III. THE FALL OF MAN
One of the most tragic days in the history of the world was when sin was introduced to
humanity. Before that day, creation was approved when God “saw every thing that he had made,
and behold it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). God had prepared a beautiful garden and placed
Adam and Eve as the sole human residents, who lived in harmonious community with God,
nature, and each other.
Satan entered the garden to tempt man to rebel against the stipulations given by God. Satan
did not appear as a sinister character but as something with which both Adam and Eve were
familiar, a serpent. Satan conversed with Eve, causing her to compromise her loyalty to God. He
began by making God’s demands sound extreme and then seeking to show Eve how harmless it
was to eat the fruit. When she ate and shared it with Adam, the evil purpose of Satan had been
accomplished.
Satan began by placing doubt in the woman’s mind concerning the word of God and then
bringing her to the point of outright disobedience. When Eve began to entertain the thought that
perhaps God was somewhat extreme, and perhaps He did not understand what was best for her,
she opened the door of her mind to the lie of Satan. That moment of weakness resulted in the
fall of all mankind, with all its consequences.
The Westminster Catechism described the Utopia in Eden, which served as a backdrop
where man fell in the first sin.
How did God create man? After God had made all other creatures, he created male and
female; formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground, and the woman of the rib
of the man, endued them with living, reasonable and immortal souls; made them after
his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness; having the law of God
written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it, with dominion over the creatures; yet
subject to fall.
What was the providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created?
The providence of God toward man in the estate in which he was created was the
placing him in paradise, appointing him to dress it, giving him liberty to eat of the fruit
of the earth; putting the creatures under his dominion, and ordaining marriage for his
help; affording him communion with himself; instituting the Sabbath; entering into a
covenant of life with him, upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience,
of which the tree of life was a pledge; and forbidding to eat of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.
Did man continue in that a state wherein God at first created him? Our first parents
being left to the freedom of their own will, through the temptation of Satan,
transgressed the commandment of God in eating the forbidden fruit; and thereby fell
from the estate of innocency where they were created.9
It is difficult to discover a clear parallel to the unique position and sinless nature Adam and
Eve enjoyed prior to their volitional act into sin. Adam and Eve, while enjoying direct
communion
with God, were limited in knowing what was God’s unfolding plan through the ages. They
possessed no Scripture and knew nothing of redemption or the inevitable coarse their free will
would lead. It is not correct to assume God withheld vital information from them, which might
have prevented their fall, for what God had revealed to them was abundantly sufficient to allow
them to exercise their will in accordance with God’s explicit demand.
Much debate among biblical scholars has arisen in the struggle to resolve what is meant by
“the image of God.” Sufficient for the moment, the phrase “the image of God” involves
character likeness to God in the realm of reasoning, will, emotions, morality and spirituality.
Under the study of anthropology, “the image of God” will be given greater attention.
Scripture does not tell us how long Adam and Eve enjoyed the bliss of Eden. Perhaps it was
only a brief period of time, possibly only several days. Support for a brief period comes from
the command to Adam and Eve to replenish the earth. In order to keep in accordance with
God’s will and not be guilty of disobedience, Adam should have begun the procreation process
almost immediately. Obviously, Eve had not conceived before the Fall. Scripture clearly states
that it was not until after the Fall that Eve eventually conceived and delivered her first child
(Gen. 4:1). However, on the time issue one cannot be dogmatic, only speculative.
In line with the nature of God’s law, man must honor his responsibility to his Creator. One
prohibition was placed upon Adam and Eve, namely, to abstain from the Tree of the Knowledge
of Good and Evil. With so much good readily available to them, one seriously questions why
Adam and Eve would choose to knowingly forfeit their surroundings for some thing or some
knowledge they lacked. Perhaps their lack of trust in the knowledge God had given them
(unbelief) was the prime motive for the Fall. The problem of evil will be studied in greater detail
under an examination of the causes of man’s fall
The prohibition placed upon Adam possessed greater significance than simply his ability to
abstain from the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam’s response to
God’s command would demonstrate mankind’s response to the law and expectations the Creator
placed upon His creatures. Also, Adam’s actions would affect not only himself, but all of
mankind.
Some have sought to place an unwarranted and unscriptural interpretation on the role of the
Tree of Life. Some have suggested that the fruit contained a “magical” or innate element that
ensured immortality. However, the Tree should not be understood to possess any inherent
qualities; it served as an instrument to test the motives of Adam, to reveal if he could
demonstrate his virtue through obedience. If Adam had obeyed, he would have lived. Buswell
aptly described the role of the Tree:
An eternal life of fellowship with God was symbolized by partaking of the fruit of
the tree of life; but since sin has come into the world, such direct access to God is now
unavailable. In its place there is the sacrificial system, pointing forward to the Way,
which God will prepare for the attainment of this eternal life. Just as literally as the
passover lamb was sacrificed, and the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs were eaten,
just as literally as the manna was provided in the wilderness, so the tree of life before
man fell had been “also in the midst of the garden” (Gen. 2:9).
It is my suggestion that we should understand the tree of life in Genesis and in
Revelation as something definitely analogous to the sacrificial system of the patriarchal
age, the Levitical system instituted by Moses, and the sacraments of baptism and the
Lord’s Supper, which we observe today. All of these are visible, tangible sacraments
whereby faith in God is symbolized and fellowship with God realized.10
The term “knowledge of good and evil” should not be understood as cognitive knowledge,
but as knowledge that seeks understanding in experience. Cognitive knowledge (reasoning)
leads us
to know things, as when knowledge is gathered from an encyclopedia. However, experiential
knowledge comes to those who have actually been involved in the process. When a person
knows God, it is more than knowing about God; it is having faith in Him (John 17:3). While
apparently viewing the Tree, Eve soon found herself engaged in a cunning conversation. Two
questions immediately emerge. First, why was she not afraid of the serpent? Second, how can a
serpent talk? We need to remember that this event occurred prior to the Fall, when man and
animals lived in total harmony. Therefore, there was no need of fear. Answering the question of
a serpent talking, Hoeksema writes,
And that he [Satan] chose the serpent for his temptation was undoubtedly due to
the fact that it was the most suitable instrument for his purpose, because, according to
Scripture, the serpent was the most subtle of all animals. This indicates, no doubt, that
the serpent was endowed with a high degree of animal intelligence. It is not impossible
that it represented the animal world with man. Besides, we receive the impression that
it possessed some form of speech,—not of human language, of course,— but
nevertheless of a language that enabled him to communicate with man. For even
though it is true that the subject speaking through the serpent in paradise to Eve was
Satan, yet we must note, in the first place, that the devil could not give the serpent the
power of speech; and, secondly, that the narrative leaves the impression that Eve did
not consider it extraordinary that the serpent spoke to her. Besides, from the rest of the
chapter we receive the impression that the serpent originally presented a different form
from that of the serpent, which we know today. Undoubtedly the serpent was an animal
that could form a sort of connecting link between the animal world and man. And for
that reason Satan could find no more suitable instrument than that most subtle of
animals for his temptation of Adam and Eve. At the same time, it is also very evident
that the subject speaking through the serpent is Satan. This is plain from the contents of
the speech, which suggests that it is a rational, moral subject, and besides, that it is a
wicked subject, lying and slandering God. And the same may be concluded from the
general observation that the Bible everywhere puts a connection between the devil and
fallen humanity. He is the prince of this world, the old serpent.11
The words spoken between Eve and the serpent were apparently similar to those employed
between Adam and Eve. All that can be gleaned from the narrative is that Eve was approached
by Satan in the body of a snake. Due to her innocence and the harmonious conditions, she felt
comfortable conversing with the snake and did not sense any threat to her life. Whether Adam
and Eve had previously conversed with the serpent or other animals is only conjecture. Probably
not. This was probably the first conversation they had with an animal (and the last), but she was
not surprised because they were new in the garden and were still exploring its mysteries.
Some have inferred from the narrative that Adam was present during the entire dialogue. In
Genesis 3:6, it says that the woman gave of the fruit of the tree to her husband who was “with
her.” The phrase “with her” could be interpreted two ways. Either he was a party to the whole
conversation, or he later became involved in committing sin. However, Scripture states that the
serpent addressed Eve; if the narrative is interpreted in a straightforward manner, it is concluded
that only Eve was present.
The conversation was clearly riddled with half-truths and lies, focusing upon the finite
limitations of Eve’s nature. Genesis records the following dialogue.
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God
had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every
tree of the garden?
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the
garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said,
Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know
that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,
knowing good and evil.
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 the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and
they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons (Gen. 3:1-7).
Immediately the blissful state enjoyed by Eve crumbled. The things she valued became
worthless. She undoubtedly felt defiled and naked, so she sought out her husband. Learning of
her state, Adam (cf. 1 Tim. 2:8-15), knowingly took of the fruit, and shared the guilt and shame
of his wife. Eve sinned due to deception, and Adam sinned knowingly.
IV. THE CAUSES OF THE FALL
When God began to question Adam and Eve concerning their sin (Gen. 3:11-13), they passed
off the responsibility to someone else. Adam blamed Eve; she in turn blamed the serpent. But
the Bible teaches that man sinned, fully aware of his actions. “Adam was not deceived” (1 Tim.
2:14). Thus the entire race fell because he deliberately chose by an act of his own will to disobey
God and fulfill his own desires. Those desires were encouraged by the temptation of Satan, who
provided the occasion for the entrance of sin into the world.
Satan’s temptations followed certain patterns. John spoke of temptation in three categories
when he wrote, “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the
pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world” (1 John 2:16). When Satan tempted Eve in
the garden, he appealed through three avenues of temptation.
A. THE LUST OF THE FLESH. The word “lust” means desire, so the first area of temptation had to
do with the desires of the body. Satan appealed to the lust of the flesh to cause Eve to partake of
the forbidden fruit. It was not until “the woman saw that the tree was good for food” (Gen. 3:6),
that she ate and gave to her husband. Satan took something good, that appeared to be harmless
fruit, and used it to appeal to the human desire to eat. Neither the fruit nor the desire to eat was
inherently evil. Adam and Eve sinned when they disobeyed the clear command of God. Our
parents violated the one prohibition, “Thou shalt not eat of it” (Gen. 2:17).
B. THE LUST OF THE EYES. The second area of temptation that motivated Eve to eat the fruit was
“that it was pleasant to the eyes” (Gen. 3:6). A second characteristic of humanity is to have
dreams or desires. Man constantly seeks to improve his surroundings and himself. Man’s desire
for excellence and advancement is reflective of his Creator, in whose image he was created.
C. THE
Therefore, the appearance of the fruit appealed to Eve’s desire to have something she did not
possess. Just as the desires of the body are not evil in themselves, so it is not sinful to desire
things. But sin entered the human race when man’s desire was contrary to the command of God.
PRIDE OF LIFE. The third
temptation was an appeal to the
basic self-worth, self-acceptance,
and self- preservation of man. Man
was created as an
independent/dependent being,
separate from God, yet an
autonomous being dependent on
God.
God in His wisdom gave man the
ability to protect, preserve, and
perpetuate himself. Satan appealed to
the basic self-interest of humanity by
showing Eve a tree to be desired to
make one wise. “She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with
her; and he did eat” (Gen. 3:6).
The stages of the temptation appear to have been as follows:
(a) An appeal on the part of Satan to innocent appetites, together with an implied
suggestion that God was arbitrarily withholding the means of their gratification (Gen.
3:1). The first step was Eve’s isolating herself and choosing to seek her own pleasure
without regard to God’s will. This initial selfishness led her to listen to the tempter
instead of rebuking him or flying from him, and to exaggerate the divine command in
her response (Gen. 3:3).
(b) A denial of the veracity of God, on the part of the tempter, with a charge against
the Almighty of jealousy and fraud in keeping his creatures in a position of ignorance
and dependence (Gen. 3:4-5). This was followed, on the part of the woman, by positive
unbelief, and by a conscious and presumptuous cherishing of desire for the forbidden
fruit, as a means of independence and knowledge. This unbelief, pride, and lust all
sprang from the self-isolating, self-seeking spirit, and fastened upon the means of
gratifying it (Gen. 3:6).
(c) The tempter needed no longer to urge his suit. Having poisoned the fountain, the
stream would naturally be evil. Since the heart and its desires had become corrupt, the
inward disposition manifested itself in act (Gen. 3:6—‘did eat; and she gave also unto
her husband with her’=who had been with her, and had shared her choice and longing).
Thus man fell inwardly, before the outward act of eating the forbidden fruit,—fell in
that one fundamental determination whereby he made supreme choice of self instead of
God. This sin of the inmost nature gave rise to sins of the desires, and sins of the
desires led to the outward act of transgression (James 1:15).12
A study of the fall of man would not be complete without mentioning two other
personalities that indirectly had a bearing upon man’s first sin. The tendency to attribute Adam’s
sin to the environment of controlling circumstances should be cautiously guarded. The guilt and
responsibility falls directly upon his shoulders. Their act to consciously disobey God’s one
Pride of life 3.Desired to make
one wise
ahdiuvtsntolshselgonftyipiliphosf,nawilenttsaje
wehauihyanlmtdlecehtitdgpaidpnproarepetwtge
asadarsnitoitfcritfieevunnoeiofstcil.cnoanystdtin
ar,pdtAlySwCeolehtetonfntnhaoiaroufvtveomso
,niiienmsriecrimfnoigstnepianGoeaio.woltmtnptf
shnorhrtpota.edieuaatn,nseTrfgtTesetlohtpwi,v
nolhpveoiletosenreonirasdwnweosoltcwefuehe
owitidarapenenhfedeknloesesdtsntnohheteoegu
hedesmwftlreohuseyEisaecatafnhltadnietaimnr
hvesrsidndeaest
3.
ecfess
pfscr
roeir
xfool
aotif
aelru
nirstl
fems
cmei
eiaic
actet
sntsli
ti
Pleasant to the eyes
2.Lust of the eyes2.
Good for food1.Lust of the flesh1.
EVE (Gen. 3:6)STRATEGY
HOW SATAN TEMPTED
command clearly reveals their complete responsibility for disobedience. Nothing was withheld
from them that would have prevented their obedience to God. They sinned because they freely
desired to sin.
The first personality is none other than God. Although God can in no way be linked to the
cause of man’s sin, He foreknew it would happen and chose not to interfere with its
development. Chafer calls it “The eternal anticipation of sin in the foreknowledge of God.”
Chafer continues the thought with these words.
While the truth that God foreknew the oncoming reality of sin does not constitute a
beginning, in the sense that it presents no enactment of sin, His foreknowledge does
enter largely into this phase of the doctrine of sin . . . suffice it to say that, while in the
permissive will of God there has arisen a kingdom of darkness into which are gathered
fallen angels and fallen human beings. 13
Foreknowing the inevitable course of man’s free will and permitting it to happen does not
constitute shared guilt. God judiciously endowed man with the ability to overcome sin. If God
had interrupted the temptation process, man’s free will would not have been exercised, making
him little more than a mechanical robot, and more importantly the loyalty of man would not
have been tested.
The second personality is Satan. Sealing his own eternal state through his rebellions act,
Satan seeks to tempt others to share in his punishment. Satan’s relentless attacks to thwart the
plan of God, serve only to fulfill the plan of God. Satan’s temptation cannot be regarded as sin,
for temptation and sin are not equal. The true cause of our first parents’ sin resides in their
minds. This will be understood when we examine the nature of sin.
V. VIEWS OF THE FALL
Having studied the scriptural account of the Fall and its causes, it is necessary to examine
the attacks levied against the historical account of the Fall. The first of two attacks treat the
Genesis account as a myth. This view alleges that, like many Oriental nations, which have
developed and passed to successive generations a mythical account of how man originated and
progressed to his current state, the Hebrew people possess a similar mythical story. Those
endorsing the mythical view usually doubt the inerrancy of not only the Genesis story, but the
entire Bible.
A second attack seeks to assign an allegorical interpretation to Genesis. Berkhof describes
their attacks.
Frequent attempts have been made and are still being made to explain away the
historical character of the fall. Some regard the whole narrative in Gen. 3 as an
allegory, representing man’s self-depravation and gradual change in a figurative way.
Others
maintain that the serpent at least should not be regarded as a literal animal, but merely
as a name or a symbol for covetousness, for sexual desire, for erring reason, or for
Satan. Still others assert that, to say the least, the speaking of the serpent should be
understood figuratively. But all these and similar interpretations are untenable in the
light of Scripture. The passages preceding and following Gen. 3:1-7 are evidently
intended as a plain historical narrative. . . . [This] can be proved by many cross-
references. and
therefore we have no right to hold that these verses, which form an integral part of the
narrative, should be interpreted figuratively. Moreover, the serpent is certainly counted
among the animals in Gen. 3:1, and it would not yield good sense to substitute
“serpent” for the word “Satan.” The punishment in Gen. 3:14,15 presupposes a literal
serpent, and Paul conceives of the serpent in no other way, II Cor. 11:3. And while it
may be possible to conceive of the serpent as saying something in a figurative sense by
means of certain cunning actions, it does not seem possible to think of him as carrying
on the conversation recorded in Gen. 3 in that way. The whole transaction, including
the speaking of the serpent, undoubtedly finds its explanation in the operation of some
superhuman power which is not mentioned in Gen. 3. Scripture clearly intimates that
the serpent was but the instrument of Satan, and that Satan was the real tempter, who
was working in and through the serpent, just as at a later time he worked in men and
swine, John 8:44; Rom. 16:20; II Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9. The serpent was a fit instrument
for Satan, for he is the personification of sin, and the serpent symbolizes sin (a) in its
cunning and deceptive nature, and (b) in its poisonous sting by which it kills man.14
Despite these attempts to undermine the historical and literal view of man’s fall, a literal
view of the Genesis account is believed for the following reasons: (1) our Lord and the apostles
refer to the Fall in a literal sense, (2) there is no internal evidence that would disclaim the
veracity of the Genesis account, (3) and, finally, the Fall is essential to the doctrine of
redemption. If God allowed the truth of the Fall to be written in error, then the truth of
redemption cannot be trusted.
With the emergence of evolutionary concepts and humanistic teachings, many have begun
to doubt the Fall and its effects upon man. Man, they claim, is becoming increasingly better, and
to suggest that man is depraved and unrighteous fails to account for the many positive advances
and moral deeds. These trends have affected just about every segment of our society, reaching
into schools, controlling media, and even finding a stronghold in our churches.
Those who deny the existence of the Fall, do not have a correct understanding of
righteousness. When measured by human standards, any kind act possesses some inherent
virtue. However, in God’s accounting, those seemingly kind acts fall far short of His
expectations. They are as “dirty garments” (Isa. 64:6). A more detailed picture of man’s
condition from God’s perspective is found in Romans 3:10-18 which states,
There is not a righteous man, Not even one.
There is no man who understands,
There is no man who seeks for God.
All have turned aside.
Together they have been made worthless.
There is not one who does good things.
There is not even one.
Their throat is an open tomb.
With their tongues they have deceived.
The poison of cobras is under their lips.
Their mouth is full of cursing and
bitterness.
Swift are their feet to shed blood.
Destruction and wretchedness are in their ways.
The way of peace they have not known.
The fear of God is not before their
eyes.
Initially one recoils from this harsh characterization of man, suggesting that it does not
correctly describe all aspects of all humans. Admittedly, not every human has committed every
sin. However, from God’s perspective every man is totally depraved and cannot please God.
The writer of James makes the claim, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend
in one point, he is guilty of all” (Jas. 2:10). Although we are no longer under the Mosaic Law
system, we are under the moral law of God, which places greater demands upon man.
Applying the principle of James 2:10 today, it is concluded that if man commits a sin, he is
guilty of breaking the whole law. Even though one may actively commit only one sin, he is
placed under the condition of sin, just as though he had committed every possible sin. Here, it is
imperative to understand the difference between active and conditional sin. The former is
manifested in a deliberate and willful act, the latter stems from active sin but describes man’s
general state in this life which is influenced by sin. Due to Adam’s act of sin, all men are, first,
born into a condition of sinfulness, and, second, are born sinners who will actively sin.
9. Lanser Catechism Westminster (Confession of faith of the Presbyterian Church in the
United States, 1965), 17, 20, 21.*
10. James Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of Christian Religion (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1962), 274-75.
11. Hoeksema, 254.
12. Strong, 584-85.
13. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947), 2:236.
14. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 223-24.
