Let me remind readers of the principles involved in understanding the first few chapters of Genesis: it's all about application -- that is, "What does the believer need to know in order to do what God wants done?" Knowing what the writer intended requires some grasp of Hebrew thinking. Paul warns us in 2 Timothy 2:15 that we must diligently study the Word so that we can correctly divide between fact and figure of speech, among other things.
We know that the Six Days of Creation is rather literal, because of other passages that refer to it so -- Exodus 20:11, 31:17 -- but it would be best to see it as six days of revelation. It is the logical structure of Creation. The actual chronology, if there is one, is set forth in Genesis 2, with Man first, then plants, then animals. Last of all, Woman is built from the Man's rib.
They are depicted as actual people. Since all Hebrew names tend to be symbolic, noting the symbolism of "Adam" and "Eve" doesn't diminish the literalness of their individuality. Typical of Hebrew thinking, they are both symbol and reality. Using the term "The Serpent" for Satan was hardly meant to convey details of his appearance, but of his nature. The image of the serpent was something always dangerous, revolting and beautiful all at once. Taking that literally does violence to the author's intent. What Satan looked like is not mentioned, nor even hinted at, because that's not important in the Eastern mind. He was there, and he had an evil plan, contrary to God's design.
Much has been made of the precise meaning behind the conversation between Satan and Eve. We can safely assume she properly understood the prohibition included not touching the fruit. However, Satan managed to deceive her as to the reason for the prohibition. In so doing, he made a very libelous claim about God's nature, that He had some hidden agenda to withhold some good thing, while mockingly giving it center place in the Garden. It was hinted that God was denying Adam and Eve their rightful status as gods, something Satan no doubt believed God had done to himself, first.
It is important here to notice the content of this temptation (ch. 3:6). It can be broken down into three parts:
We note that the pattern remains unbroken across the ages. When the same Tempter confronted Jesus in the Wilderness (Luke 4:1-13), we see the he used the same pattern of temptations:
The Apostle John lays it down for us in plain terms (1 John 2:15-17):
All temptations can be seen as arising from these three, singly or in combinations. There is the appeal to (1) the fleshly appetites. They are not in themselves evil, for without hunger pangs, we might not know to eat and keep our body supplied. What is sinful is seeking to fulfill them outside the provision of God: thirst, hunger, sex, etc.
The appeal to (2) curiosity, the desire to see some new wonder, is taking advantage of another benign trait. It is simple human curiosity that has led to every good discovery of mankind since the Beginning. It is the desire to see things that we should not see, visions that would engender a desire for sights that can only come from exercising human depravity. How many of us are both repulsed and fascinated by the sight of blood? To see it often enough, and in enough quantity, can harden us to the call to lessen human misery.
There is also nothing wrong in well-earned pride of accomplishment. It is (3) pride in things we did not accomplish that leads us to sin. The demand and expectation that God ease our path at the expense of others, to claim a status above others He has not given, to demand others give way because we hold ourselves as "different" -- these are the sin in pride. Those placed by God in positions of authority are to humbly acknowledge His hand in placing them there, and to bear the rank as a burden of service, not the privilege of power. The sin is in claiming to be something one is not, according to God's declaration.
Paul says that Eve by her nature was deceived, whereas Adam was not (1 Timothy 2:13-14). It's only modern Western feminism that sees this as an insult. To the proper Eastern mind, it's simply a differentiation of abilities, and therefore roles.
[ Return to Lesson Index ]
[ <-- Previous Lesson ]
[ --> Next Lesson ]
Ed Hurst
revised 04 December 2003
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: People of honor need no copyright laws; they are only too happy to give credit where credit is due. Others will ignore copyright laws whenever they please. If you are of the latter, please note what Moses said about dishonorable behavior -- "be sure your sin will find you out" (Numbers 32:23)