Chuck Larsen

When Satan asked Eve if God told her not to eat of the trees of the Garden of Eden, Eve replied, “yes, we can eat the fruit of the trees.” She left out the “freely” part from God’s words to Adam, “you may freely eat of all the trees of the Garden.” Then, as if she had remembered something she added in Genesis 3:3, ^“But God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” She seemed to have understood the prohibition properly. Many commentators said she went too far and was the first “legalist” in adding prohibitions that God did not legislate. She said not only should you not eat of that tree, but you shouldn’t even touch it. Hughes takes this view and says, “Eve magnified God’s strictness—’Just touch the tree, and zap!—you’re dead!’ Her comment suggested that God is so harsh that an inadvertent slip would bring death.” Then he uses a common illustration to explain what he means. This is something we can relate to. “A father says to his young daughter, ‘You and your friend Katie have been too noisy—so Katie will have to go home.’ Then his daughter runs to her mother crying, ‘Daddy says I can’t ever have Katie over again!’”^[1] He concludes that when we don’t like a prohibition, we will magnify its strictness.

I think Pink is more accurate on this issue. He says, “…we do not agree with those who charge her with adding to God’s word in verse 3. For while the ‘neither shall ye touch it’ was not distinctly expressed in Genesis 2:17, nevertheless it was clearly and necessarily implied. How could Eve eat of the fruit without touching it? The one-act requires the other.” Pink then points out Jesus’ instructions following the sermon on the mount where he made it clear that murder begins in the mind with hatred. Adultery begins in the mind with lust. So, Pink concludes, “Eve, then, was quite right in concluding that the divine commandment forbidding them to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil included not touching it, for the act of eating involves not only desire and intention but also touching, handling, plucking, and placing the fruit in the mouth.”^[2]

Now, what about the short phrase, “Lest you die.” She left out another word that is often pointed out. God said you shall “surely” die. Exell is one of the strongest to argue that Eve diminished the words of God. Speaking of leaving out “surely” and replacing it with “lest,” he says that her words contain “An expression which implies a sort of chance, a contingency, a bare possibility; what might happen, or might not happen; what might happen soon, or might not happen for years. It is thus she puts a denunciation as express, as explicit, as language can furnish…^[3] Even Spurgeon, the great preacher, seems to agree that Eve was lessoning the force of God’s words. He said, “Error commences in little departures from truth”.^[4]George Whitefield says similar things in his sermons. In fact three out four resources I looked at said that Eve was introducing doubt into God’s proclamation of “certain” death. The most frequent comments on Eve’s answer to Satan are best summed up by Benson, who says, “She also added the words, ‘neither shall ye touch it,’ though God had not required this. So she subtracted from God’s permission and added to His prohibition.  In the third place, she downplayed the penalty for disobedience. God had said, ‘In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,’ but Eve softened this to ‘lest ye die.’”^[5] Duffield also agrees. He says, “The sharp point of the Spirit’s sword was dulled, suggesting that there was only a possibility that they might die.”^[6] My point with all these quotes is that Eve gets an unfair rap by the commentators. They add ideas that are not actually contained in the text itself. Again, Pink takes more kindly approach to understanding Eve. He quotes from Gill, who agrees with him: “Gill also states that Eve’s employment of the ‘lest’ is not at all conclusive that she expressed any doubt.” So, Pink concludes, “We therefore prefer to leave it as an open question.”  He also adds, “Many have supposed she was toning down the Lord’s ‘thou shalt surely die.’ They may be right, but we are not at all sure. ‘Kiss the Son, lest he be angry’ (Ps. 2:12) is obviously not the language of uncertainty.”^[7]

^[1] Hughes, R. Kent. 2004. Genesis: Beginning and Blessing. Preaching the Word. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

^[2] Pink, Arthur W. 2005. Gleanings in the Scriptures: Man’s Total Depravity. Logos Bible Software.

^[3] Exell, Joseph S. n.d. The Biblical Illustrator: Genesis. Vol. 1. The Biblical Illustrator. London: James Nisbet & Co.

^[4] Spurgeon, C. H. 1964. The Interpreter: Spurgeon’s Devotional Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

^[5] Benson, Clarence Herbert. 2003. Biblical Faith: Doctrines Every Christian Should Know. Biblical Essentials Series. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

^[6] Duffield, Guy P., and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave. 1983. Foundations of Pentecostal Theology. Los Angeles, CA: L.I.F.E. Bible College.

^[7] Pink, Arthur W. 2005. Gleanings in the Scriptures: Man’s Total Depravity. Logos Bible Software.

In Genesis 3:1 Satan asks Eve the question, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the Garden”? In Genesis 3:2, she answers him; “And the woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden.’” Kissling notes, “As often observed, the serpent approaches the person who had only received the commandment of God at second hand. The command to not eat of the tree was given to the man prior to the creation of the woman. What is often lost on contemporary readers is that the man was there with the woman during the entire conversation and does not utter a word.”^[1] You would think that person to whom God had given the instruction regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, would have been ready to speak up. But he didn’t. He let Eve continue the conversation with the serpent.

I don’t think Christendom (not Christianity) has disparaged women from any biblical passage more than this one. But Roop warns us that “The narrative does not tell us why the confrontation happens between the serpent and the woman rather than the snake and the man. Tradition has suggested that the serpent came to the woman because of her weakness, or because the woman was evil. The narrative states none of those. We should likely assume that the man and the woman are free and responsible together.”^[2] One of the more interesting, and to me the more insulting passages come from the Apocrypha. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 25:23-24, a non-canonical book from the Protestant perspective, has a pretty low opinion of women, based on Eve. It says, “Low spirits, gloomy face, stricken heart: such is a spiteful wife. Slack hands and sagging knees: such is the wife who does not make her husband happy. Sin began with a woman, and thanks to her we must all die. Do not let water find a leak, nor a spiteful woman give free rein to her tongue. If she will not do as you tell her, get rid of her.” It’s because of statements like this that the wise post-apostolic fathers excluded some books from the Bible.

The first part of Eve’s answer was good. “Yes,” she said, “we can eat the fruit of the trees in the Garden.” But it was limited and did not represent the gracious generosity of the God of Eden. Pink observes, “The Lord had said, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat.’ Eve’s omission of that word ‘freely’ was both significant and ominous—indicating that the generosity of the divine provision was not influencing her heart as it should have.”^[3] I see that in my own attitude sometimes when I come to the dinner table. I get confused and think that it was my own hard work and discipline that brought this food to the table and from the human perspective that might be true, but the actual provision of our food is not something we can produce ourselves. Maybe, like us, Eve was looking at the secondary cause for having food to eat, like picking it from the trees. She has forgotten that it is all the gracious provision from God. Bless us, O Lord, and these thy gifts….”

^[1] Kissling, Paul J. 2004–. Genesis. The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co.

^[2] Roop, Eugene F. 1987. Genesis. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

^[3] Pink, Arthur W. 2005. Gleanings in the Scriptures: Man’s Total Depravity. Logos Bible Software.

In Genesis 3:1, the serpent strikes up a conversation with Eve. It says, “He said to the woman, ‘Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” Eve doesn’t seem surprised when the serpent begins speaking to her. There is a joke that goes like this: Two muffins were sitting next to each other in an oven.  When one said “Whew, it sure is getting hot in here” the other said “Whoa!  A talking muffin!”  If animals did not talk to humans before the fall, it stands to reason that Eve would have reacted differently at the sight of a talking snake rather than carry on a casual conversation with it.  When I started this study, I believed animals did not talk in Eden, but that Satan “possessed” the serpent and spoke through him. But that left me with the struggle of understanding why Eve wasn’t stunned by the talking serpent. Why did she scream and run away? If I didn’t scream and run away, I’d surely pinch myself to be sure I wasn’t dreaming or make a quick appointment with a psychiatrist to check out my brain.

Now, I do believe that Satan was behind the conversation. There is little doubt about that. But we know he was behind Peter’s conversation when he tried to dissuade Jesus from going to the cross and fulfilling his destiny as well. One reason I believe it was possible for animals to speak in the garden of Eden is because this verse says the serpent was “more” crafty. That seems to imply that other animals were crafty also, but just not as crafty as the serpent. “Craftiness” could include the ability to speak! One web blogger who was answering the claim that animals can’t speak said, “I wish I could tell that to my sister-in-law’s Blue-Fronted Amazon Parrot that doesn’t stop talking! Many types of parrots talk by mimicking, so it would be illogical to think that God didn’t give this ability to other animals—especially in a perfect world. Speaking human-sounding words and speaking intelligently, however, is not the same.” But we do see God put intelligent language in the mouth of a donkey in the book of Numbers. Furthermore, and this is important, things changed radically after the curse affecting everything in the world. Is it not possible that animals lost the ability to speak intelligently?

But most of all, I believe that when Christ sets up his kingdom on earth he will restore the Edenic life to us. So, what we see it to be foretold to be like, could help us understand what it was like in the past. In Revelation 5:13 we read, “And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, ‘To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!’” Also, in Revelation 8:13 we see an eagle flying in mid-air calling out woe to those on earth with a loud voice. There’s another thing. I know it is mostly a children’s story but, C. S. Lewis gives us a creative glimpse of what the resurrected earth might be like. In The Magician’s Nephew, King Aslan declares the sons of Adam and daughters of Eve, now in Narnia on its first day, to be his kings and queens. The talking animals make crowns for the first king and queen and express their delight in being ruled by these humans. One of the animals who watches this scene is a horse named Strawberry, who drew a London carriage on earth. He toiled, and sometimes his master Frank, a cabbie and a good man, whipped him to make him move faster. Strawberry, whom Aslan renamed Fledge, marvels at the new King Frank in the New Narnia: “My old master’s been changed nearly as much as I have! Why, he’s a real master now.” Honestly, who am I to dispute C. S. Lewis. Wow, now I’m worried about what my cat will say about me in heaven!

Things are going along for Adam and Eve in the Garden in their state of innocence. But Chapter three is going to bring God’s enemy into the picture.  There is no warfare without a foe and it’s in Chapter 1 of Genesis three that we meet the foe. The text says, “Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.” The Hebrew word for “naked” that we encountered at the end of chapter two of Genesis, sounds like the Hebrew word for “crafty” which is used to describe Satan. It’s like our English words, “hear” and “here.” They are homonyms but have different meanings. According to Niehaus, “The author uses this homonym and its wordplay purposefully: It is precisely the sinless quality of physical and spiritual nakedness without shame that is about to be lost as a result of the serpent’s craftiness. The serpent is also later identified as ‘that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray (Rev. 12:9). He leads astray using lies, and he is the ‘father of lies (John 8:44). He trades in sin, which is deceptive (Heb. 3:13).”^[1]

What or who is this “serpent.” Various explanations for the serpent compete for our understanding. It has been interpreted as a mythological character related to magical powers or taken as a symbol of human curiosity, the fertility cult, or chaos/evil. Still, others have proposed that the voice of the snake is the inner person. The voice is none other than the woman’s thoughts.  The traditional opinion among Jewish and Christian interpreters is that the serpent is Satan’s instrument. Luther explained: ‘The devil was permitted to enter beasts, as he here entered the serpent. For there is no doubt that it was a real serpent in which Satan was and in which he conversed with Eve.’”^[2] Luther’s idea is most appealing to me because we see that the Demons could possess humans in the Gospels. Jesus even casts them out of someone and sends them into a herd of swine. Further, we see Satan himself speaking through Peter in his attempt to dissuade Jesus from heading to the cross. And it is Satan who is at work in Judas prompting the great betrayal.

Paul recognizes the “craftiness” of Satan in his comment in 2 Corinthians 2:14 where he warms his readers that Satan disguises himself as an “angel of light.” Proverbs speaks of Satan as the roaring lion, wandering around looking to feed on the souls of men. Satan is cunning, crafty, devious, and treacherous. He did not present himself as our cartoons might today as a hideous creature with horns, a forked tail carrying a pitchfork. Culver says, “He is wicked, threatening and dangerous, for he is likened to a roaring lion (1 Peter 5:8) and said to be a murderer and liar (John 8:44). Believers are told to beware of him and to be sober and vigilant against him. This is because he is ‘subtle,’ that is, cunning, deceitful, everything a successful tempter needs to be. This, of course, Eve did not know. One wonders why the Lord God had not warned her of him. At any rate, it was precisely the serpent’s deceit, making evil appear good, desirable, and beautiful, that gave him victory over Eve. And the Bible does not fail to make that point for our benefit.”^[3] To always be alert to the wiles of the Devil, Jesus exhorted his followers in Matthew 10:16, “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” When something God says is bad is reasonably presented to us as good, watch out!

^[1] Niehaus, Jeffrey J. 2014. Biblical Theology: The Common Grace Covenants. Vol. 1. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

^[2] Mathews, K. A. 1996. Genesis 1-11:26. Vol. 1A. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

^[3] Culver, Robert Duncan. 2005. Systematic Theology: Biblical and Historical. Ross-shire, UK: Mentor.

“At first, Adam and Eve lived in a condition that is described as ‘paradise’ or the ‘Garden of Eden.’ They were ‘naked’ but ‘not ashamed’ (Gen 2:25), because they knew nothing of the experience of evil, sin, or corruption.”^[1] I was taught that original sin had to do with sex in some way, but I don’t think that is supported in the Bible. I believe Adam and Eve enjoyed this god-given union with great pleasure, not corrupted in any way by sin and rebellion. I know it’s not until chapter four that we read that “Adam knew his wife and she conceived…” but that’s referring to conception of a child and not necessarily the act of sex itself. Radmacher rightly says, “Because the man and the woman knew only good, they were not ashamed even though they were both naked. They were comfortable in their physical bodies, in their sexuality, in their relationship, and in their work—with no wrongdoing. The wording of vv. 24, 25 suggests the couple experienced sexual relations in the garden as a part of their God-intended experience.”^[2]

Chapter 3 of Genesis will inform us of how innocence was lost through rebellion against God’s command to not eat from the knowledge of the tree of good and evil. Since that time, we’ve all had guilt and shame and long to be back into the relationship with God once experienced in the age of innocence in the Garden of Eden. Joni Mitchell wrote the song “Woodstock” to celebrate that immoral event where drugs and sex were the means of the day to get back to Eden. She even added a line in her song. “We are stardust, we are golden, and we’ve got to get back to the garden.” What garden do you think she was talking about! There is a way back into the Garden, but it’s not through sex or drugs. Jesus said the only way back to the oneness with the father is through personal faith in the Son. It is through faith that we may hear as the thief on the cross heard, “today you will be with me in paradise.” I like what Johnson says, “As we become more deeply convinced that God is God—altogether of another order of being than us and absolutely righteous, even in his anger—and our shame and guilt get resolved in the cross, our intellectual opposition will increasingly acquiesce in grateful reverence.”^[3]

Paradise is ours through faith in Christ. The hymnist wrote, “There is a fountain filled with blood Drawn from Immanuel’s veins And sinners plunged beneath that flood
Lose all their guilty stains.” Our shame is gone. That’s why baptisms in the early church were sometimes done in the nude. Chrysostom wrote, “After stripping you of your robe, the priest himself leads you down into the flowing waters. But why naked? He reminds you of your former nakedness, when you were in paradise, and you were not ashamed. For Holy Writ says, “Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed,” until they took up the garment of sin, a garment heavy with abundant shame.”^[4]

^[1] Bray, Gerald. 2018. “Humanity’s Fall into Sin.” In Lexham Survey of Theology, edited by Mark Ward, Jessica Parks, Brannon Ellis, and Todd Hains. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

^[2] Radmacher, Earl D., Ronald Barclay Allen, and H. Wayne House. 1997. The Nelson Study Bible: New King James Version. Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.

^[3] Johnson, Eric L. 2017. God & Soul Care: The Therapeutic Resources of the Christian Faith. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

^[4] Louth, Andrew, and Marco Conti, eds. 2001. Genesis 1–11. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

I’ve done over a hundred marriage pronouncements in the past 40 years or so. They were always the climax of the ceremony and I enjoyed that part. My role was over and I only had to say “By the authority invested in me as a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and in accordance with the Laws of Nebraska, I pronounce you husband and wife. You may now kiss the bride.” Sometimes it was different but not very much. Genesis 2:24 is the marriage pronouncement of the first Couple. It puts these words in the mouth of Adam and he says, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Even though Adam was the one who spoke these words in Genesis, Jesus made it clear that they are from God. So God made the first marriage pronouncement. In Matthew 19:4-6, when he was challenged by the religious leaders concerning divorce, Jesus “He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

The attraction of the man for the woman is so strong that nothing will stand in the way of the union. All past ties and loyalties become secondary to the formation of this new one! This one then, becomes the primary loyalty of life. It is then, the most important. And from it will come other men and women who will leave that family group to begin their own. It should therefore be permanent! They shall hold tight, clamp on, to one another. Implied in the idea of “cleave” is permanence.  Maybe a better translation might be “keep on cleaving” or “continue to cleave.”  The bond between them gets stronger, not weaker.  The word cleave appears in Job when describing how his flesh “cleaves” to his bones!  Adam said of Eve, “this is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.”  They cannot be separated without damage being done to both!  The bonding thus is strong.

There is a sense in which the two are no longer two but become one!  They say that couples even begin to look like each other over the years. They become one physically, emotionally and in a sense spiritually. They are no longer separable at all.  That’s true with every marriage, even those that do break up, they are unbreakable!  You can stop living with each other. You can even start living with someone else.  You can never see your spouse again, but you will never get away from them in your memory and in your heart.  They will always be there.  And all the things that have been shared through the years, homes, jobs, children, hard times, will serve as constant reminders that that person is a part of me that will never be ripped away.  I’ll always have to live with that.  The two shall become one flesh – they will become inseparable.

Deffinbaugh comments on the creation of the woman from man in Genesis chapter two and says, “An illustration of biblical ‘wholeness’ can be seen in marriage, specifically in the marriage of Adam and Eve. When God made Adam, he was initially alone. When Adam named the animals, they all passed before him—in pairs! There was Mr. and Mrs. Sheep, Mr. and Mrs. Ox, and so on. Adam began to feel incomplete, and rightly so. God said that Adam’s aloneness was not good, and so he made a mate for him—Eve. When the two were joined together, they became one flesh. Adam became ‘whole’ when he became one with Eve.”^[1] The late “Back to the Bible” preacher, J. Vernon McGee wrote, “Eve was created to be a helpmeet—a help that fit—for Adam. The language is tremendous. She was taken from his side, not molded from the ground as were the animals, but taken from a part of him so that he actually was incomplete until they were together. God fashioned her the loveliest thing in His creation, and He brought her to Adam. She was a helpmeet; she compensated for what he lacked, for he was not complete in himself. She was made for him, and they became one.”^[2] This is exactly what Adam said when God walked Eve down the aisle and presented her to Adam in Genesis 2:23: “Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’”

I’ve heard people say of couples, “they were made for each other.” Exactly! Adam professed his love for his bride with God as his witness. “In a very real sense, then, marriage is not a mere social convenience, or even just a religious ceremony. Rather it is to be seen as a reuniting of the man and the women at the deepest level of their creation, as real as if the bone and flesh were joined together to make one new person again!”^[3]

Jerome, the man who translated the Hebrew and Greek Bible into the Latin Vulgate said that the creation of Eve from the rib of a man, is symbolic of Christ and the church. The word that God used for “fashioning” or “Forming” Eve from Adam’s rib, is the same verb that Jesus used when telling his followers that he would “build, fashion, form” his church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Jerome says, “We have heard about the first Adam; let us come now to the second Adam and see how the church is made (fashioned or formed) from his side. The side of the Lord Savior as he hung on the cross is pierced with a lance, and from it there comes forth blood and water.”^[4] From the blood and water that gushed forth from Jesus ribs, we have forgiveness of sin and reconciliation with God. Those coming to God through faith in the shed blood of Jesus are joined once and for all to the body of Christ’s bride, the church.

^[1] Bob Deffinbaugh. n.d. Leviticus Commentary.

^[2] McGee, J. Vernon. 1991. Thru the Bible Commentary: The Prophets (Malachi). Electronic ed. Vol. 33. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

^[3] Vibert, Simon. 2005. The Diamond Marriage: Have Ultimate Purpose in Your Marriage. Fearn, UK: Christian Focus Publications.

^[4] Louth, Andrew, and Marco Conti, eds. 2001. Genesis 1–11. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.