this. Beginning with apologies, they were obliged to end with avowal of their
guilt. And if man can detect the worthlessness of his own hastily-invented
pleas, much more, we may be sure, can God pierce through all the flimsy and trifling arguments that sinners offer to
extenuate their faults.
o
As not requiring to be
answered. It is remarkable that Jehovah does not condescend to answer either
Adam or his wife; the reason being, doubtless, that any reply to their foolish
speeches was unnecessary.
Ø
The Divine verdict is always clear and convincing.
o
Though in this case unspoken,
it was yet implied. Adam and Eve did not require to be informed of their
culpability. And neither will sinners need to be informed of their guilt and
condemnation when they stand before the great white throne. It is a special
mark of mercy that God informs sinners in the gospel of the nature of the
verdict which has been pronounced against them (John 3:18-19).
o
It was so convincing
that it was not denied. Adam and Eve we can
suppose
were speechless. So was the disobedient wedding guest
(Matthew
22:12). So will all the condemned be in the day of judgment
(Revelation 6:17).
Ø
On the serpent — judgment without mercy.
o
Degradation on both the reptile and the tempter.
o
Hostility between the serpent’s brood and the woman’s seed.
o
Ultimate
destruction of the tempter by the incarnation and
death of the woman’s seed.
Ø
On the sinning pair — mercy, and then judgment.
o
Mercy for both. Great mercy — the restitution of themselves
and
of their seed (or at least a portion of it) by the complete annihilation of their adversary
through the sufferings of a distinguished
woman’s seed. Certain mercy — the entire
scheme
for their recovery was to depend on God, who
here
says, “I will put… “ Free mercy — neither solicited
nor
deserved by Adam or his wife.
o
Judgment for each. For the woman, sorrow
in accomplishing her
womanly
and wifely destiny, combined with a position of dependence on and submission to her husband. (How far from
the
ideal is the modern woman who aborts her child and despises
man! CY – 2015)
For the man, a life of
sorrowful labor, a
doom
of certain death.
Ø
The folly of
attempting to hide from God. It is
better to flee to God than
to
run from God, even when we sin (Psalm 143:9).
Ø
The expediency of
confessing to God. It is always the shortest path to
mercy
and forgiveness (Psalm 32:5).
Ø
The gentle treatment
which men receive from God. Like David, we have
all
reason to sing of mercy as well as, and even rather than, judgment
(Psalm
101:1).
20 “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the
mother of all
living.” Arraigned, convicted, judged,
the guilty but pardoned pair
prepare to leave their garden home — the woman to begin her experience
of sorrow, dependence, and subjection; the man to enter
upon his life
career of hardship and toil, and both to meet their doom of certain, though
it might be of long-delayed, death. The impression made upon their hearts
by the Divine Clemency, though not directly stated by the
historian, may be
inferred from what is next recorded as having happened
within the
precincts of
prior to the fall, reading the verb as a pluperfect
(Calvin), nor after the
birth of Cain, transferring the present verse to ch.4:2 (Knobel),
but subsequent to the promise of the woman’s seed, and
preceding their
ejection from the garden) his wife’s name Eve. Chavvah, from chavvah
=
chayyah, to live (cf. with the arganic
rent chvi the Sanscrit,
giv; Gothic,
quiv; Latin, rive, gigno,
vigeo; Greek, ζάω –
zao - &c., the fundamental idea
being to breathe, to respire, is correctly rendered life)
by the Septuagint, Josephus,
Philo, Gesenins, Delitzsch, Macdonald, &c. Lange, regarding it as an
abbreviated
form of the participle mechavvah,
understands it to signify “the sustenance, i.e.
the propagation of life; while Knobel,
viewing it as an adjective, hints at woman’s
peculiar function — חִיָּה וֶדַע
— to quicken seed (ch.19:32) as supplying the
explanation. Whether
appended by the narrator or uttered by Adam, the words
which follow give its true import and exegesis. Because she was the mother
(am — Greek, μαμμα – mamma - Welsh, mani;
Copt., man; German and
English, mama – of
all living.
(1) Of Adam’s
children, though in this respect she might have been so
styled from the beginning; and
(2) of all who
should truly live in the sense of being the woman’s seed, as
distinguished from the seed of the serpent. In Adam’s
giving a second
name to his wife has been discerned the first assertion of
his sovereignty or
lordship over woman to which he was promoted subsequent to
the fall
(Luther), though this seems to be negated by the fact that
Adam
exercised the same prerogative immediately on her creation;
an act of
thoughtlessness on the part of Adam, in that, “being
himself immersed in
death, he should have called his wife by so proud a name”
(Calvin); a proof
of his incredulity (Rupertus).
With a juster appreciation of the spirit of the
narrative, modern expositors generally regard it as a
striking testimony to
his faith.
21 “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats
of
skins, and
clothed them.” Unto Adam also and to his wife
did the Lord God
make coats (cathnoth, from cathan, to cover; compare χιτών – chiton – coat –
Sanscrit, katam; English, cotton) of skin (or, the skin of a
man, from
naked, hence a hide). Neither their bodies (Origen), nor
garments of the bark of
trees (Gregory Nazianzen), nor
miraculously-fashioned apparel (Grotius), nor
clothing made from the serpent’s skin (R. Jonathan), but tunics prepared
from the skins of animals, slaughtered possibly for food, as it is not certain
that the Edenie man was a
vegetarian (ch.1:29), though more
probably slain in sacrifice. Though said to have been made
by God, “it is
not proper so to understand the words, as if God had been a
furrier, or a
servant to sew clothes” (Calvin). God being said to make or
do what He
gives orders or instructions to be made or done. Willet and
Macdonald,
however, prefer to think that the garments were actually
fashioned by God.
Bush finds in the mention of Adam and his wife an
intimation that they
were furnished with different kinds of apparel, and
suggests that on this
fact is based the prohibition in Deuteronomy 22:5 against
the
interchange of raiment between the sexes. And clothed them.
1. To show them how
their mortal bodies might be defended from cold and
other injuries.
2. To cover their
nakedness for comeliness’ sake; vestimenta honoris
(Chaldee Paraphrase).
3. To teach them the
lawfulness of using the beasts of the field, as for food,
so for clothing.
4. To give a rule that
modest and decent, not costly or sumptuous, apparel
should be used.
5. That they might
know the difference between God’s works and man’s
invention — between coats of leather and aprons of leaves;
and,
6. To put them in mind
of their mortality by their raiment of dead beasts’
skins — talibus indici oportebat peccatorem ut essent
mortalitatis indicium:
Origen” (Wilier).
7. “That they might
feel their degradation — quia vestes
ex ca materia
confectae, belluinum quiddam
magis saperent, quam lineae vel laneae
—
and be reminded of their sin” (Calvin). “As the prisoner,
looking on his
irons, thinketh on his theft, so we, looking on our garments, should think
on our sins”
(Trapp).
8. A foreshadowing of
the robe of Christ’s righteousness (compare Psalm 132:9,16;
Isaiah 61:10; Romans 13:14; Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10). Bonar
recognizes in
Jehovah Elohim at the gate of
Christ, who, as the High Priest of our salvation, had a
right to the skins of the
burnt offerings (Leviticus 7:8), and who, to prefigure His
own work, appropriated
them for covering the pardoned pair.
Covering (v. 21)
God’s chief promises are generally accompanied by visible
signs or symbolical
acts; e.g.,
o
bow in the cloud,
o
furnace and lamp (ch.15:17),
o
the Passover.
The time here spoken of specially called for such a sign. Man
had fallen; a Deliverer was
promised; it was the beginning of a
state of
grace for sinners. Notice four facts:
1. Man unfallen required no
covering.
2. Man fallen became conscious of need, especially towards
God.
3. He attempted himself to provide clothing.
4. God provided it.
Spiritual meaning of clothing (Revelation 3:18; 7:14; II
Corinthians 5:3).
And note that the root of “atonement” in Hebrew is “to
cover.” Thus
the covering is a type of justification; God’s gift to
convicted sinners (compare
Zechariah 3:4-5; Luke 15:22; and the want of this covering,
Matthew 22:11).
With Adam’s attempt and God’s gift compare the sacrifices
of Cain and Abel.
Abel’s sacrifice of life accepted through faith (Hebrews
11:4), i.e. because he
believed and acted upon God’s direction. Thus atonement,
covering, through
the sacrifice of life (compare Leviticus 17:11), typical of
Christ’s sacrifice,
must have been ordained of God. And thus, though not
expressly stated, we may conclude that Adam was instructed to sacrifice, and
that the skins from the animals
thus slain were a type of the
covering of sin through THE ONE GREAT
SACRIFICE! (Romans
4:7). We mark then:
The
natural thought of a heart convicted is, “Have patience with me, and I
will pay
thee all.” (Matthew 18:26) Vain endeavor. The “law of sin”
(Romans
7:21, 24) is too strong; earnest striving only makes this more clear (compare Job 9:30-31; Isaiah 64:6). History is full of man’s efforts to cover
sins. Hence have come sacrifices, austerities, pilgrimages,
&c. But on all
merely human effort is stamped FAILURE
(Romans 3:20).
mistake
that if we love God He will love us. Whereas the truth is,
I John
4:10-19. We must believe His free gift before we can serve Him
truly. The want of this belief leads to service in the spirit of bondage.
might be not merely forgiven, but
renewed (II Corinthians 5:21). The
consciousness
that “Christ hath redeemed us” is the power that
constrains
to willing service (I John 3:3).
22 “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of
us,
to know good and
evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and
take also of the tree
of life, and eat, and live for ever:”
Ane the LORD God said, Behold, the
man is become as one of us. Not
the angels, but the Divine Persons (compare ch. 1:26). It is
scarcely likely that Jehovah alludes to the words of the
tempter
(ch.3:5). To know good
and evil. Implying an
acquaintance with
good and evil which did not belong to him in the state of
innocence. The
language seems to hint that a one-sided acquaintance with
good and evil,
such as that possessed by the first pair in the garden and
the unfallen angels
in heaven, is not so complete a knowledge of the inherent
beauty of the one
and essential turpitude of the other as is acquired by
beings who pass
through the experience of a fall, and that the only way in
which a finite
being can approximate to such a comprehensive knowledge of
evil as the
Deity possesses without personal contact — can see it as it
lies
everlastingly spread out before his infinite mind — is by
going down into it
and learning what it is through personal experience.
And now, lest he
put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life,
and eat, and live
forever. On the meaning of the tree of life vide ch.2:9.
Neither
(1) lest by eating
of the fruit he should recover that immortal life which he
no longer “it possessed, as it is certain that man would
not have
been able, had he even devoured the whole tree, to enjoy
life against the
will of God”; nor
(2) lest the first
pair, through participation of the tree, should confer upon
themselves the attribute of undyingness,
which would not be the ζωὴ αἰώνιος
zoae aionios – life eternal of salvation, but
its opposite, the ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον
olethron aionion – eternal ruin, destruction - of the accursed; but either
(3) lest man should
conceive the idea that immortality might still be
secured by eating of the tree, instead of trusting in the
promised seed, and
under this false impression attempt to take its fruit,
which, in his case,
would have been equivalent to an attempt to justify himself
by works
instead of faith;
or
(4) lest he should
endeavor to partake of the symbol of immortality, which
he could not again do until his sin was expiated and
himself purified (compare
Revelation 22:14). The remaining portion of the sentence is
omitted, anakoloutha or
aposiopesis being not infrequent in impassioned
speech (compare Exodus 32:32; Job 32:13; Isaiah 38:18). The
force
of the ellipsis or expressive silence may be gathered from
the succeeding
words of the historian.
23 “Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of
Eden,
to till the
ground from whence he was taken.” 24 “So He drove out the
man; and He
placed at the east of the
flaming sword
which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”
Therefore (literally, and) the Lord God sent (or cast, shalach in the Piel
conveying the ideas of force and displeasure; compare
Deuteronomy 21:14
I Kings 9:7) him
forth from the garden of Eden
to till the ground (i.e. the
soil outside of paradise, which had been cursed for his sake) whence he was
taken. Vide v. 19. So
(and) He drove out the man (along
with his guilty partner);
and He placed (literally, caused to dwell) at the east of the garden of Eden
Cherubim.
1. Griffins, like those of Persian and Egyptian mythology, which
protected
gold-producing countries like
grivh; Persian, giriften;
Greek, γρυπ, γρυφ – grup, gruph - German,
grip, krip,
greif
2. Divine steeds; by metathesis for rechubim,
from rachab, to ride
(Psalm 18:11).
3. “Beings who
approach to God and minister to him,” taking cerub
—
karov, to come near, to serve
.
4. The engravings or
carved figures; from carav (Syriac), to engrave;
from an Egyptian root (Cook, vide Speaker’s
Commentary). Biblical notices
describe them as living creatures (Ezekiel 1:5; Revelation
4:6-7) in the form of
a man (Ezekiel 1:5), with four (Ezekiel 1:8; 10:7-21) or
with six wings
(Revelation 4:8), and full of eyes (Ezekiel 1:18; 10:12;
Revelation 4:8); having
each four faces, viz., of a man, of a lion, of an ox, of an
eagle (Ezekiel 1:10; 10:16);
or with one face each — of a man, of a lion, of a calf, and
of an eagle respectively
Revelation 4:7).
Representations of these chay
ath —Septuagint,
ζωά - zoa - — were by Divine
directions placed upon the Capporeth
(Exodus 25:17) and curtains of
the tabernacle (Exodus 26:1, 31; 36:8, 35), and afterwards
engraved
upon the walls and doors of the temple (I Kings 6:29, 32,
35). In the
Apocalypse they are depicted as standing in the immediate
neighborhood
of the throne Revelation 4:6; 5:6; 7:11), and as taking
part in the acts of
adoration and praise in which the heavenly hosts engage (ibid.
5:11), and
that on the express ground of their redemption (ibid.
5:8-9). Whence the
opinion that most exactly answers all the facts of the case
is, that these
mysterious creatures were symbolic not of the
fullness of the Deity,
nor of the sum of earthly life, nor of the angelic nature,
nor of the Divine
manhood of Jesus Christ, but of redeemed and
glorified humanity.
Combining with the intelligence of human nature the highest
qualities of the animal world, as exhibited in the lion,
the ox, and the eagle,
they were emblematic of creature life in its most
absolutely perfect form.
As such they were caused to dwell at the gate of Eden to
intimate that only
when perfected and purified could fallen human nature
return to paradise.
Meantime man was utterly unfit to dwell within its fair
abode. And a
flaming sword,
which turned every way. Literally, the
flame of a sword
turning itself; not
brandished by the cherubim, but existing separately, and
flashing out from among them (compare Ezekiel 1:4). An
emblem of the
Divine glory in its attitude towards sin (Macdonald). To keep (to watch
over or guard; compare ch. 2:15) the way of the tree of life. “To keep
the tree of life might imply that all access to it was to
be precluded; but to
keep the way signifies to keep the way open as
well as to keep it shut.”
The Word of God in the
Moral Chaos (vs. 9-24)
These verses bring before us very distinctly the elements
of man’s sinful
state, and of the redemptive dispensation of God which came
out of it by
the action of His brooding Spirit of life upon the chaos.
CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE
NEW WORLD. “The
Lord God
called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where
art thou?” Before
that
direct intercourse between the Spirit of God and the spirit of man
there is
no distinct recognition of the evil of sin, and no separation of its
moral and physical
consequences. The “Where art thou?” begins the
spiritual
work.
IS ONE THAT LEADS US FROM THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE
CONVICTION AND CONFESSION. “I was naked,” “I was afraid,” “I
hid
myself,” “The woman gave me of the tree,” “I did eat;” so at last we
get to the
central fact — I broke the commandment, I am guilty towards
God. Each lays the blame on another — the man on the woman, the
woman on
the serpent. But the main fact is this, that when
once the voice
of God
deals with us, when once the Spirit of light and life broods over the
chaos, there
will be truth brought out, and the beginning of all new creation
is confession
of sin. After all, both the transgressors
admitted the fact: “I
did eat.”
Nor do they dare to state what is untrue, although they attempt to
excuse
themselves for there may be a true confession of sin before there is
a sense of
its greatness and inexcusableness.
CONDEMNATION. It is upon the background of judgment that
redemption
must be placed, that it may be clearly seen to be of
God’s free
grace. The judgment upon the serpent must be viewed as a
fact in the
sphere of man’s
world, not in the larger sphere of the superhuman
suggested
by the later use of the term “serpent.”
God’s condemnation of
Satan is
only shadowed forth here, not actually described. The cursed
animal simply represents the cursed agent or instrument,
and therefore
was
intended to embody the curse of sin to the eyes of man. At the same
time, v.
15 must not be shorn of its spiritual
application by a
merely naturalistic
interpretation. Man’s inborn detestation of the serpent
brood, and
the serpent’s lurking enmity against man, as it waits at his heel,
is rightly
taken as symbolically representing
Ø
the antagonism between
good and evil introduced into the world by
man’s
fall;
Ø
the necessity that
that antagonism should be maintained; and
Ø
the purpose of God
that it should be brought to an end by the
destruction
of the serpent, the removing out of the way both of
the
evil principle and of the besetments of man’s life which have
arisen
out of it.
This “first
promise” as it is called, was not given in the form of a promise,
but of a sentence.
Are we not reminded of the cross which itself was the
carrying
out of a sentence, but in which was included the
redeeming mercy
of God? Life in death is the
mystery of Christ’s sacrifice. “It
pleased the
Lord to bruise Him “ (Isaiah 53:10). “Through death He destroyed him
that had the power of death,” (Hebrews 2:14). It
must have been
itself
like a revelation of redeeming love that God pronounced sentence
first upon the serpent, not upon man, thereby
teaching him that he was in
the sight
of God a victira of the evil power, to be delivered by the
victorious
seed of the woman, rather than an enemy
to be crushed and
destroyed.
The sentence seemed to say, Thou, the serpent,
art the evil
thing to be annihilated; man shall be saved, though wounded and bruised
in the
heel; the “woman’s seed” shall be the conqueror, — which was the
prediction
of a renovation of humanity in a second Adam, a dim forecasting
of the
future, indeed, but a certain and unmistakable proclamation of the
continuance
of the race, notwithstanding sin and death; and in that
continuance
it was declared there should be a realization of
entire
deliverance. The sentence upon the woman, which follows that
upon the
serpent,
as she was the first in the transgression, is a sentence which, while
it clearly
demonstrates the evil of sin, at the same time reveals
the mercy of
God. The woman’s sorrow is that which she can and does forget,
for “joy
that a man
is born into the world.” Her desire to
her husband and her
submission
to his rule do come out of that fall of her nature in which she is
made
subject to the conditions of a fleshly life; but from the same earthly
soil
spring up the hallowed blossoms and fruits of the affections, filling the
world with
beauty and blessing. So have the law
of righteousness and the
law of
love from the beginning blended together IN
THE GOVERNMENT
OF
GOD! In like manner, the sentence upon the man is the
same revelation
of Divine goodness in the
midst of condemnation. The ground is cursed for
man’s sake. To thee
it shall bring forth thorns and thistles, i.e. thy labor shall
not be the productive
labor it would have been — thou shalt put it forth
among
difficulties
and obstacles. Thou shalt see thine
own moral perversity
reflected
in the stubborn barrenness, the wilderness growth of nature. Yet
thou shalt eat the herb of the field, and depend upon it. With sweat of thy
face all
through thy life thou shalt win thy bread from an
unwilling earth.
And at
last the dust beneath thy feet shall claim thee as its own; thy toil-worn
frame
shall crumble down into the grave. It was:
Ø
a sentence of death, of death in life; but at the same time it was
Ø
a merciful appointment
of man’s most peaceful and healthy occupation
—
to till the ground, to grow the corn, to eat the bread; and it was
Ø
a proclamation of
welcome release from the burden “when the dust
shall
return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God
who
gave it.” (Ecclesiastes 12:7) There is no allusion in any of these sentences to
spiritual results of transgression, but that is only because
the
whole is a representation of the fall, objectively regarded.
Just as
the
serpent is spoken of as though it were only an animal on the earth,
so man’s sin is
spoken of as though it were only his life’s error, to be
paid
for
in his life’s suffering; but as in the former case the deeper spiritual meaning lies
behind the form of the serpent, so in the latter the condemnation
which brings toil and suffering and death upon man’s bodily frame brings
upon his whole nature that which the external infliction
symbolizes and sets forth. The life goes down into the dust,
but
it is the life which by sin had become a smitten, cursed thing;
that
hiding of it in the dust is the end, so far as the mere sentence is
concerned.
We must, however, wait for the revelation
which is to be
made
in the new man, — the life coming
forth again, — which, though but
dimly promised, is yet suggested in the story of paradise. Adam
gave
a new name to his wife when she became to him something more than “a help-meet for him.” He
called her, first, woman,
because she was taken
out of man. He called her, afterwards, “Eve,” as the life-producing, “because she was the mother of
all living.” The coats of skin — which were
not, like the fig leaves sewn
together, man’s own device for hiding shame, but
God’s preparation for preserving
that reverence between the sexes
so vital to the very continuance of the race itself — betokened again the mingling of mercy with judgment; for, apart altogether from any theory as to the slain animals whose
skins were employed, the Divine origin
of clothing is a most significant fact. When we are told that “the Lord God made them coats of skins, and clothed
them,” we must interpret the language from the standpoint of
the whole narrative, which
is
that of an objective representation of the mysteries of man’s primeval life. It would not
be in harmony
with the tone of the whole book to say in what
method such Divine
interposition was brought about. To the
Biblical
writers a spiritual guidance, a work of God in the mind of man,
is
just as truly God’s own act as though it were altogether apart from any human agency. The
origin of clothing
was an inspiration. Perhaps it is
not
putting too much into the language to see in such a fact an allusion to other facts. Man is
directed to use
skins; might he not have been directed to
slay animals? If so, might not such slaughter of animals have been first connected with
religious observances,
for as yet there is no allusion to the use
of animal food, save in the indirect form of dominion over the lower creation?
In the fourth chapter,
in the extra paradisiacal life, the keeping
of
herds and flocks is mentioned as a natural sequel. Doubtless from the time of the fall the
mode of
life was entirely changed, as was its sphere. Before
sin man was an animal indeed, but with his animal nature in
entire
subordination; after his fall he was under the laws of animal life, both as to its
support and propagation.
Death became the ruling fact of life,
as it is in the mere animal races. Man is delivered
from it only as
he
is lifted out of the animal sphere and becomes a child of God. The expulsion from
the
redemptive work which commenced immediately upon the fall. The
creature
knowing good and evil by disobedience must not live forever
in
that disobedience. He must die that he may be released from the
burden
of his corruption. An immortality of sin is not God’s
purpose
for
His creature. Therefore THE LORD GOD SHUT UP
First Fruits
of the Promise (vs. 20-24)
at this
particular juncture in his history is best discerned when the action is
regarded
as the response of his faith to the antecedent promise of the
woman’s
seed.
Ø
It is the place of faith to succeed,
and not to precede, the promise.
Faith
being, in its simplest conception, belief in a testimony, the
testimony
must ever take precedence of the faith. “In whom ye also trusted after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel
of your salvation” (Ephesians
1:13).
Ø
As to the genesis of faith, it is always evoked by the promise, not the
promise
by the faith. Adam’s faith was the creation of God’s promise;
so
is that of every true believer. “Faith cometh by hearing, and
hearing
by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).
Ø
With regard to the function
of faith, it is not that of certifying
or
making
sure the promise, but simply of attesting its certainty,
which
it does by reposing trust in its veracity. “He that receiveth
His testimony hath set to his
seal that God is true” (John 3:33). And this
was
practically what was done by Adam when he called his wife’s
name
Eve.
Ø
The power of faith is seen in this, that while it cannot implement, it is
able
to anticipate the promise, and, as it were, to enjoy it beforehand,
in
earnest at least, as Adam did when he realized that his spouse
should
be the mother of all living. Even so “faith is the substance of things hoped
for” (Hebrews 11:1).
Ø In the Divine scheme of salvation acceptance ever
follows on the
exercise
of faith. See the language of the New
Testament generally
on
the subject of a sinner s justification. The covering of our first
parents
with coats of skin, apart altogether from any symbolical significance
in the act, could scarcely be regarded as other than
a
token of Jehovah’s favor.
Ø According to the same scheme the clothing, of a
sinner ever
accompanies
the act of his acceptance. In New
Testament theology
the
Divine act of justification is always represented as proceeding
on
the ground that in the eye of God the sinner stands invested with a complete
covering (the righteousness of Christ) which renders
him
both
legally and morally acceptable. That all this was comprehended
with
perfect fullness and clearness by the pardoned pair it would be foolish to
assert; but, in a fashion accommodated to their simple intelligences, the germ
of this doctrine was exhibited by the coats
of
skin with which they were arrayed, and it is at least possible that
they
had a deeper insight into the significance of
the Divine action
than
we are always prepared to allow.
Ø In the teaching of the gospel scheme the providing of a
sinner with such
a
covering as he requires must ever be the work of God, Though not
improbable
that the coats of skin were furnished by the hides of animals,
now
for the first time offered in sacrifice by Divine appointment, the simple circumstance
that they were God-provided, apart from any other
consideration,
was sufficient to suggest the thought that only
God could
supply
the covering which was needed for their sin.
of Jehovah
nor that of Moses warrants the idea that the expulsion was
designed
as a penal infliction; but rather as a measure mercifully intended
and wisely
adapted for the spiritual edification of the pardoned pair. Three
elements
were present in it that are seldom absent from the discipline of
saints.
Ø
Removal of comforts. The initial act in the discipline of Adam and his
wife
was to eject them from the precincts of
does
God begin the work of sanctification in His people’s hearts by the infliction of loss.
In the case of Adam and his spouse there were special reasons demanding their removal from the
garden, as, e. g.,
o
its non-suitability as
a home for them now that their pure
natures
were defiled by sin; and
o
the danger of their
continuing longer in the vicinity of the tree of life.
And
the same two reasons will frequently be found to explain God’s
dealings
with His people when He inflicts upon them loss of creature
comforts;
the non-suitability of those comforts to their wants as spiritual
beings;
and the presence of some special danger in the things removed.
Ø
Increase of sorrow. Besides being ejected from the garden, the first pair
were
henceforth to be subjected to toil and trouble. Adam in tilling the
ground,
and Eve in bearing children. And this, too, was a part of God’s
educational
process with our first parents; as, indeed, the sufferings of
this
present life inflicted on His people generally are all commissioned
on
a like errand, viz., to bring forth within them the
peaceable fruits of
righteousness,
and to make them partakers of HIS HOLINESS!
Ø
Sentence of death. The words “whence he was taken” have an echo in
them
of “dust
thou art,” &c., and must have extinguished within the breasts of Adam
and his wife all hope of returning to
the
grave; perhaps, too, would assist them in seeking for a better
country,
even an heavenly.
To prevent saints from seeking
the
earth seems to be one of the main designs of death.
without
cheering ingredients of hope in his condition.
Ø
The Divine presence was still with him. The cherubim and flaming
sword
were symbols of the ineffable majesty of Jehovah, and tokens
of
His presence. And never since has
the world been abandoned by
the
God of mercy and salvation.
Ø
were
appointed “to keep the way of the tree of life;” not simply to
guard
the entrance, but to protect the place. So is heaven a
RESERVED
INHERITANCE (I Peter 1:4).
Ø
The prospect of readmission to the tree of life was yet
before him. As
much
as this was implied in the jealous guarding of the gate so long as
Adam
was defiled by sin. It could not fail to suggest the idea that when
purified
by life’s discipline he would no
longer be excluded (compare
Revelation
22:14).
Ø
The gate of heaven was still near him. He was still
permitted to reside in
the
vicinity of
cherubim,
though denied the privilege as yet of dwelling with Him in the
interior
of His abode. If debarred from the full inheritance, he had at least
its
earnest. And exactly this is the situation of saints on earth, who, unlike
those
within the veil, who see the Lord of the heavenly paradise face to
face,
can only commune with Him, as it were, at the gate of His celestial
palace.
1. To believe
God’s promise of salvation.
2. To be grateful for God’s gift of righteousness.
3. To submit with cheerfulness to God’s paternal discipline.
4. To live in hope of
entering God’s heaven.
The
Dispensation of Redemption (v. 24)
Notice:
did not
root up its trees and flowers.
and seek
for and, at last, BY
DIVINE GRACE, obtain once more his
forfeited
blessing.
CHERUBIMS AND THE FLAMING SWORD
TURNING EVERY
WAY, emblems of His natural and moral governments, which, as
they
execute His
righteous will amongst men, do both debar them from perfect
happiness
and yet at the same time testify to the fact that
there is such
happiness
for those who are prepared for it. Man outside
under
law, but man under law is man preserved by DIVINE MERCY!
redemption
is more than deliverance from condemnation and death; it is
restoration to eternal life. “
shall be
hereafter “paradise
regained.”
THE TREE OF LIFE” as closed and guarded, and therefore a way
which can
be afterwards opened and made free.
surely, to
ignore in such a representation the reference to a POSITIVE
REVELATION AS THE MEDIUM OF HUMAN
DELIVERANCE
AND RESTORATION. The whole of the Scripture teaching rests upon
that foundation, that there is “a way, a truth, and a life” (John 14:6)
which
is
Divinely distinguished from all
others. Gradually that eastward gate of
made clear in “THE MAN JESUS CHRIST!”
Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition is helpful, please share
with others.